4 ms·

> Is reading a book in a library stealing? No. The book was purchased. In some cases the book is purchased directly by the library. In other cases it was purch

> Is reading a book in a library stealing? No. The book was purchased. In some cases the book is purchased directly by the library. In other cases it was purchased by a citizen and then donated to the library when they were done with it. But in any case, each copy of the book (or CD or DVD) was purchased. You are borrowing a purchased copy and will return it when finished. Then someone else will borrow it. That is fair use. If you don't return it to the library, then it might be considered stealing. > Listening to a song on the radio? No. Radio stations have contracts in place with the various sources of the music that allows them to broadcast the music. Radio stations cover this cost by selling ads. Pay radio allows you to get the same content commercial free. But your subscription is covering the station's costs. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of royalty payments, but I'm not sure exactly how those work from one station to the next. > Watching a show over broadcast TV? No. TV stations a generally affiliates of a higher network that is actually creating the show. Other stations also pay for syndicated shows once they have reached a certain age. TV also uses the ad model and you also find pay stations (like HBO, etc). I would imagine the payment contracts in broadcast TV are also similar to radio. > What if I avoid commercials... This is an issue that scared the networks early on when things like TiVo and other DVRs were popping up. I'm pretty sure that commercial avoidance is pretty similar to web ads in that you can't force people to watch them. Even if you were watching it live and could not fast forward... that is typically when you would use the toilet or grab a snack. So the big difference between all those things and piracy is that those things are approved methods of controlled content delivery and each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation. > how does it change things if some people who torrent albums nevertheless spend money on music? Doesn't matter. That is like saying it is ok to jump the subway turnstile today because you paid the fare 3 times last week.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
In the typical case most radio stations acquire the music they play for no cost. What now?
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  I don't believe that radio stations do not a) compensate the music source in some way or b) have an agreement with the source otherwise authorizing them to broadcast it. If they don't, then that is between them and the source. You are not involved in that part.
  - Drbble 14y ago
    It's b. Producers pay radio stations to advertise their music. It is called payola.
slowpoke 14y ago
>The book was purchased. For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. As for the rest, your whole point hinges on "it's approved content distribution". I say that is bullshit. You can and should not be able to control distribution of digital content. It's one of the greatest blessings of humanity to be able to access, hand on and build upon its shared heritage. We should embrace it as the monumental achievement it is - but here we are, having to justify it. This entire "problem" amounts to an industry that is - excuse the language - butthurt about having lost their business model to technological progress, and feels entitled to being granted an exception by cementing said business model into law. This needs to stop before any more permanent damage is done. >each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation. Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen. And many of the compensation methods are merely forced monopolies, which don't have any validity beyond "the law says so". The law is wrong. It therefore needs to be changed. As long as that hasn't been done: ignore it. Subvert it. Attack it. In other words: pirate. And try to support the creators, while you're at it. And I mean the creators, not the copyright industry.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  > For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. The difference is that the book still only exists as one copy that is transferred from one entity to another. This is fair use. That is the same reason it is ok to give/sell your cd to someone else. You have relinquished ownership of it and passed it to someone else. That is how the used goods market works. That does not include making copies of something to distribute. My argument about books is not invalid. It was my mistake to use the word "creator" instead of "source". Yes, the creator generally does not benefit as such. That is between him and the label/distributor/etc. How noble of you to stick up for the underpaid content creator by not paying for the result of his work at all. I applaud you, sir. For everything else you said... heard it before. Don't buy it. It is all just rationalizing the behavior.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

In the typical case most radio stations acquire the music they play for no cost. What now?

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I don't believe that radio stations do not a) compensate the music source in some way or b) have an agreement with the source otherwise authorizing them to broadcast it. If they don't, then that is between them and the source. You are not involved in that part.
- Drbble 14y ago
  It's b. Producers pay radio stations to advertise their music. It is called payola.

slowpoke 14y ago

>The book was purchased. For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. As for the rest, your whole point hinges on "it's approved content distribution". I say that is bullshit. You can and should not be able to control distribution of digital content. It's one of the greatest blessings of humanity to be able to access, hand on and build upon its shared heritage. We should embrace it as the monumental achievement it is - but here we are, having to justify it. This entire "problem" amounts to an industry that is - excuse the language - butthurt about having lost their business model to technological progress, and feels entitled to being granted an exception by cementing said business model into law. This needs to stop before any more permanent damage is done. >each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation. Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen. And many of the compensation methods are merely forced monopolies, which don't have any validity beyond "the law says so". The law is wrong. It therefore needs to be changed. As long as that hasn't been done: ignore it. Subvert it. Attack it. In other words: pirate. And try to support the creators, while you're at it. And I mean the creators, not the copyright industry.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
> For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. The difference is that the book still only exists as one copy that is transferred from one entity to another. This is fair use. That is the same reason it is ok to give/sell your cd to someone else. You have relinquished ownership of it and passed it to someone else. That is how the used goods market works. That does not include making copies of something to distribute. My argument about books is not invalid. It was my mistake to use the word "creator" instead of "source". Yes, the creator generally does not benefit as such. That is between him and the label/distributor/etc. How noble of you to stick up for the underpaid content creator by not paying for the result of his work at all. I applaud you, sir. For everything else you said... heard it before. Don't buy it. It is all just rationalizing the behavior.