4 ms·

Humanism arose during the Renaissance, when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist.

Humanism arose during the Renaissance, when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist. It's perfectly fine to copy someone else's work. The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people thinking thoughts you feel entitled to.

FredPret 2y ago
I'm 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech. Copying scientific ideas (with attribution!) is completely OK and good. Having heterodox ideas is vital for society. Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. But making a movie is a commercial enterprise that involves risking a bunch of capital. It rarely pans out to make a profit. Copying it without payment is a very minor form of theft, but it's still theft.
- MacsHeadroom 2y ago
  Depriving someone of their liberty over interference with a revenue model based on copyright protections is not 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Yes it is. If the content is a movie created in the last 100 years, it was almost certainly created to slot into that revenue model. The artists have a right to sell their property on their terms. And if they decide to do so by selling their rights to a studio, then that's how it is. And if you don't like corporations, contracts, or the revenue model, then that's completely irrelevant to the parties involved.
    - colordrops 2y ago
      You could add restrictions to anything to create business models. Doesn't mean it's natural and helpful to society. The vast majority of movies are tripe and provide no real value to humanity. And the vast majority of revenue go to a few executives and middlemen rather than the artists. The fact that this regime exists now is not proof that it is a good thing - that's circular logic.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Not all stipulations sellers place on items are legal. For example, I cannot sell you a scooter with the stipulation that if I need a kidney, you'll have to donate one to me. Furthermore, what is and isn't legal is a product of the legislature and the judiciary. Let's not forget that people write laws and interpret laws. They aren't some function of the cosmic order, though it's convenient to posture them as if they were. When someone "has the right," it's because a group of people gave it to them, and anything that can be given, can be taken away. The fact that we forget this reality is a massive collective hallucination. Once you know how the hallucination works, it's hard to buy into it ever again. TLDR; The arrow of implication doesn't go from reality -> laws. It goes from laws -> reality.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        This is an interesting argument but at the moment the laws say piracy is illegal. And they do so in a way that is super reasonable, no kidneys involved. The pirated works were created under this understanding of the rules. In other words, movies and games were financed and made at great expense and effort with a view to selling copies and tickets and making money off of VHS rentals / Netflix streaming. Piracy is a clear subversion of this, and by the way, if it became mainstream, would break the industry that creates some of the things we like. While the law isn't part of some cosmic order, there's nothing written in the stars that entitles you to every creation of every other person, at your convenience, for free.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Definitely. It's good to point out that these discussions often co-mingle two topics: "What should happen given these laws?" and "What should these laws be?" I'm glad there's room for both and the gray areas in between. Do we, for example, have an obligation to those who play by laws we believe to be unjust?
- scotty79 2y ago
  > Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. Like forcing people think that copying is theft? Or that by clicking a button you agree to few hundred page agreement you couldn't possibly read or understand?
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  It's not theft in any sense of the word. Please stop reporting this misinformation ASAP. If movie productions were so concerned about profit, maybe they should stop all the Hollywood accounting nonsense. The industry has just made several films surpassing a billion dollars. The industry is absolute fine. And someone downloading Deadpool isn't stealing or doing any harm to that industry.
  - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
    I hope that one day metal 3D printing becomes cheap, advanced, reliable and widespread. I hope you design an amazing epic car, the best ever, which everyone suddenly begins downloading, 3D printing, and driving around here or there. Only then would you know the pain of having your car downloaded, I put that pain on you.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      I do create and publish content, I just haven't drunk the kool-aid that makes me think I'm entitled to a set amount of money for every copy consumed. If people want to pay for it they will, and if they don't they won't. If I don't have enough talent to make a lot of money from my work, then that's the only reason - not piracy.
MacsHeadroom 2y ago
>The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people for sharing or facilitating the thinking of thoughts you feel entitled to.*
__loam 2y ago
Creative work costs money to make. People who make it should have the right to make a living off it. It's not hard. Most of the people on this site make their money creating intellectual property. How many piracy activists here would be willing to leak the source code their company relies on?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  And how many expect that there would be no repercussions if they did, even if they believed it would be a moral thing to do?
cdchn 2y ago
>when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist This was also a time before mass copying and distribution on a massive scale.
- Fomite 2y ago
  This was also a time of wealthy patrons

FredPret 2y ago

I'm 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech. Copying scientific ideas (with attribution!) is completely OK and good. Having heterodox ideas is vital for society. Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. But making a movie is a commercial enterprise that involves risking a bunch of capital. It rarely pans out to make a profit. Copying it without payment is a very minor form of theft, but it's still theft.

MacsHeadroom 2y ago
Depriving someone of their liberty over interference with a revenue model based on copyright protections is not 1000% in favor of free ideas and free speech.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Yes it is. If the content is a movie created in the last 100 years, it was almost certainly created to slot into that revenue model. The artists have a right to sell their property on their terms. And if they decide to do so by selling their rights to a studio, then that's how it is. And if you don't like corporations, contracts, or the revenue model, then that's completely irrelevant to the parties involved.
  - colordrops 2y ago
    You could add restrictions to anything to create business models. Doesn't mean it's natural and helpful to society. The vast majority of movies are tripe and provide no real value to humanity. And the vast majority of revenue go to a few executives and middlemen rather than the artists. The fact that this regime exists now is not proof that it is a good thing - that's circular logic.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Not all stipulations sellers place on items are legal. For example, I cannot sell you a scooter with the stipulation that if I need a kidney, you'll have to donate one to me. Furthermore, what is and isn't legal is a product of the legislature and the judiciary. Let's not forget that people write laws and interpret laws. They aren't some function of the cosmic order, though it's convenient to posture them as if they were. When someone "has the right," it's because a group of people gave it to them, and anything that can be given, can be taken away. The fact that we forget this reality is a massive collective hallucination. Once you know how the hallucination works, it's hard to buy into it ever again. TLDR; The arrow of implication doesn't go from reality -> laws. It goes from laws -> reality.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      This is an interesting argument but at the moment the laws say piracy is illegal. And they do so in a way that is super reasonable, no kidneys involved. The pirated works were created under this understanding of the rules. In other words, movies and games were financed and made at great expense and effort with a view to selling copies and tickets and making money off of VHS rentals / Netflix streaming. Piracy is a clear subversion of this, and by the way, if it became mainstream, would break the industry that creates some of the things we like. While the law isn't part of some cosmic order, there's nothing written in the stars that entitles you to every creation of every other person, at your convenience, for free.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Definitely. It's good to point out that these discussions often co-mingle two topics: "What should happen given these laws?" and "What should these laws be?" I'm glad there's room for both and the gray areas in between. Do we, for example, have an obligation to those who play by laws we believe to be unjust?
scotty79 2y ago
> Forcing people to think certain thoughts (or trying to) is the worst evil. Like forcing people think that copying is theft? Or that by clicking a button you agree to few hundred page agreement you couldn't possibly read or understand?
ruthmarx 2y ago
It's not theft in any sense of the word. Please stop reporting this misinformation ASAP. If movie productions were so concerned about profit, maybe they should stop all the Hollywood accounting nonsense. The industry has just made several films surpassing a billion dollars. The industry is absolute fine. And someone downloading Deadpool isn't stealing or doing any harm to that industry.
- amy-petrik-214 2y ago
  I hope that one day metal 3D printing becomes cheap, advanced, reliable and widespread. I hope you design an amazing epic car, the best ever, which everyone suddenly begins downloading, 3D printing, and driving around here or there. Only then would you know the pain of having your car downloaded, I put that pain on you.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    I do create and publish content, I just haven't drunk the kool-aid that makes me think I'm entitled to a set amount of money for every copy consumed. If people want to pay for it they will, and if they don't they won't. If I don't have enough talent to make a lot of money from my work, then that's the only reason - not piracy.

MacsHeadroom 2y ago

>The immorality comes in when you start using physical force to punish people for sharing or facilitating the thinking of thoughts you feel entitled to.*

__loam 2y ago

Creative work costs money to make. People who make it should have the right to make a living off it. It's not hard. Most of the people on this site make their money creating intellectual property. How many piracy activists here would be willing to leak the source code their company relies on?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
And how many expect that there would be no repercussions if they did, even if they believed it would be a moral thing to do?

cdchn 2y ago

>when scholars and artists gleefully cribbed from each other's work without attribution and copyright didn't even exist This was also a time before mass copying and distribution on a massive scale.

Fomite 2y ago
This was also a time of wealthy patrons