6 ms·

USA resident who expects to be moderated down: I'm a big believer in intellectual property rules and I hate piracy. These actions don't strike me as "censorshi

USA resident who expects to be moderated down: I'm a big believer in intellectual property rules and I hate piracy. These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. Oh sure, it stops you from pirating me, but that's not censorship. That's me stopping you from being a plagiarist and a copycat. If anything, tough enforcement encourages people to actually express themselves because they can't just pirate someone else's hard work and pretend they did something of value for society. Quit reading this. Go make your own content and enjoy all of the power that the Internet gave you. Then enjoy the control over your hard work that IP laws give you.

exabrial 4y ago
How exactly does "youtube-dl" promote piracy? /me gets popcorn
SuperShibe 4y ago
YouTube DL is not their IP. Period.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  as well as many videos youtube slapped their ads on top of.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Go make your own content and enjoy all of the power that the Internet gave you. You do know that most of the people here make their own IP every day, right?
account42 4y ago
Your bait would be more convincing if you weren't confusing basic concepts like copyright infringement and plagiarism which have nothing to do with each other.
uncletammy 4y ago
> These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. This is a super slippery slope and we're sliding fast https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/texas-republican-wants-isps-to-block-a-wide-range-of-abortion-websites/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/texas-republican...
phpisthebest 4y ago
USA resident who factually understands that intellectual "property" is not property as thoughts. idea's etc can not be owned as property. What you call intellectual property is in fact more accurately referred to as intellectual privilege, and unauthorized copying of your work is not "piracy" which is a violent act of theft normally on the high seas. Attempting to conflate copyright with property and property crimes is not only illogical it is highly immoral copyright may be worth defending, in a very limited way, but it certainly is not on the same level of property nor should it be considered such. Copyright to the extent it is worth defending should be returned to the original US Constitutional limits and applicability, and returned to the timespan of the original copyright law (14 years, and 1 extension of a human author of 14 years.. meaning corporations get 14 years, humans can get upto 28 years and no more. and All copyright ends at death of the author. )
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. Oh sure, it stops you from pirating me, but that's not censorship. That's me stopping you from being a plagiarist and a copycat. When I get tired of my video host or get locked out of my account, I should be able to download all of my own videos to put them on another host, regardless of whether the old host chooses to make that easy. Journalists should be able to download every video of a politician making a false statement so they can play it back in a year when the evidence of that lie becomes better established. Works by US Government entities like NASA are in the public domain. Anybody should be able to do what they like with them. These things are distributed on the same services as anything else. A download tool can't evaluate the copyright status of a work or make a fair use determination. Prohibiting the tool is prohibiting all of the uses that should be allowed.
- theturtletalks 4y ago
  What'll they come for next, FFmpeg?
- slaymaker1907 4y ago
  I used it as a student so I could watch lecture videos while in an area with poor network connectivity. It was my tuition funding the creation of these videos.
- Zetice 4y ago
  The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things. Stop giving your rights away! You do have those rights, until you agree to give them up.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    When did the journalist sign their rights away to download a copy of the video uploaded by a third-party? If the journo had their way, the third-party would have given the video directly to the press. The third-party who uploaded the video already waived their own rights, and by accessing the site, the journalist also agreed to be bound by the T&Cs. What is your solution here for the average schmoe who isn't tech literate but is potentially a citizen documenting corruption? Sure, there's secure drop software etc, but do you really think the average person is going to be able to do that in the field from their cellphone? Also consider the footage that comes out of warzones on YT.
Zetice 4y ago
I wish your view wasn't so negatively moderated here, because I think it's the only view that results in the quality and quantity of content that we now take for granted. It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. Content has to produce revenue for its creators, or they're not able to create that content, or as much of that content, or as high quality of that content. I don't "hate" piracy, and I don't think it even cracks the top 1000 problems in the world right now, but to think it's morally justified seems silly to me.
- jjav 4y ago
  > It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. They shouldn't, but that is not at all what this case and discussion are about. The scenario here is an unrelated third party being accused of being complicit in a crime merely for hosting a general-purpose tool that could be used for piracy but can be used for many other things. The equivalent analogy would be if Home Depot is convicted of being a participant in every home burglary in their area simply because they sell sledgehammers and drills and other tools that could conceivably be used by someone to break into a house.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  > The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. If you're genuinely curious why this view tends to be "so negatively moderated", it's this ridiculous notion. Lots of people want to listen to good music, watch good shows, and read good books. Some people are capable of producing those things. Supply, meet demand. You think that without IP everybody is just going to give up on making art happen? Even expensive, large scale art? It's absurd, and it's propaganda. Technological advancement has made this the best time in history for patronage of the arts. Subscription services would be perfect for this. Subscribe to get a vote on what gets made; subscribe to have your review of it count after it's done. Subscribe for ease of access. I don't know if these industries shrink (or even grow) with the elimination of IP. But the notion that any product people enjoy today just stops getting made at all is crazy.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Dude you are posting to the site who's community does everything they can to keep Z-Library going. They don't care at all about creating a civil knowledge creation empowered society. They care about their self entitlements and how their short term desire can be filled with the lowest friction consequences be damned. As an ex-addict I feel quite at home with this crowd. I too exploited whatever I could to get what I wanted and justified to myself why it was ok.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I think that brush you're painting with is far, far too broad.
- account42 4y ago
  [flagged]
jerryzh 4y ago
Traffic accident is causing so much death. Let's kill every car manufacturer thus there will be no traffic accident anymore.
croes 4y ago
They stopped his free expression as a programmer. He violated no IP because he didn't download, he just wrote a program to store data that already is on your computer.

exabrial 4y ago

How exactly does "youtube-dl" promote piracy? /me gets popcorn

SuperShibe 4y ago

YouTube DL is not their IP. Period.

riku_iki 4y ago
as well as many videos youtube slapped their ads on top of.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Go make your own content and enjoy all of the power that the Internet gave you. You do know that most of the people here make their own IP every day, right?

account42 4y ago

Your bait would be more convincing if you weren't confusing basic concepts like copyright infringement and plagiarism which have nothing to do with each other.

uncletammy 4y ago

> These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. This is a super slippery slope and we're sliding fast https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/texas-republican-wants-isps-to-block-a-wide-range-of-abortion-websites/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/texas-republican...

phpisthebest 4y ago

USA resident who factually understands that intellectual "property" is not property as thoughts. idea's etc can not be owned as property. What you call intellectual property is in fact more accurately referred to as intellectual privilege, and unauthorized copying of your work is not "piracy" which is a violent act of theft normally on the high seas. Attempting to conflate copyright with property and property crimes is not only illogical it is highly immoral copyright may be worth defending, in a very limited way, but it certainly is not on the same level of property nor should it be considered such. Copyright to the extent it is worth defending should be returned to the original US Constitutional limits and applicability, and returned to the timespan of the original copyright law (14 years, and 1 extension of a human author of 14 years.. meaning corporations get 14 years, humans can get upto 28 years and no more. and All copyright ends at death of the author. )

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

> These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. Oh sure, it stops you from pirating me, but that's not censorship. That's me stopping you from being a plagiarist and a copycat. When I get tired of my video host or get locked out of my account, I should be able to download all of my own videos to put them on another host, regardless of whether the old host chooses to make that easy. Journalists should be able to download every video of a politician making a false statement so they can play it back in a year when the evidence of that lie becomes better established. Works by US Government entities like NASA are in the public domain. Anybody should be able to do what they like with them. These things are distributed on the same services as anything else. A download tool can't evaluate the copyright status of a work or make a fair use determination. Prohibiting the tool is prohibiting all of the uses that should be allowed.

theturtletalks 4y ago
What'll they come for next, FFmpeg?
slaymaker1907 4y ago
I used it as a student so I could watch lecture videos while in an area with poor network connectivity. It was my tuition funding the creation of these videos.
Zetice 4y ago
The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things. Stop giving your rights away! You do have those rights, until you agree to give them up.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  When did the journalist sign their rights away to download a copy of the video uploaded by a third-party? If the journo had their way, the third-party would have given the video directly to the press. The third-party who uploaded the video already waived their own rights, and by accessing the site, the journalist also agreed to be bound by the T&Cs. What is your solution here for the average schmoe who isn't tech literate but is potentially a citizen documenting corruption? Sure, there's secure drop software etc, but do you really think the average person is going to be able to do that in the field from their cellphone? Also consider the footage that comes out of warzones on YT.

Zetice 4y ago

I wish your view wasn't so negatively moderated here, because I think it's the only view that results in the quality and quantity of content that we now take for granted. It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. Content has to produce revenue for its creators, or they're not able to create that content, or as much of that content, or as high quality of that content. I don't "hate" piracy, and I don't think it even cracks the top 1000 problems in the world right now, but to think it's morally justified seems silly to me.

jjav 4y ago
> It's weird to me that folks now feel entitled to content in the way that piracy allows. They shouldn't, but that is not at all what this case and discussion are about. The scenario here is an unrelated third party being accused of being complicit in a crime merely for hosting a general-purpose tool that could be used for piracy but can be used for many other things. The equivalent analogy would be if Home Depot is convicted of being a participant in every home burglary in their area simply because they sell sledgehammers and drills and other tools that could conceivably be used by someone to break into a house.
rcoveson 4y ago
> The concept that you simply cannot watch a show or movie if you haven't paid for it is genuinely foreign to many people, but it is the only reality that results in those shows in the first place. If you're genuinely curious why this view tends to be "so negatively moderated", it's this ridiculous notion. Lots of people want to listen to good music, watch good shows, and read good books. Some people are capable of producing those things. Supply, meet demand. You think that without IP everybody is just going to give up on making art happen? Even expensive, large scale art? It's absurd, and it's propaganda. Technological advancement has made this the best time in history for patronage of the arts. Subscription services would be perfect for this. Subscribe to get a vote on what gets made; subscribe to have your review of it count after it's done. Subscribe for ease of access. I don't know if these industries shrink (or even grow) with the elimination of IP. But the notion that any product people enjoy today just stops getting made at all is crazy.

ROTMetro 4y ago

Dude you are posting to the site who's community does everything they can to keep Z-Library going. They don't care at all about creating a civil knowledge creation empowered society. They care about their self entitlements and how their short term desire can be filled with the lowest friction consequences be damned. As an ex-addict I feel quite at home with this crowd. I too exploited whatever I could to get what I wanted and justified to myself why it was ok.

JohnFen 4y ago
I think that brush you're painting with is far, far too broad.
account42 4y ago
[flagged]

jerryzh 4y ago

Traffic accident is causing so much death. Let's kill every car manufacturer thus there will be no traffic accident anymore.

croes 4y ago

They stopped his free expression as a programmer. He violated no IP because he didn't download, he just wrote a program to store data that already is on your computer.