5 ms·

> People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. >>> People pirate media because they understand they shouldn't have to pay for it. We pay for serv

> People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. >>> People pirate media because they understand they shouldn't have to pay for it. We pay for services rendered (Netflix) or goods delivered (DVD's). Everything else is either tax or extortion. I guess I just come at this from a different angle. I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself. And that if I wanted that media, there is a price to pay for it. And that if you don't want the media, you don't pay a price for it. Am I missing something here?

gnaritas 14y ago
Yes, he's objecting to the idea that intellectual property is valid, and there's a good case to be made for that. People instinctively feel paying for property and services is justified, but not for information and intellectual property is just a way of trying to make people think information is property. If I steal something from you, I must have deprived you of it; copying is not stealing.
- dromidas 14y ago
  It's really just the entertainment media version of patent trolling... it will eventually be killed or moderated just like patent trolling is. We just have to wait until someone figures out a better system to replace them with.
- agravier 14y ago
  You are raising good point, as information before the modern age used to be generally free (freedom + beer), and artists earned on performance.
- chimi 14y ago
  This semantic argument really needs to die. The legality and/or morality of the act is not determined by its label. Stealing or not, it is immoral and illegal to appropriate digital goods for oneself without honoring the financial stipulations set forth by the creator/owner of the property.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    That is your opinion, many disagree. Your morals may not be my morals and many reject any notion of information copying being wrong in any way. You're still trying to call information property that can be owned, apparently not realizing that the very concept is being rejected, information is not property and the concept of ownership simply makes no sense. The very notion of ownership stems from physical scarcity, the concept does not logically transfer to digital information.
    - chimi 14y ago
      This is why this debate is really a religious one. It's your beliefs against mine. You believe digitization relinquishes one's right to future revenue from the creation. I do not. In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers. I don't think that's a better world than the one where creators can expect revenue by selling their digitized creations.
      - slowpoke 14y ago
        >In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers. Bullcrap. They'd just have to make their money in ways that do not depend on distribution of non-scarce goods. And they already do. Musicians, for example, are performers. They have a service to sell. That's how many make their bucks. There's models like Kickstarter, where you pay upfront - for the act of creating, not for the eventual distribution (which is costless). Donations or patronage can be a valid source of income, too. Your claim that we need to restrict access to a good that is inherently not scarce (and indeed, not depletable) for artists to make a living at all is a disingenuous lie and flies in the face of reality.
      - gnaritas 14y ago
        You're quite simply wrong; content creators have plenty of ways to make money other than distribution. Secondly, the market doesn't owe creators a living and manipulating the market by creating an artificial concept that allows someone to own information is wrong. If the only way a creator can make money is by using law to create artificial scarcity, then whatever he's creating isn't deserving of pay; if it were, the market would value it without the fake scarcity imposed by law. There was a time when creators were paid to create, rather than for content distribution, we need to return to those times. You are simply defending the status quote without understanding the critique against it.
koglerjs 14y ago
>I guess I just come at this from a different angle. I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself. I never felt that an organization had the right to prevent me from accessing a piece of our culture because they have a piece of paper. Copyright as it exists today transfers ownership of culture from artists to corporation; subsequent bartering of ownership means that the price _you_ want to pay goes nowhere near those what made it. It is a travesty that Apple was _bragging_ that the Beatles music was in the iTunes store, as if that was some accomplishment of openness instead of lawyerly bickering. Which is all to say: it isn't the paying for it that makes people oppose copyright. It's who we'd have to pay.
- chimi 14y ago
  It's a travesty that consumers still think producers must relinquish all rights to income post-digitization. You don't have a "right" to culture. If it weren't for the risk and expense of marketing the corporations invest in the success of the music, you probably wouldn't have ever heard of the music to download it. I am glad the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the producers over the privileged consumer class. We need more creativity and production. Production should be rewarded.
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  >> "I never felt that an organization had the right to prevent me from accessing a piece of our culture because they have a piece of paper." All paintings, music, theater, opera, digital photographs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera: So this is all free then? Sounds good to me. I mean, if you're telling me I'm entitled to all of this, I guess that's pretty cool. Not sure my friends who went to film school will like not having jobs, but if that's what the world owes me... too bad for them. >> "Which is all to say: it isn't the paying for it that makes people oppose copyright. It's who we'd have to pay." You don't like music executives. I don't like banks. But if I want to buy a house I'm going to have to go through one in all likelihood. Because I hate bankers, that does not entitle me to a free house. And what do you do professionally? What if a large part of the country decided they don't like your industry, and that you shouldn't be paid for any of your services or goods?
icebraining 14y ago
I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself. That's not the question. The question is whether you're entitled to prohibit people from sharing media with each other. If you don't feel entitled to the media, nobody is saying you must get it. You're free to remain media-less.
res0nat0r 14y ago
> Am I missing something here? The current view from the entitled that since it is easy to get for free, then there isn't any reason why it shouldn't legally be free otherwise. No amount of grand vision writeups on how information wants to be free will say anything different than this basic point. Everything should be free, except of course whatever the entitled do for work, that obviously should be paid for, because hey that actually affects their income, not someone elses.

gnaritas 14y ago

Yes, he's objecting to the idea that intellectual property is valid, and there's a good case to be made for that. People instinctively feel paying for property and services is justified, but not for information and intellectual property is just a way of trying to make people think information is property. If I steal something from you, I must have deprived you of it; copying is not stealing.

dromidas 14y ago
It's really just the entertainment media version of patent trolling... it will eventually be killed or moderated just like patent trolling is. We just have to wait until someone figures out a better system to replace them with.
agravier 14y ago
You are raising good point, as information before the modern age used to be generally free (freedom + beer), and artists earned on performance.
chimi 14y ago
This semantic argument really needs to die. The legality and/or morality of the act is not determined by its label. Stealing or not, it is immoral and illegal to appropriate digital goods for oneself without honoring the financial stipulations set forth by the creator/owner of the property.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  That is your opinion, many disagree. Your morals may not be my morals and many reject any notion of information copying being wrong in any way. You're still trying to call information property that can be owned, apparently not realizing that the very concept is being rejected, information is not property and the concept of ownership simply makes no sense. The very notion of ownership stems from physical scarcity, the concept does not logically transfer to digital information.
  - chimi 14y ago
    This is why this debate is really a religious one. It's your beliefs against mine. You believe digitization relinquishes one's right to future revenue from the creation. I do not. In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers. I don't think that's a better world than the one where creators can expect revenue by selling their digitized creations.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      >In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers. Bullcrap. They'd just have to make their money in ways that do not depend on distribution of non-scarce goods. And they already do. Musicians, for example, are performers. They have a service to sell. That's how many make their bucks. There's models like Kickstarter, where you pay upfront - for the act of creating, not for the eventual distribution (which is costless). Donations or patronage can be a valid source of income, too. Your claim that we need to restrict access to a good that is inherently not scarce (and indeed, not depletable) for artists to make a living at all is a disingenuous lie and flies in the face of reality.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      You're quite simply wrong; content creators have plenty of ways to make money other than distribution. Secondly, the market doesn't owe creators a living and manipulating the market by creating an artificial concept that allows someone to own information is wrong. If the only way a creator can make money is by using law to create artificial scarcity, then whatever he's creating isn't deserving of pay; if it were, the market would value it without the fake scarcity imposed by law. There was a time when creators were paid to create, rather than for content distribution, we need to return to those times. You are simply defending the status quote without understanding the critique against it.

koglerjs 14y ago

>I guess I just come at this from a different angle. I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself. I never felt that an organization had the right to prevent me from accessing a piece of our culture because they have a piece of paper. Copyright as it exists today transfers ownership of culture from artists to corporation; subsequent bartering of ownership means that the price _you_ want to pay goes nowhere near those what made it. It is a travesty that Apple was _bragging_ that the Beatles music was in the iTunes store, as if that was some accomplishment of openness instead of lawyerly bickering. Which is all to say: it isn't the paying for it that makes people oppose copyright. It's who we'd have to pay.

chimi 14y ago
It's a travesty that consumers still think producers must relinquish all rights to income post-digitization. You don't have a "right" to culture. If it weren't for the risk and expense of marketing the corporations invest in the success of the music, you probably wouldn't have ever heard of the music to download it. I am glad the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the producers over the privileged consumer class. We need more creativity and production. Production should be rewarded.
gavinlynch 14y ago
>> "I never felt that an organization had the right to prevent me from accessing a piece of our culture because they have a piece of paper." All paintings, music, theater, opera, digital photographs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera: So this is all free then? Sounds good to me. I mean, if you're telling me I'm entitled to all of this, I guess that's pretty cool. Not sure my friends who went to film school will like not having jobs, but if that's what the world owes me... too bad for them. >> "Which is all to say: it isn't the paying for it that makes people oppose copyright. It's who we'd have to pay." You don't like music executives. I don't like banks. But if I want to buy a house I'm going to have to go through one in all likelihood. Because I hate bankers, that does not entitle me to a free house. And what do you do professionally? What if a large part of the country decided they don't like your industry, and that you shouldn't be paid for any of your services or goods?

icebraining 14y ago

I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself. That's not the question. The question is whether you're entitled to prohibit people from sharing media with each other. If you don't feel entitled to the media, nobody is saying you must get it. You're free to remain media-less.

res0nat0r 14y ago

> Am I missing something here? The current view from the entitled that since it is easy to get for free, then there isn't any reason why it shouldn't legally be free otherwise. No amount of grand vision writeups on how information wants to be free will say anything different than this basic point. Everything should be free, except of course whatever the entitled do for work, that obviously should be paid for, because hey that actually affects their income, not someone elses.