4 ms·

>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 re

>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.
- Drbble 14y ago
  That's doctrine of first sale, not fair use, btw.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    yes. you are correct. fair use is something else.
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
Also, I should note that as the copyright holder for a book I wrote, I believe it would benefit me (creator) if I ever found my work being distributed without my consent. I don't see it as the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen. Does it get abused? sure it does. But so does BitTorrent, no?
stinkytaco 14y ago
>For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned. >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. This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content. Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. So? If I really wanted, I could make a copy of a book from the library, too. The possibilities are endless, but all of them are less convenient and cost more than a digital copy. Other than that, there is no factual difference. Your argument is still invalid. >This argument... is patently untrue. Except it isn't. Unless you define "benefits from the system" as "gets a very small slice of the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry". >Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous. If you want to be compensated for actually writing the book, find alternate ways of doing so (there's Kickstarter, for example). Nobody is entitled to make a living of selling copies of a non-scarce good. It's cool if you can, but not if that involves needing an artificial monopoly on said non-scarce good. I take the liberal approach here: I can't force you to give me things, but neither can you stop me (or others) from sharing them. >But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. But it isn't, no matter how much you some people try to insist it is. There is no valid definition of "stealing" that could be applied to the act of sharing digital data. None. Argumentum ad nauseam won't make it any more true, either. >Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor. How is this mutually exclusive? I enjoy going to concerts - which is how musicians can (and do) make money these days. I also have quite a lot of merchandise in the form of T-shirts. Services and services - both are business models with a future. Charging for exclusive access to a non-scarce resource, by contrast, isn't.
res0nat0r 14y ago
> 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. I do love it when people wax poetic when it comes to piracy discussions online like this. By the above you mean the monumental achievement it is like having access to data such as the Human Genome Project, or online journals and data related to AIDS, cancer and other research correct? Please don't try and state it is a human right to have free, immediate access to the latest Lady Gaga album and Game of Thrones for free.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  I do love it when people people in online discussions about piracy try to downplay the value of Free[1] sharing to "the latest Lady Gaga album or Game of Throne". It's a lot more than that. The implications are huge. They include a lot of what you mentioned, and more. [1]: Free as in speech, like with Free Software. Copyright and protection of Free Speech are mutually exclusive. You can't have one while having the other.

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.

Drbble 14y ago
That's doctrine of first sale, not fair use, btw.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  yes. you are correct. fair use is something else.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

Also, I should note that as the copyright holder for a book I wrote, I believe it would benefit me (creator) if I ever found my work being distributed without my consent. I don't see it as the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen. Does it get abused? sure it does. But so does BitTorrent, no?

stinkytaco 14y ago

>For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too. Your argument, therefore, is invalid. The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned. >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. This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content. Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.

slowpoke 14y ago
>Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. So? If I really wanted, I could make a copy of a book from the library, too. The possibilities are endless, but all of them are less convenient and cost more than a digital copy. Other than that, there is no factual difference. Your argument is still invalid. >This argument... is patently untrue. Except it isn't. Unless you define "benefits from the system" as "gets a very small slice of the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry". >Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous. If you want to be compensated for actually writing the book, find alternate ways of doing so (there's Kickstarter, for example). Nobody is entitled to make a living of selling copies of a non-scarce good. It's cool if you can, but not if that involves needing an artificial monopoly on said non-scarce good. I take the liberal approach here: I can't force you to give me things, but neither can you stop me (or others) from sharing them. >But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. But it isn't, no matter how much you some people try to insist it is. There is no valid definition of "stealing" that could be applied to the act of sharing digital data. None. Argumentum ad nauseam won't make it any more true, either. >Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor. How is this mutually exclusive? I enjoy going to concerts - which is how musicians can (and do) make money these days. I also have quite a lot of merchandise in the form of T-shirts. Services and services - both are business models with a future. Charging for exclusive access to a non-scarce resource, by contrast, isn't.

res0nat0r 14y ago

> 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. I do love it when people wax poetic when it comes to piracy discussions online like this. By the above you mean the monumental achievement it is like having access to data such as the Human Genome Project, or online journals and data related to AIDS, cancer and other research correct? Please don't try and state it is a human right to have free, immediate access to the latest Lady Gaga album and Game of Thrones for free.

slowpoke 14y ago
I do love it when people people in online discussions about piracy try to downplay the value of Free[1] sharing to "the latest Lady Gaga album or Game of Throne". It's a lot more than that. The implications are huge. They include a lot of what you mentioned, and more. [1]: Free as in speech, like with Free Software. Copyright and protection of Free Speech are mutually exclusive. You can't have one while having the other.