4 ms·

> Copyright itself is a non-starter. Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and no

by tivert 4y ago

> Copyright itself is a non-starter. Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that). > That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise. Being selfish but calling it "exceptionally generous" doesn't make it so. It just means you're deluded or a liar. >>> Remember, copyright exists at all because we allow it. The raw reality these monopolists face is that public domain is the default state of all information. We're all just pretending that we can't easily copy this stuff. >> We're also all pretending that we can't easily kill other people (btw, we totally can, and you probably regularly operate a 3,000lb death machine). > You're seriously comparing the killing of human beings to the copying of bits. I'm not sure I want to continue this debate. Come on. All I was doing was show that you're confused and you don't really seem understand the implications of the arguments that you're making. If there's any reason to not continue this "debate," it's that you're unreasonable and will likely stubbornly stick to your unreasonable position.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
account42 4y ago
Wanting to control what other people do between themselves is being selfish. Ignoring the absurd demands of such a person is not. The only valid argument for something like copyright would be that it improves society as a whole. I don't think it does. I have not seen any evidence that it does. I have seen plenty of evidence how it hurts everyone. That some benefit or even rely on it is absolutely completely irrelevant.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that). > deluded or a liar LOL I'm deluded? You're the one who believes in owning numbers. Let's talk about the real world then. In the real world, barely anybody even knows or cares what copyright even is. Copyright infringement is the norm. People infringe copyrights all day every day and they don't even realize they're doing it. They infringe copyright when they save pretty pictures off the internet, when they print screen Instagram posts because the app won't let them download the photos. They infringe copyright when they create funny memes and share them with friends. They infringe copyright when they listen to some illegally uploaded music on YouTube. Could even argue we infringed each other's copyrights when we quoted each other's posts. All of this is happening every single day at unprecedented scales and exactly zero people lose any sleep over it. You see, in the real world, copyright is so irrelevant it barely even registers in people's minds. Copyright infringement is the custom and banning it is like banning alcohol consumption. This is the real status quo. Nobody really gives a shit about "creators", "authors" or whatever. People do what they can do and what they want to do. The world changing technology that is computers allows them to freely manipulate information so that's exactly what they do. Information is infinite, it's numbers. No amount of copyright will ever change that. You'd have to completely destroy computers to roll the world back to a state where copyright matters. > All I was doing was show that you're confused and you don't really seem understand the implications of the arguments that you're making. Only thing you've shown is you don't understand what you're talking about. We're talking about ownership of ideas, naturally infinite, intangible. You move the argument to the scarcity of the physical world and then compare copyright infringement to killing people. The fact you even think you can "easily" kill someone is notable. Have you ever killed someone? Killing another human being fucks you up for life. Even when you're justified in doing so. Pulling the trigger on a weapon even in self defense has significant psychological costs. It gives people PTSD. You can find accounts of soldiers whose entire jobs were to use weapons to kill others -- it fucked them up for life. Militaries all over the world have to literally dehumanize the enemy in order to soften that blow to people's psyches because otherwise you'll get soldiers who have the enemies in their sights but are unable to pull the trigger. Killing people is universally understood to be a terrible thing even when you're right. That you're even putting this in the same conceptual space as something so victimless as copyright infringement is straight up offensive. I'm honestly too angry to even argue coherently. Not a single person in this world loses any sleep over copyright infringement. Only lawyers even understand exactly what that even is.

by tivert 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

account42 4y ago

Wanting to control what other people do between themselves is being selfish. Ignoring the absurd demands of such a person is not. The only valid argument for something like copyright would be that it improves society as a whole. I don't think it does. I have not seen any evidence that it does. I have seen plenty of evidence how it hurts everyone. That some benefit or even rely on it is absolutely completely irrelevant.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that). > deluded or a liar LOL I'm deluded? You're the one who believes in owning numbers. Let's talk about the real world then. In the real world, barely anybody even knows or cares what copyright even is. Copyright infringement is the norm. People infringe copyrights all day every day and they don't even realize they're doing it. They infringe copyright when they save pretty pictures off the internet, when they print screen Instagram posts because the app won't let them download the photos. They infringe copyright when they create funny memes and share them with friends. They infringe copyright when they listen to some illegally uploaded music on YouTube. Could even argue we infringed each other's copyrights when we quoted each other's posts. All of this is happening every single day at unprecedented scales and exactly zero people lose any sleep over it. You see, in the real world, copyright is so irrelevant it barely even registers in people's minds. Copyright infringement is the custom and banning it is like banning alcohol consumption. This is the real status quo. Nobody really gives a shit about "creators", "authors" or whatever. People do what they can do and what they want to do. The world changing technology that is computers allows them to freely manipulate information so that's exactly what they do. Information is infinite, it's numbers. No amount of copyright will ever change that. You'd have to completely destroy computers to roll the world back to a state where copyright matters. > All I was doing was show that you're confused and you don't really seem understand the implications of the arguments that you're making. Only thing you've shown is you don't understand what you're talking about. We're talking about ownership of ideas, naturally infinite, intangible. You move the argument to the scarcity of the physical world and then compare copyright infringement to killing people. The fact you even think you can "easily" kill someone is notable. Have you ever killed someone? Killing another human being fucks you up for life. Even when you're justified in doing so. Pulling the trigger on a weapon even in self defense has significant psychological costs. It gives people PTSD. You can find accounts of soldiers whose entire jobs were to use weapons to kill others -- it fucked them up for life. Militaries all over the world have to literally dehumanize the enemy in order to soften that blow to people's psyches because otherwise you'll get soldiers who have the enemies in their sights but are unable to pull the trigger. Killing people is universally understood to be a terrible thing even when you're right. That you're even putting this in the same conceptual space as something so victimless as copyright infringement is straight up offensive. I'm honestly too angry to even argue coherently. Not a single person in this world loses any sleep over copyright infringement. Only lawyers even understand exactly what that even is.