6 ms·

Surely the fact that all these people have no understanding of the law means they are less likely to do anything to get it changed than if they were posting vid

by corin_ 15y ago

Surely the fact that all these people have no understanding of the law means they are less likely to do anything to get it changed than if they were posting videos with "disclaimer: this is copyrighted material but I don't give a shit". And that scares me more than anything. Not that they're breaking the law, but that so many people are this ignorant. Every time I read one of those disclaimers I want to literally rip my hair out, how can anyone not realise that it's the equivilent of shoplifting while holding a sign that says "no theft intended" is beyond me.

Swizec 15y ago
Because it's not the equivalent at all. It's more similar to going into a store. Looking up the ingredients on a box of cookies and writing them down to make your own batch at home, while holding up a "no theft intended" sign. The basic premise of theft is that you are taking something away from the original owner so they don't have it anymore. The only thing you are "stealing" with copyright infringement is fictitious profits that may or may not exist at a potential time in the future.
- corin_ 15y ago
  I wasn't comparing the crime, I was comparing the excuse. It's the equivilent of punching someone while holding a sign "no pain intended". Theft no longer comes into it, happy now?
  - derleth 15y ago
    Except copying also doesn't involve pain.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      Once again, my point is nothing to do with comparing two crimes, it's to do with committing a crime and using a pointless disclaimer.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head there with the recipe analogy. Copyright infringement is a lot more like using your own recipe to make your pizza, while depriving the pizza vendor of a "potential" sale, than outright "stealing" his pizza. But even this doesn't make a perfect analogy, because when someone pirates something, he may not deprive the owner of a sale, because he wouldn't afford to buy it (or make it) in the first place. However, the recipe example is still a lot closer to reality than outright theft.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    I think the recipe analogy is more like making your own movie with the same plot, maybe even with the same actors.
- spacemanaki 15y ago
  I'm just thinking out loud and nitpicking here, I don't disagree with your comment at all. I know you just meant it as an example, but writing down the ingredients and making your own batch isn't actually illegal. What I find somewhat interesting is that writing down the recipe on the back of the box and publishing it (not verbatim, but re-written) is also not illegal. I guess recipes fall under the category of things that might be patentable, but I'm not sure. It might be an interesting avenue of study and comparison for someone wanting to use it as an example to illuminate software and algorithm patents, which are often compared to recipes in intro to CS and programming textbooks. I have no idea if this is something that would yield an interesting explanation or not, as I'm not a lawyer or very well informed on patent and copyright law.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Your metaphor is also invalid. Copying digital media is nothing at all like making a cookie from a recipe.
arto 15y ago
Hardly the equivalent of shoplifting. If I steal your gadget, you no longer have that gadget. If I torrent your film, you still have your film. Evidently the copyright industry is enjoying some success in their ongoing attempts to equivocate piracy with theft, but it's still disappointing to have to point out the distinction among geeks.
- corin_ 15y ago
  See above reply.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Again, physical analogies don't work for this. But you're wrong. It isn't stealing in the classic sense of the word. Yes, you still have your original work but then you have someone else out there who can potentially be profiting from your work. It's like bootlegged DVDs. Sure, the creator can still sell them in store but then he's also losing sales to the bootleggers who sell it for less than half the cost. Just because someone wouldn't buy something to begin with doesn't mean they should be able to get it free. If I wrote a piece of software that was really useful and popular but some people couldn't afford it, well, they should save up or ask someone to buy it for them. If they get it illegally that means they wanted it badly enough that they would have paid had there been no free version on the black market. We geeks get the distinction but you gloss over the many other ways the original author still loses out on the deal. Sure, the original creator can still sell his heart out but there are now competing sources that shouldn't be there no matter how you look at it.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > If they get it illegally that means they wanted it badly enough that they would have paid had there been no free version on the black market. No. This is factually incorrect.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      Okay, fair enough. Can you tell us why? And even if we accept that it's incorrect does this mean that people who can't afford it should just be able to take it for free? Charity is great but piracy in these terms is like forced charity.
Lagged2Death 15y ago
Surely the fact that all these people have no understanding of the law means they are less likely to do anything to get it changed... I think it's unrealistic to imagine there is anything at all "these people" (which the article speculates are largely not of voting age) can do to change the law. I think it's unrealistic to imagine that these laws do or will reflect the electorate's sentiments, ever.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I'm right there with you. Unfortunately it's really hard to use a physical analogy to describe it so I'll make an argument without one. People are taking this issue which exists in a gray area and trying to frame it as black and white. These kids who put the disclaimers up grew up in a time when Napster and MP3 sharing was huge and since they didn't understand the issues then (or thought they did) they aren't trying to now nor do they have any interest in trying. Copyright is just fine. What's wrong with demanding to be paid for your creation? Why should people think they're entitled to not pay for use of your work because they believe copyright is wrong? What if I believed tht murder was okay, went around murdering people in broad daylight then threw a fit about how "well, the laws against this are outdated and lame so you shouldn't punish me because the law sucks"? The arguments about people not paying anyway and free marketing are both lame and they're excuses to make pirates and copyright infringers feel better. People who can't afford to buy a creation will eventually try to save up to get it. If they still can't afford it then why should they get it free anyway? I can't afford a new BMW even if I save for it, so should I be able to walk into the dealership and just take one and drive off screaming "well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not really anyone's loss!" And the only free marketing you get from this sort of thing is links to the free pirated version! No one markets the paid, original work and those who see the pirate version are more likely to have been looking to steal other digital media so it's not like they saw a recommendation for it on Amazon, they saw a link to a free copy and it's doubtful they'll search out a paid copy. The thing about this issue is that many times you have to judge on a case by case basis. Remember the "remembering Steve" variation on the Apple logo? It very clearly used someone else's intellectual property but I think even Apple could agree that there was nothing to get upset over. This Pulp Fiction remix is kind of a gray area. The entire movie is online but just not in order. Is it different enough from the original to consider it not harmful to Tarentino ans the studio? I guess my point is that copyright isn't all bad, no one is entitled to free work as many believe these days, the reasons given for pirated material not being harmful are just excuses, and we really have to judge on a case by case basis. I know it's not popular to defend copyright but I am anyway because there are parts of the issue that are right on. I'm with corin here and I don't get why he was downvoted like that. That little down arrow isn't there to silence unpopular opinions, it's for getting rid of trolls and off topic posts.
derleth 15y ago
> no theft intended And this is where you lose them. It is only theft to them if you take something and leave nothing. If you take something and leave the same thing, it is copying. Honestly, you might as well try to equate copyright infringement with rape. It would make precisely as much sense to them.
- zokier 15y ago
  Way to miss the point. Yes, the argument still applies with rape. Or murder. Carving "No murder intended" on a fresh body does not make it less murder, nor does writing "No copyright infringement intended" lessen infringement.

by corin_ 15y ago

Swizec 15y ago

Because it's not the equivalent at all. It's more similar to going into a store. Looking up the ingredients on a box of cookies and writing them down to make your own batch at home, while holding up a "no theft intended" sign. The basic premise of theft is that you are taking something away from the original owner so they don't have it anymore. The only thing you are "stealing" with copyright infringement is fictitious profits that may or may not exist at a potential time in the future.

corin_ 15y ago
I wasn't comparing the crime, I was comparing the excuse. It's the equivilent of punching someone while holding a sign "no pain intended". Theft no longer comes into it, happy now?
- derleth 15y ago
  Except copying also doesn't involve pain.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Once again, my point is nothing to do with comparing two crimes, it's to do with committing a crime and using a pointless disclaimer.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head there with the recipe analogy. Copyright infringement is a lot more like using your own recipe to make your pizza, while depriving the pizza vendor of a "potential" sale, than outright "stealing" his pizza. But even this doesn't make a perfect analogy, because when someone pirates something, he may not deprive the owner of a sale, because he wouldn't afford to buy it (or make it) in the first place. However, the recipe example is still a lot closer to reality than outright theft.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  I think the recipe analogy is more like making your own movie with the same plot, maybe even with the same actors.
spacemanaki 15y ago
I'm just thinking out loud and nitpicking here, I don't disagree with your comment at all. I know you just meant it as an example, but writing down the ingredients and making your own batch isn't actually illegal. What I find somewhat interesting is that writing down the recipe on the back of the box and publishing it (not verbatim, but re-written) is also not illegal. I guess recipes fall under the category of things that might be patentable, but I'm not sure. It might be an interesting avenue of study and comparison for someone wanting to use it as an example to illuminate software and algorithm patents, which are often compared to recipes in intro to CS and programming textbooks. I have no idea if this is something that would yield an interesting explanation or not, as I'm not a lawyer or very well informed on patent and copyright law.
georgieporgie 15y ago
Your metaphor is also invalid. Copying digital media is nothing at all like making a cookie from a recipe.

arto 15y ago

Hardly the equivalent of shoplifting. If I steal your gadget, you no longer have that gadget. If I torrent your film, you still have your film. Evidently the copyright industry is enjoying some success in their ongoing attempts to equivocate piracy with theft, but it's still disappointing to have to point out the distinction among geeks.

corin_ 15y ago
See above reply.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Again, physical analogies don't work for this. But you're wrong. It isn't stealing in the classic sense of the word. Yes, you still have your original work but then you have someone else out there who can potentially be profiting from your work. It's like bootlegged DVDs. Sure, the creator can still sell them in store but then he's also losing sales to the bootleggers who sell it for less than half the cost. Just because someone wouldn't buy something to begin with doesn't mean they should be able to get it free. If I wrote a piece of software that was really useful and popular but some people couldn't afford it, well, they should save up or ask someone to buy it for them. If they get it illegally that means they wanted it badly enough that they would have paid had there been no free version on the black market. We geeks get the distinction but you gloss over the many other ways the original author still loses out on the deal. Sure, the original creator can still sell his heart out but there are now competing sources that shouldn't be there no matter how you look at it.
- derleth 15y ago
  > If they get it illegally that means they wanted it badly enough that they would have paid had there been no free version on the black market. No. This is factually incorrect.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Okay, fair enough. Can you tell us why? And even if we accept that it's incorrect does this mean that people who can't afford it should just be able to take it for free? Charity is great but piracy in these terms is like forced charity.

Lagged2Death 15y ago

Surely the fact that all these people have no understanding of the law means they are less likely to do anything to get it changed... I think it's unrealistic to imagine there is anything at all "these people" (which the article speculates are largely not of voting age) can do to change the law. I think it's unrealistic to imagine that these laws do or will reflect the electorate's sentiments, ever.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I'm right there with you. Unfortunately it's really hard to use a physical analogy to describe it so I'll make an argument without one. People are taking this issue which exists in a gray area and trying to frame it as black and white. These kids who put the disclaimers up grew up in a time when Napster and MP3 sharing was huge and since they didn't understand the issues then (or thought they did) they aren't trying to now nor do they have any interest in trying. Copyright is just fine. What's wrong with demanding to be paid for your creation? Why should people think they're entitled to not pay for use of your work because they believe copyright is wrong? What if I believed tht murder was okay, went around murdering people in broad daylight then threw a fit about how "well, the laws against this are outdated and lame so you shouldn't punish me because the law sucks"? The arguments about people not paying anyway and free marketing are both lame and they're excuses to make pirates and copyright infringers feel better. People who can't afford to buy a creation will eventually try to save up to get it. If they still can't afford it then why should they get it free anyway? I can't afford a new BMW even if I save for it, so should I be able to walk into the dealership and just take one and drive off screaming "well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not really anyone's loss!" And the only free marketing you get from this sort of thing is links to the free pirated version! No one markets the paid, original work and those who see the pirate version are more likely to have been looking to steal other digital media so it's not like they saw a recommendation for it on Amazon, they saw a link to a free copy and it's doubtful they'll search out a paid copy. The thing about this issue is that many times you have to judge on a case by case basis. Remember the "remembering Steve" variation on the Apple logo? It very clearly used someone else's intellectual property but I think even Apple could agree that there was nothing to get upset over. This Pulp Fiction remix is kind of a gray area. The entire movie is online but just not in order. Is it different enough from the original to consider it not harmful to Tarentino ans the studio? I guess my point is that copyright isn't all bad, no one is entitled to free work as many believe these days, the reasons given for pirated material not being harmful are just excuses, and we really have to judge on a case by case basis. I know it's not popular to defend copyright but I am anyway because there are parts of the issue that are right on. I'm with corin here and I don't get why he was downvoted like that. That little down arrow isn't there to silence unpopular opinions, it's for getting rid of trolls and off topic posts.

derleth 15y ago

> no theft intended And this is where you lose them. It is only theft to them if you take something and leave nothing. If you take something and leave the same thing, it is copying. Honestly, you might as well try to equate copyright infringement with rape. It would make precisely as much sense to them.

zokier 15y ago
Way to miss the point. Yes, the argument still applies with rape. Or murder. Carving "No murder intended" on a fresh body does not make it less murder, nor does writing "No copyright infringement intended" lessen infringement.