5 ms·

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

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.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > Can you tell us why? Part of it is, from personal experience, the fact paying for something introduces a high mental barrier it's hard to overcome if you view yourself as not having a stable income. The stereotypical school kid, in other words, whether elementary, high school, or, for some people, college. (This is also a reason micro-payments fail: They can't be micro enough to eliminate that psychological barrier.) > should 'Should'? You're trying to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' and you can't do that in the general case. You certainly can't do it in this case.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      Besides personal experience you didn't really give an answer to the first part. As for "should", let me put it another way. If someone can't afford it, is it okay to let them take it free? No. They either never buy it, save up for it or get it as a gift. But it is not okay for them to take it and claim its alright because "I can't afford it".
  - icebraining 15y ago
    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? They aren't taking it, others are sharing it with them. A better question would be, under what authority does the state prevent the voluntary sharing between two private parties.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      See, I know you're right in the way you framed it but you're glossing over something huge. Sharing between 2 people is one thing but when you open that up to the entire Internet its more than sharing, it's distribution. If I send a friend a movie I ripped, it's sharing. If I post a torrent on the Pirate Bay and share the link to it with my friend, well that way more than just sharing. And even if I give my friend the video as an email attachment one time, that's much different than if I let him borrow a DVD. The ease and scale by which we're able to distribute content is good but it's easy to cross the line between fair use and infringement. I don't want more laws restricting freedom but it's the individual's who are taking advantage of this that give our government the excuse to impose such laws. We need stop hiding behind technicalities like "sharing" and look at this realistically. No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Sharing is not, and was never restricted to things between two people. To give a biblical example, was Jesus not sharing the loaves and fish because he gave it to five thousand people? If you think sharing copies of ripped files with many people is wrong, it's your prerogative, but it's still sharing as long as they aren't getting paid for it. No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are. You seem caught up in this belief that file sharers believe it's inherently wrong but justify it with excuses. It's a shame you can't actually put yourself in other's shoes. Again, file sharers don't think they're entitled to free content. People are voluntarily sharing it with them. Person A bought a CD, ripped it and voluntarily shared with other people. The question is, are copyright holders entitled to use the state as their personal weapon to prevent people from voluntarily sharing copies of their property?

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.
- derleth 15y ago
  > Can you tell us why? Part of it is, from personal experience, the fact paying for something introduces a high mental barrier it's hard to overcome if you view yourself as not having a stable income. The stereotypical school kid, in other words, whether elementary, high school, or, for some people, college. (This is also a reason micro-payments fail: They can't be micro enough to eliminate that psychological barrier.) > should 'Should'? You're trying to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' and you can't do that in the general case. You certainly can't do it in this case.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Besides personal experience you didn't really give an answer to the first part. As for "should", let me put it another way. If someone can't afford it, is it okay to let them take it free? No. They either never buy it, save up for it or get it as a gift. But it is not okay for them to take it and claim its alright because "I can't afford it".
- icebraining 15y ago
  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? They aren't taking it, others are sharing it with them. A better question would be, under what authority does the state prevent the voluntary sharing between two private parties.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    See, I know you're right in the way you framed it but you're glossing over something huge. Sharing between 2 people is one thing but when you open that up to the entire Internet its more than sharing, it's distribution. If I send a friend a movie I ripped, it's sharing. If I post a torrent on the Pirate Bay and share the link to it with my friend, well that way more than just sharing. And even if I give my friend the video as an email attachment one time, that's much different than if I let him borrow a DVD. The ease and scale by which we're able to distribute content is good but it's easy to cross the line between fair use and infringement. I don't want more laws restricting freedom but it's the individual's who are taking advantage of this that give our government the excuse to impose such laws. We need stop hiding behind technicalities like "sharing" and look at this realistically. No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Sharing is not, and was never restricted to things between two people. To give a biblical example, was Jesus not sharing the loaves and fish because he gave it to five thousand people? If you think sharing copies of ripped files with many people is wrong, it's your prerogative, but it's still sharing as long as they aren't getting paid for it. No one is entitled to free content no matter how evil we think the studios/labels/software giants are. You seem caught up in this belief that file sharers believe it's inherently wrong but justify it with excuses. It's a shame you can't actually put yourself in other's shoes. Again, file sharers don't think they're entitled to free content. People are voluntarily sharing it with them. Person A bought a CD, ripped it and voluntarily shared with other people. The question is, are copyright holders entitled to use the state as their personal weapon to prevent people from voluntarily sharing copies of their property?