3 ms·

I think of things differently: regardless of the definition of property the entire issue generated between the piracy side and the content generator side is tha

by TheCapn 15y ago

I think of things differently: regardless of the definition of property the entire issue generated between the piracy side and the content generator side is that of ownership and possession. From the Pirate's point of view they see the situation as "You have not lost anything by me copying this software." Which is a legit mindset to subscribe to. From the other side they see it as "You've obtained something that you did not pay for." Which is also a legit mindset. Whatever end you subscribe to you can hopefully still understand where the divide comes in. One person is interested in obtaining something while seemingly not hurting the other. The other side is bent on maintaining and controlling their content distribution.

rwmj 15y ago
From the other side they see it as "You've obtained something that you did not pay for." Which is also a legit mindset. It's not necessarily legitimate. For example, I'd love it if everyone who flies in a plane over my house paid me, and at one time that might have been the law[1]. I could argue that they'd obtained something ("flying in my airspace") without paying. Whether or not that is a legitimate mindset is up for discussion. It may depend on other things like democracy and the public good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
- CJefferson 15y ago
  You don't get to just pick on one side. I could equally well say that "You have not lost anything by me copying this software." is not necessarily legitimate. I personally know many examples of people who have pirated things they would have paid for, had they not been able to successfully pirate it. You can therefore I believe argue that the piracy lead directly to a loss.
muuh-gnu 15y ago
Both mindsets are legit. The only way to find out which one trumps the other is to vote on it. Surprisingly, nobody on the planet ever voted on copyright. It was decieded from the top down, in shady backroom deals and behind closed doors. It has always strategically excluded any democratic elements, because it was always enforced against the masses. The game is essentially rigged and under the current representative democracy system, there is no way to correct it, because the special interests simply buy out whomever we elect to represent us. And since we cant change representatives as fast as they can buy them out, theres no way for anything to change in the short term, unless we start getting rid of representative democracy alltogether and upgrading it to direct democracy. What the MPAA/RIAA are doing is despicable, but at the same time it is an indicator that there exists a more fundamental flaw in the system which allows them to easily exploit it and buy their way out of the democratic framework.

by TheCapn 15y ago

rwmj 15y ago

From the other side they see it as "You've obtained something that you did not pay for." Which is also a legit mindset. It's not necessarily legitimate. For example, I'd love it if everyone who flies in a plane over my house paid me, and at one time that might have been the law[1]. I could argue that they'd obtained something ("flying in my airspace") without paying. Whether or not that is a legitimate mindset is up for discussion. It may depend on other things like democracy and the public good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

CJefferson 15y ago
You don't get to just pick on one side. I could equally well say that "You have not lost anything by me copying this software." is not necessarily legitimate. I personally know many examples of people who have pirated things they would have paid for, had they not been able to successfully pirate it. You can therefore I believe argue that the piracy lead directly to a loss.

muuh-gnu 15y ago

Both mindsets are legit. The only way to find out which one trumps the other is to vote on it. Surprisingly, nobody on the planet ever voted on copyright. It was decieded from the top down, in shady backroom deals and behind closed doors. It has always strategically excluded any democratic elements, because it was always enforced against the masses. The game is essentially rigged and under the current representative democracy system, there is no way to correct it, because the special interests simply buy out whomever we elect to represent us. And since we cant change representatives as fast as they can buy them out, theres no way for anything to change in the short term, unless we start getting rid of representative democracy alltogether and upgrading it to direct democracy. What the MPAA/RIAA are doing is despicable, but at the same time it is an indicator that there exists a more fundamental flaw in the system which allows them to easily exploit it and buy their way out of the democratic framework.