3 ms·

The hypocrisy of download defenders is exposed when re-distribution is the concern. Most content producers and publishers are fine with downloading as long as y

The hypocrisy of download defenders is exposed when re-distribution is the concern. Most content producers and publishers are fine with downloading as long as you don't re-distribute (which is theft), but we have no way of preventing that, so they are forced to close the download gate

kstrauser 3y ago
That’s historically wrong. The story of DRM is littered with claims that reasonable things like format shifting are immoral and theft. Also, unauthorized distribution is unauthorized distribution, not theft. Theft has a special legal meaning, and that isn’t it.
ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
You neglected to state what the "hypocrisy" is here. Cite the passage that promotes downloading and redistributing.
Dylan16807 3y ago
> so they are forced to close the download gate They don't get to do that. Also what's the hypocrisy?
stcg 3y ago
That is not theft. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts [footnote]. To "steal" means to physically take someone's property without their consent. Instead, you seem to mean a violation of copyright. Copyright exists "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." "The main purpose of the Copyright Act is the public good of use and access to works of art, even if such a public good comes at the expense of the author of the work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._v._Aiken#Implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._...). And then my opinion: In this age, copyright fails at that. It even has the opposite effect of resulting in less use and less access to works of art. I think it would benefit the public if copyright were abolished (or at least shortened to 20 years, similar to the amount of years that a person gets from a patent to exclusively produce and sell their invention before anyone may do that). I do think however that it should be a duty to mention the source or original author when sharing a work. [footnote]: but you can neglect to mention the source, or uncover and share information someone wants to keep private
giantrobot 3y ago
It's not fucking theft. That is a literally insane and irrational position to take.

kstrauser 3y ago

That’s historically wrong. The story of DRM is littered with claims that reasonable things like format shifting are immoral and theft. Also, unauthorized distribution is unauthorized distribution, not theft. Theft has a special legal meaning, and that isn’t it.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago

You neglected to state what the "hypocrisy" is here. Cite the passage that promotes downloading and redistributing.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> so they are forced to close the download gate They don't get to do that. Also what's the hypocrisy?

stcg 3y ago

That is not theft. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts [footnote]. To "steal" means to physically take someone's property without their consent. Instead, you seem to mean a violation of copyright. Copyright exists "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." "The main purpose of the Copyright Act is the public good of use and access to works of art, even if such a public good comes at the expense of the author of the work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._v._Aiken#Implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._...). And then my opinion: In this age, copyright fails at that. It even has the opposite effect of resulting in less use and less access to works of art. I think it would benefit the public if copyright were abolished (or at least shortened to 20 years, similar to the amount of years that a person gets from a patent to exclusively produce and sell their invention before anyone may do that). I do think however that it should be a duty to mention the source or original author when sharing a work. [footnote]: but you can neglect to mention the source, or uncover and share information someone wants to keep private

giantrobot 3y ago

It's not fucking theft. That is a literally insane and irrational position to take.