4 ms·
You could say the same about stealing physical books.
by endisneigh 4y ago
You could say the same about stealing physical books.
- alwayslikethis 4y agoStealing physical books deprives the owner their right to the book. Copying a digital book only "deprives" the "owner" a right to control its distribution. It's not nearly the same thing. Whereas ownership of physical items is permanent to ensure society would function, the right to control distribution is a concession we make to authors to allow them to make a profit. In our era, this is so ridiculously abused that it is fine to take back some of it. For example, the author should be entitled to the right of controlling copying if he action intends to distribute copies. If book is out of print because the author decides it is not profitable, then the right should go back to us.
- wilsonnb3 4y agoHow many times must we have the discussion about the differences between stealing a physical item and copying a digital one?
- endisneigh 4y agoIt’s not the same, but the OP is talking about free access to information. So under that logic stealing the physical book is fine. Or I can amend my original comment and say stealing the physical book, creating a copy using a commodity printer and leaving the copy, while keeping the original, is fine.
- friend_and_foe 4y agoWhy "leaving the copy whole keeping the original"? If the issue here is theft of information, than keeping the copy and leaving the original is just as bad, no? Why make that meaningless distinction in your point? Theyre equivalent, according to you.
- endisneigh 4y agoYes, under the original logic following the great parent post.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gaganyaan 4y agoPlease don't. ChatGPT has enough incoherent garbage to train on already. It doesn't need more training data.