3 ms·

The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. Furthermore, your example isn’t piracy! If you own Aliens, go watch

The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. Furthermore, your example isn’t piracy! If you own Aliens, go watch it. If you’ve lost it, you no longer own it I guess then, do you?

MrVandemar 3y ago
My response was nothing to do with owning something and losing it. It was about the problem of rigid copyright when accessibility options are missing, and the measures that a disabled person might need to resort to to have the same access that everyone else does, especially when the copyright owners decline to make those options available. It was about being inclusive, and inclusivity is absolutely part of our modern social-contract. I'd love it if you re-read my earlier post, and respond to the points as made. It's an interesting and engaging debate. Thank you.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  The problem you’re refusing to address, and why I did reply to your earlier post the way I did (after reading it), is that a) you completely ignore the rights of the owner of the work, and b) presume some kind of entitlement to the work in the first place. What gives you the right to stomp on someone else’s rights just because you “want” to watch a movie? Besides, as I’ve already said, we can come up with exceptions all day, the general case of piracy, the one being discussed, is immoral. If you tie a baby to a railroad and only agree to let the baby go if it hears a Metallica song, yeah piracy would be justified. That doesn’t mean much in this conversation however.
  - MrVandemar 3y ago
    It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Whether that's a wheel-chair ramp, alt-text on an image, using correct HTML markup, subtitles/closed-captions or audio description, it's part of being inclusive and accomodating and welcoming to people with difference in ability, perception and neurology. That's a social contract, right there, one that's about people and not stuff. Indeed, in many places there is legislation that formally grants exemption from copyright for this exact reason, but it's mostly a bit on the weak side and doesn't address the systemic problems, which is the big one. Nothing immoral going on here.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      That's not how it works. If a creator doesn't provide accessibility options, you must ask them to, and if they refuse, then use the power of adjudication to enforce the aspects you claim are part of the social contract, or get permission from the creator of the work. If what you're describing isn't part of the social contract (e.g. as you say exceptions to copyright law), then what you're describing is vigilante justice, where you decide what harms to dole out to others arbitrarily, and that's another part of the social contract we all agree is not worth it.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Yes, and no? you are discriminating, but you may not be doing it in intentionally. Some options make it easy, where for some other arts you need dedicated specialists who know of how those disabilities navigate and then make new software or work to enable such things. An indie dev isn't going to have the references or time or even talent to make sure the blind, deaf, and physically handicapped can play their game. >Nothing immoral going on here. we've gone so far off the script that I think people forgot we're still talking about deluxe entertainment. Not every socetal wrong under captialism.
mopsi 3y ago
> The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. That's not true. If a publisher refuses to publish a book in braille because they see no profit in that, but nevertheless sues everyone who does the conversion to braille and publication on their own, then this directly deprives blind people of their cultural rights.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" And what the hell is "cultural rights"? There's no law to make things accessible to the blind. Companies will try to do it to get more customers, though. Yes, a company can sue over a reference to their works outside of fair use cases. a translation is not a case of fair use. Companies usually won't go after such things unless they already have immediate plans to translate, but they can. Similar to how they can go after fanart but usually leave it be as easy, free, organic advertising.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" It's not a contrived example, but an actual problem with converting books to braille. The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work, even if there is no profit to be made (remember: copyright was established to protect income streams). > And what the hell is "cultural rights"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. The same article that established groundwork for copyright also establishes the right to access protected works for the well-being, education and enjoyment of others. Current standards are heavily out of balance in favor of all-encompassing copyright, which was never intended as such, and has become increasingly detrimental to the right to participate in culture. The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I don't see a good reason why the full force of the state should back movie studios against scholars, historians and critics; it is not in our best interests.

MrVandemar 3y ago

My response was nothing to do with owning something and losing it. It was about the problem of rigid copyright when accessibility options are missing, and the measures that a disabled person might need to resort to to have the same access that everyone else does, especially when the copyright owners decline to make those options available. It was about being inclusive, and inclusivity is absolutely part of our modern social-contract. I'd love it if you re-read my earlier post, and respond to the points as made. It's an interesting and engaging debate. Thank you.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
The problem you’re refusing to address, and why I did reply to your earlier post the way I did (after reading it), is that a) you completely ignore the rights of the owner of the work, and b) presume some kind of entitlement to the work in the first place. What gives you the right to stomp on someone else’s rights just because you “want” to watch a movie? Besides, as I’ve already said, we can come up with exceptions all day, the general case of piracy, the one being discussed, is immoral. If you tie a baby to a railroad and only agree to let the baby go if it hears a Metallica song, yeah piracy would be justified. That doesn’t mean much in this conversation however.
- MrVandemar 3y ago
  It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Whether that's a wheel-chair ramp, alt-text on an image, using correct HTML markup, subtitles/closed-captions or audio description, it's part of being inclusive and accomodating and welcoming to people with difference in ability, perception and neurology. That's a social contract, right there, one that's about people and not stuff. Indeed, in many places there is legislation that formally grants exemption from copyright for this exact reason, but it's mostly a bit on the weak side and doesn't address the systemic problems, which is the big one. Nothing immoral going on here.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    That's not how it works. If a creator doesn't provide accessibility options, you must ask them to, and if they refuse, then use the power of adjudication to enforce the aspects you claim are part of the social contract, or get permission from the creator of the work. If what you're describing isn't part of the social contract (e.g. as you say exceptions to copyright law), then what you're describing is vigilante justice, where you decide what harms to dole out to others arbitrarily, and that's another part of the social contract we all agree is not worth it.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Yes, and no? you are discriminating, but you may not be doing it in intentionally. Some options make it easy, where for some other arts you need dedicated specialists who know of how those disabilities navigate and then make new software or work to enable such things. An indie dev isn't going to have the references or time or even talent to make sure the blind, deaf, and physically handicapped can play their game. >Nothing immoral going on here. we've gone so far off the script that I think people forgot we're still talking about deluxe entertainment. Not every socetal wrong under captialism.

mopsi 3y ago

> The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. That's not true. If a publisher refuses to publish a book in braille because they see no profit in that, but nevertheless sues everyone who does the conversion to braille and publication on their own, then this directly deprives blind people of their cultural rights.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" And what the hell is "cultural rights"? There's no law to make things accessible to the blind. Companies will try to do it to get more customers, though. Yes, a company can sue over a reference to their works outside of fair use cases. a translation is not a case of fair use. Companies usually won't go after such things unless they already have immediate plans to translate, but they can. Similar to how they can go after fanart but usually leave it be as easy, free, organic advertising.
- mopsi 3y ago
  > how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" It's not a contrived example, but an actual problem with converting books to braille. The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work, even if there is no profit to be made (remember: copyright was established to protect income streams). > And what the hell is "cultural rights"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. The same article that established groundwork for copyright also establishes the right to access protected works for the well-being, education and enjoyment of others. Current standards are heavily out of balance in favor of all-encompassing copyright, which was never intended as such, and has become increasingly detrimental to the right to participate in culture. The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I don't see a good reason why the full force of the state should back movie studios against scholars, historians and critics; it is not in our best interests.