5 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  All books and the information contained therein should be free because Xerox allows you to copy them?
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    Without physical scarcity, the concept of ownership makes no sense. You can't own information.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      But you can charge for access to that information, and unfortunately for those who think they should have the right to free access to any information because it is in digital format are going to be on the wrong side of the law for many years to come I believe...
      - gnaritas 14y ago
        > But you can charge for access to that information Only because laws force us to, not because it's the proper market solution to the problem. And it has nothing to do with being digital; if you think it does, you don't understand the complaint. All information should be freely copyable. Whether it's photocopying a book, or burning a copy of a CD, I've deprived no one of anything because there is no natural scarcity of anything that is copyable and thus no justification for ownership claims of pure information. If I see a chair you have that I like, and I build a complete perfect replica of it, I've not taken anything from you, you have no natural claim of damage.
        res0nat0r 14y ago
        Not really. If IP laws in the US went poof tomorrow, then say goodbye to the multimillion dollar tv shows and movies you think you deserve to have access to for free. People won't spend time creating these things anymore because there isn't any monetary incentive to do so. Sure you will retort with yes there will be content, but it will be cheap, crap content and say goodbye to the next Harry Potter, Chris Nolans and World of Warcrafts of the world. Copyright has worked because even due to the ability to easily duplicate content (previously via Xerox), now via the net, content creators see it as a viable way to protect their time spent creating something and to (hopefully) reward their efforts.

by chimi 14y ago

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.
res0nat0r 14y ago
All books and the information contained therein should be free because Xerox allows you to copy them?
- gnaritas 14y ago
  Without physical scarcity, the concept of ownership makes no sense. You can't own information.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    But you can charge for access to that information, and unfortunately for those who think they should have the right to free access to any information because it is in digital format are going to be on the wrong side of the law for many years to come I believe...
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      > But you can charge for access to that information Only because laws force us to, not because it's the proper market solution to the problem. And it has nothing to do with being digital; if you think it does, you don't understand the complaint. All information should be freely copyable. Whether it's photocopying a book, or burning a copy of a CD, I've deprived no one of anything because there is no natural scarcity of anything that is copyable and thus no justification for ownership claims of pure information. If I see a chair you have that I like, and I build a complete perfect replica of it, I've not taken anything from you, you have no natural claim of damage.
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        Not really. If IP laws in the US went poof tomorrow, then say goodbye to the multimillion dollar tv shows and movies you think you deserve to have access to for free. People won't spend time creating these things anymore because there isn't any monetary incentive to do so. Sure you will retort with yes there will be content, but it will be cheap, crap content and say goodbye to the next Harry Potter, Chris Nolans and World of Warcrafts of the world. Copyright has worked because even due to the ability to easily duplicate content (previously via Xerox), now via the net, content creators see it as a viable way to protect their time spent creating something and to (hopefully) reward their efforts.