3 ms·
actually, you're looking at the wrong parts of the analogy. he's comparing guns to copying files and online piracy to murder. but i'll take the bait and show wh
by andylei 15y ago
actually, you're looking at the wrong parts of the analogy. he's comparing guns to copying files and online piracy to murder. but i'll take the bait and show why online piracy is like shooting someone.
first: they are both "unavoidable side-effect[s] of having easy and cheap" <something>.
second: they both might be bad. shooting someone could be good (maybe that person is trying to blow up a school). it could be bad (maybe the person being shot is just a random person off the street). online piracy might be good (maybe it encourages freedom or exposes government corruption or something). copying a file might be bad (maybe you sharing this movie with all of your friends makes it impossible for the indie director to make further more movies).
of course, you're also totally missing the point: just because something is unavoidable doesn't mean you shouldn't write laws to mitigate it. murder is unavoidable side-effect of human impulses. we should write a law saying murder is illegal.
i actually don't think we should pass draconian laws to deal with online piracy, but that doesn't make the argument valid. if something is bad, we should try and stop (or at least mitigate) it using proportionate and reasonable methods.
- rbanffy 15y ago> we should try and stop (or at least mitigate) it using proportionate and reasonable methods. Wake me up when such methods exist. Right now they don't and politicians who represent a small group of copyright owners instead of a much larger contingent of content consumers are proposing bad laws to protect those who feed them. The analogy also breaks because murder or theft deprive someone of something (in the case of murder, something irreplaceable) while content piracy only deprives content owners of a sale they most likely would never make.