3 ms·

I understand where you are coming from. I know there are some grey areas but I think it is pretty clear what is piracy and what is not. If there is something th

I understand where you are coming from. I know there are some grey areas but I think it is pretty clear what is piracy and what is not. If there is something that you are supposed to buy and yet you get it for free in an unauthorized manner, safe bet is it is "piracy". Sure that is oversimplifying it a little but I don't think the issue has that many complexities. I'd be interested to hear what subset of piracy is not piracy.

kijin 15y ago
Every subset of piracy is by definition piracy. But if you mean what kinds of things I think shouldn't count as piracy even though they are illegal in the U.S., here are some examples: 1. Posting a link to a web page that contains a link to a torrent that contains directions for downloading a song that was copied without permission. 2. Breaking the DRM on an e-book, song, or video stream so that I can enjoy it on another device that I own. I bought the song, goddammit. I should be able to listen to it whenever and wherever I want. 3. Copying a book, song, film, or game whose original author has been dead for 20 years, provided that no publisher, record company, or film distributor has obtained from the author the right to print or distribute the work commercially. In other words, the work is out of print. 4. Copying a work whose copyright owner appears to have no intention to license his work in your country anytime soon. This is less of a concern in the U.S., but a huge concern in the rest of the world. You can't lose any profit here if you have no intention to make a profit here, can you? 5. Creating a derivative work (e.g. YouTube remix) that cannot reasonably be expected to eliminate a person's desire to purchase the original work. Nobody who sees a YouTube remix of 90 seconds of excerpts from Inception and thinks it's cool will then think, "Hey, that's enough Inception for me. No need to go see the actual movie." The whole point of copyright is to encourage creative endeavors by allowing creators to have a monopoly over the distribution of their works for a limited time. Therefore, any behavior that does not hurt the creator's actual (not hypothetical) profits should be permitted by default. So if the causal link between my action and loss of profit is really sketchy (#1, #5), or if I have already paid the creator (#2), or if the creator clearly cannot expect to derive any monetary benefits from my consumption of his work (#3, #4), the whole rationale for copyright protection falls apart. Just the other day, I read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote King Lear (one of his best works) about a decade after seeing, and even possibly acting in, a similar play staged by a group that would later become his major competition. Some of Shakespeare's other plays were also based on stories that were published only a few years previously. Any law that would have made it illegal for Shakespeare to adapt these works into his masterpieces, I think, has absolutely no reason to exist at any time or place.

kijin 15y ago

Every subset of piracy is by definition piracy. But if you mean what kinds of things I think shouldn't count as piracy even though they are illegal in the U.S., here are some examples: 1. Posting a link to a web page that contains a link to a torrent that contains directions for downloading a song that was copied without permission. 2. Breaking the DRM on an e-book, song, or video stream so that I can enjoy it on another device that I own. I bought the song, goddammit. I should be able to listen to it whenever and wherever I want. 3. Copying a book, song, film, or game whose original author has been dead for 20 years, provided that no publisher, record company, or film distributor has obtained from the author the right to print or distribute the work commercially. In other words, the work is out of print. 4. Copying a work whose copyright owner appears to have no intention to license his work in your country anytime soon. This is less of a concern in the U.S., but a huge concern in the rest of the world. You can't lose any profit here if you have no intention to make a profit here, can you? 5. Creating a derivative work (e.g. YouTube remix) that cannot reasonably be expected to eliminate a person's desire to purchase the original work. Nobody who sees a YouTube remix of 90 seconds of excerpts from Inception and thinks it's cool will then think, "Hey, that's enough Inception for me. No need to go see the actual movie." The whole point of copyright is to encourage creative endeavors by allowing creators to have a monopoly over the distribution of their works for a limited time. Therefore, any behavior that does not hurt the creator's actual (not hypothetical) profits should be permitted by default. So if the causal link between my action and loss of profit is really sketchy (#1, #5), or if I have already paid the creator (#2), or if the creator clearly cannot expect to derive any monetary benefits from my consumption of his work (#3, #4), the whole rationale for copyright protection falls apart. Just the other day, I read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote King Lear (one of his best works) about a decade after seeing, and even possibly acting in, a similar play staged by a group that would later become his major competition. Some of Shakespeare's other plays were also based on stories that were published only a few years previously. Any law that would have made it illegal for Shakespeare to adapt these works into his masterpieces, I think, has absolutely no reason to exist at any time or place.