2 ms·

So, although it's currently illegal, and I don't approve of "piracy", it's not illegitimate to consider that if someone says something, I have a right to know w

• bambax 15y ago
  Maybe games are more "things" than "speech" (although they are protected as speech by the First Amendment; see the recent decision http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf It would be pretty ironic if in order to free games from the demands of public domain advocates, you also stripped them of free speech protection). But how is a movie not speech? How is it not a work of art, how is it fundamentally different from a book or a song, or a painting? Because it costs a lot of money to put together? For one, this argument is not going to hold for long, as producing a movie at home for next to no money is becoming not only possible but commonplace (The Blair Witch project was shot in 1999 and at the end of principal photography the total cost of production was under $20k (not a typo)). But secondly, just because the form of art one decides to express themselves with is costly, doesn't justify that the public domain be amputated, or that the public abandons its freedom, more than is strictly necessary for a functioning society. The right of the public to be informed or educated, or simply to have any conversation they please, should come before the "right" of individuals to make a living in a manner of their own choosing.