3 ms·

> Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that g

> Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that good citizens should refuse to obey unethical laws (e.g. it used to be illegal to harbour an escaped slave, or the Nazi Germany laws against Jews). Personally, I think that media companies are harming the public by enforcing unnecessary old copyrights that they have no intention of re-distributing. We're going to end up with missing decades of TV/films that aren't popular enough to interest the copyright holder and that no-one had copies of.

ta1243 3y ago
I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than £1/hour) I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount for something that's trivially available with harbouring escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the creators.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  The point about escaped slaves is to point out that legality and morality are only loosely correlated. I was making a general point about media companies and older media that seems to have escaped you and not specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as intended to incentivise him to make more shows. Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.
edgyquant 3y ago
The comparison of sharing movies to hiding Jews from nazis is one of the most blatantly historical false equivalencies I’ve ever seen.
- fortyseven 3y ago
  Try looking at the theory instead of being distracted by the specific example: Laws on the books do not necessarily equate to morally.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    Burning the CO2 to watch the movie is probably more unethical than paying the $5.99. That CO2 isn’t coming down for 100 years.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I didn't intend it to be an equivalence, just merely a couple of examples of blatantly immoral laws. Apologies if that caused any offence as I certainly didn't mean to directly compare them.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    [flagged]
- hedora 3y ago
  Deleting the only available copies of movies (which might be the case for some of these works) starts to get close. After all, I doubt anyone here would defend the Nazi’s book burning campaigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings Before you say the DMCA isn’t the same, here are some modern incidents where copyright was used to censor things by repressive regimes: https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c228ed https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c22... https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-activists/ https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-activ... And a roundup of how it is being misused in other ways: https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

ta1243 3y ago

I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than £1/hour) I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount for something that's trivially available with harbouring escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the creators.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
The point about escaped slaves is to point out that legality and morality are only loosely correlated. I was making a general point about media companies and older media that seems to have escaped you and not specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as intended to incentivise him to make more shows. Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.

edgyquant 3y ago

The comparison of sharing movies to hiding Jews from nazis is one of the most blatantly historical false equivalencies I’ve ever seen.

fortyseven 3y ago
Try looking at the theory instead of being distracted by the specific example: Laws on the books do not necessarily equate to morally.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  Burning the CO2 to watch the movie is probably more unethical than paying the $5.99. That CO2 isn’t coming down for 100 years.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I didn't intend it to be an equivalence, just merely a couple of examples of blatantly immoral laws. Apologies if that caused any offence as I certainly didn't mean to directly compare them.
- ta1243 3y ago
  [flagged]
hedora 3y ago
Deleting the only available copies of movies (which might be the case for some of these works) starts to get close. After all, I doubt anyone here would defend the Nazi’s book burning campaigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings Before you say the DMCA isn’t the same, here are some modern incidents where copyright was used to censor things by repressive regimes: https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c228ed https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c22... https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-activists/ https://www.accessnow.org/dmca-takedown-demands-censor-activ... And a roundup of how it is being misused in other ways: https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca