4 ms·

To be honest I’ve never understood why people believe they’re entitled other people’s work for free. Perhaps someone can clarify?

mensetmanusman 4y ago
It’s the nature of how computers make copying an initial work nearly zero additional cost. This has never been the case in human history prior to digital/analog recording of content, and it keeps getting closer and closer to zero cost to duplicate. This breaks people’s moral framework because they now have to grasp things like game theory to understand second and third order harm.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  I still don't understand - even if the cost is literally zero to copy, that still wouldn't necessarily entitle one to someone else's work without compensation if that is what they require.
  - skeaker 4y ago
    For most people it comes down to trying something they aren't sure they will enjoy. If you're not sure you'll like something that costs a significant amount and piracy is not an option, you most likely just won't buy it. If piracy is an option, maybe you still don't buy it, but now you get to try it. Both outcomes have the same effect on the publisher of the work so the act of piracy hasn't harmed anyone, costed anyone anything, and now the user can come away knowing whether or not they liked the work which is a positive. It's not that hard of a concept but easy to be confused by if you look at it from the traditional sense of physical wares where a "stolen" sale causes harm.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    I think people consider a copy of work differently than the original in some abstract sense. Digital is the first medium that makes the copy equivalent to the original.
- EnergyAmy 4y ago
  This comments relies on a faulty assumption that other people share the same moral framework as the commenter. Unfortunately, people commenting like this don't tend to realize how much of their own moral framework is simply an ill-fitting hand-me-down from previous generations.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    The moral framework we have inherited from the past was in contrast to the ‘might makes right’ ‘crush the weak’ and ‘take what you want if you can’ moral framework of the Greek/Roman era.
    - EnergyAmy 4y ago
      That's certainly an opinion. It's an opinion that is ignorant of almost all history, but it's definitely an opinion.
FalconSensei 4y ago
Perhaps (and I'm just assuming), you were never too poor, without a library to access any kind of media and decent internet/computer to watch something on streaming?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  What's the relevance of being poor, though? Should poor people not have to pay for things? I have been poor and usually used free content.
EnergyAmy 4y ago
That sounds like a charged question from someone that's not actually interested in learning more, but in case you are actually interested, or if anybody else is curious: the above line of thought is based on a faulty conflation of physical items vs information, similar to how "intellectual property rights" try to glom onto physical property rights to give it a sheen of legitimacy. They're fundamentally different things, and technology has made that difference obvious. Instead of adapting, some people prefer to try using legal means to turn back the clock and pretend that this whole computer thing didn't really happen. That approach hasn't worked out well, and will become even less effective as technology progresses. The solution is not to look backwards like luddites, it's to embrace the new options that technology gives. There's several great ways to earn a living while producing information that people use today: - Get paid before producing the information, like Kickstarter - Get paid in an ongoing manner to produce information, like Patreon - Produce the information in order to attract interest in other ways to make money, such as a band going on tour or doing limited print runs of vinyl records - Get paid directly for the information, like Bandcamp - Less ethical options, such as ad-supported So to directly answer the "entitled to other people's work for free" fallacy, remember that the "other people" in this scenario are the ones sharing their work. If you don't want the world to sing your song, keep it to yourself. If you do want to share it, there's plenty of ways to make a living while doing so.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
The better question is why you think you're entitled to an inheritable multiple lifetime government assigned monopoly on literally any intellectual production of your mind. Even the proponents of patents aren't that entitled. Intellectual property can be logically reduced to number ownership. Art, films, music, source code... It's just data. Data is just bits. Bits are numbers in base 2. You're trying to own numbers in the 21st century, the age of information and permanently networked pocket supercomputers. That's how delusional ownership of ideas really is.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Because it's there.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

It’s the nature of how computers make copying an initial work nearly zero additional cost. This has never been the case in human history prior to digital/analog recording of content, and it keeps getting closer and closer to zero cost to duplicate. This breaks people’s moral framework because they now have to grasp things like game theory to understand second and third order harm.

endisneigh 4y ago
I still don't understand - even if the cost is literally zero to copy, that still wouldn't necessarily entitle one to someone else's work without compensation if that is what they require.
- skeaker 4y ago
  For most people it comes down to trying something they aren't sure they will enjoy. If you're not sure you'll like something that costs a significant amount and piracy is not an option, you most likely just won't buy it. If piracy is an option, maybe you still don't buy it, but now you get to try it. Both outcomes have the same effect on the publisher of the work so the act of piracy hasn't harmed anyone, costed anyone anything, and now the user can come away knowing whether or not they liked the work which is a positive. It's not that hard of a concept but easy to be confused by if you look at it from the traditional sense of physical wares where a "stolen" sale causes harm.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  I think people consider a copy of work differently than the original in some abstract sense. Digital is the first medium that makes the copy equivalent to the original.
EnergyAmy 4y ago
This comments relies on a faulty assumption that other people share the same moral framework as the commenter. Unfortunately, people commenting like this don't tend to realize how much of their own moral framework is simply an ill-fitting hand-me-down from previous generations.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  The moral framework we have inherited from the past was in contrast to the ‘might makes right’ ‘crush the weak’ and ‘take what you want if you can’ moral framework of the Greek/Roman era.
  - EnergyAmy 4y ago
    That's certainly an opinion. It's an opinion that is ignorant of almost all history, but it's definitely an opinion.

FalconSensei 4y ago

Perhaps (and I'm just assuming), you were never too poor, without a library to access any kind of media and decent internet/computer to watch something on streaming?

endisneigh 4y ago
What's the relevance of being poor, though? Should poor people not have to pay for things? I have been poor and usually used free content.

EnergyAmy 4y ago

That sounds like a charged question from someone that's not actually interested in learning more, but in case you are actually interested, or if anybody else is curious: the above line of thought is based on a faulty conflation of physical items vs information, similar to how "intellectual property rights" try to glom onto physical property rights to give it a sheen of legitimacy. They're fundamentally different things, and technology has made that difference obvious. Instead of adapting, some people prefer to try using legal means to turn back the clock and pretend that this whole computer thing didn't really happen. That approach hasn't worked out well, and will become even less effective as technology progresses. The solution is not to look backwards like luddites, it's to embrace the new options that technology gives. There's several great ways to earn a living while producing information that people use today: - Get paid before producing the information, like Kickstarter - Get paid in an ongoing manner to produce information, like Patreon - Produce the information in order to attract interest in other ways to make money, such as a band going on tour or doing limited print runs of vinyl records - Get paid directly for the information, like Bandcamp - Less ethical options, such as ad-supported So to directly answer the "entitled to other people's work for free" fallacy, remember that the "other people" in this scenario are the ones sharing their work. If you don't want the world to sing your song, keep it to yourself. If you do want to share it, there's plenty of ways to make a living while doing so.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

The better question is why you think you're entitled to an inheritable multiple lifetime government assigned monopoly on literally any intellectual production of your mind. Even the proponents of patents aren't that entitled. Intellectual property can be logically reduced to number ownership. Art, films, music, source code... It's just data. Data is just bits. Bits are numbers in base 2. You're trying to own numbers in the 21st century, the age of information and permanently networked pocket supercomputers. That's how delusional ownership of ideas really is.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

Because it's there.