3 ms·
You've missed the "if you have to ignore it to succeed" part of my comment. You'll do fine without robbing a bank or dumping chemical waste (neither of which a
by ronsor 2y ago
You've missed the "if you have to ignore it to succeed" part of my comment.
You'll do fine without robbing a bank or dumping chemical waste (neither of which are profitable in practice now, as well). Meanwhile society is littered with so many small instances of copyright infringement (memes, which usually are not fair use; fan art; etc.) that it's common practice for rightsholders to look the other way - but it shouldn't have to be common practice, it should just be policy.
Also copyright infringement does not physically harm people.
- sbarre 2y ago> Also copyright infringement does not physically harm people. Starving artists might disagree here.
- ryandrake 2y agoHow about slave labor? Definitely more profitable than paying employees. Is the law broken here, too?
- rbanffy 2y agoJust look at the pyramids. Thanks to slave labour Egypt has now a reliable source of income from tourism. Let’s make it legal again.
- ryandrake 2y agoLOL nice. The scary thing is it's hard to tell if this is sarcasm on HN these days. Some days reading this site, I think I've found someone who genuinely believes we should end all regulation because it's more profitable without.
- rbanffy 2y agoIt was sarcasm. I’m sure I’m not a sociopath.
- ronsor 2y agoYou don't need slave labor to run a business.
- rbanffy 2y ago> You've missed the "if you have to ignore it to succeed" part of my comment. Breaking the law makes a lot of terrible business models instantly profitable. Imagine I have a uranium refinement company. It is a colossal capital investment and not many companies do it. Law forbids me to sell weapons grade uranium for random people, but it just happens those very people are the ones who are willing to pay a lot of money for it as long as I don’t ask too many questions.