6 ms·
> many people do indeed watch it illegally If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change h
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> many people do indeed watch it illegally
If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change her job, because people obviously dont want to pay her for what shes doing. This applies to any other job that gets obsoleted by time and technological advances, there is no reason there should be an artificial exception for films by making laws that simulate the 1950's.
> it seems to me that reducing piracy makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
To me it seems accepting being bullied into obeying and doing exactly what they want. They want people to stop copying, if everybody stops copying, they won. It means that democracy is worthless and that Hollywood gets the final word of how laws are gonna look like, what will be accepted bahavior and what wont.
Hollywood (and you and your your wife) are pushing for keeping copying illegal because you make more money if it stays illegal, but we as a society at large have not yet agreed that copying indeed _should_ be illegal. Many people copy your wifes movies because they do not consider it morally wrong. Your argument to change their behaviour amounts no nothing more than "stop copying yourself, my wife tries to make money selling copies."
> Of course it is my experience that people who pirate content won't listen
I dont have to listen to you the same way you dont have to listen to me. The whole society has to agree whether copying is right or wrong, whether it is objectionable or not, and agreeing usually works through a majority vote. Your wife and Hollywood most certainly dont have the majority on their side, which is precisely why they resort to bribery like democracy never existed.
Although laws currently do exist making copying illegal, the society has not agreed that it is indeed wrong. The laws have been purchased and aggressively pushed from the top down, not decided and agreed upon democratically. It is not the behavior of the people that is wrong, it is the laws that are undemocratic, unjust and wrong, because they do not reflect the natural sense of right and wrong the people have, which should be the basis of any law.
The sole fact that your wife tries to make a living by relying on non-copying does not somehow automatically imply that copying should be wrong for the sole purpose that she can make a living. Maybe your wife simply made a bad career choice. Dont try to retrofit the society to your wifes career choices. Otherwise you also could push a car ban (obligatory car analogy) so your wife can make a living by making horse carriages.
For the sake of completeness: copying is not stealing. It is copying. I know it is hard to grasp for you (and Hollywood), because repeating "copying=stealing" makes your wife (and Hollywood) money.
> When people steal her movie instead of watching it on iTunes (...) it's not any different than taking money out of our pockets.
To anybody else not making money by relying on copying prohibition, this should read:
> When people copy her movie instead of watching it on iTunes (...) it's not any different than not putting money into our pockets.
The only reason why your above sentence sounds the way it sounds is because saying so makes your wife (and Hollywood) money. Otherwise it almost certainly wouldnt.
- VMG 15y ago> If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change her job, because people obviously dont want to pay her for what shes doing. Maybe people aren't aware of the consequences of their actions and have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. If they knew the truth, maybe they would buy rather than copy (see, I said copy). > The only reason why your above sentence sounds the way it sounds is because saying so makes your wife (and Hollywood) money. You are saying this as if there was something wrong with that.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago> have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. The question whether copying is right or wrong has nothing to do with the amount of money filmmakers are swimming in. Person A sending a file to person B against the wish of author C is either wrong in itself or not. The only way to find out is a vote. Lets vote on copyright. > If they knew the truth, maybe they would buy rather than copy Whether somebody buys a copy or makes it himself also isnt up to debate here. The question is whether copying itself against the wish of the author should be illegal or not. Copying can be legal and you'd still have people buying copies to support the author. I can copy but I still buy. The legality of copying doesnt exclude buying. > You are saying this as if there was something wrong with that. It is wrong that action X (people exchanging information) is artificially made illegal so somebody can make money by providing service X. It is basically outlawing DIY. I think that this is wrong, you maybe dont. The only way to find out whether this should be illegal or not is to collectively vote on it, not by bribery behind closed doors. If the majority decides that it should be illegal because they value the influx Hollywood output more than personal freedoms, I'd accept that even though I personally think it shouldnt be so. But what I certainly wont accept as a behavioral guidance are "deals" made between a few influential stake holders and bribeable politicians who are essentially circumventing democracy. As long as I know that my fellow citizens, my friends and family dont consider copying wrong and objectionable, there is no reason for me and anybody else to blindly obey a purchased, undemocratic law like a serf and like feudalism never ended. The only outcome I'm personally willing to accept is a community vote. Lets vote on copyright.