4 ms·

I see no strong moral argument against ripping DVDs (from the library or similar) of content you paid for on Apple or Amazon.

unsupp0rted 1y ago
There's no moral argument against ripping DVDs one way or the other. There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. But there's nothing immoral about copying or watching something you came across. The author isn't injured by it- nobody is. Except, like I said, perhaps society in general.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  > arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. They really, really don't. The tradeoff of offering temporary legal privileges in exchange for a future richer public domain resulted in better stuff for everybody. Those legal privileges have become effectively permanent, so the trade is broken.
- beanjuice 1y ago
  citation?
- Voultapher 1y ago
  > There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. They make rich people richer, we have ample evidence for that. But research ... the majority is funded by governments. But content creation ... the majority of high quality Youtube for example in funded in advance by Patreon and similar solutions.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  >There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. You raise a valid point. When copyright was first envisioned in 1710, the world population was 600M, literacy rates b/w 5-25% (rural/urban). That argument does not stand today - we don't need protections since the number of producers of better stuff will simply compete in the market of ideas. Pearl clutching of ideas isn't a problem.
MangoToupe 1y ago
The main moral argument for intellectual property rights seems to be "because that's how the world already works and we don't want to disrupt that less it be artists or inventors that get the shaft", and yet we don't have strong cases of intellectual property protecting artists or inventors in the first place. Not as a primary effect of IP, anyway.
xtracto 1y ago
In my country it is not illegal to download or share copyright content for non-profit and personal use. It's the IPTVs, torrent and streaming pirate sites with Ads or asking for money the ones that should die (that's why I don't agree with Anna's Archive profiting from sharing copyrighted content). As I said before: it's 2025, we shouldn't need an ad infested "website" to share, discover and download content in a p2p fashion. Kademilla and similar DHT truly decentralized tech has existed for more than 15 years... The problem is that new generations want to profit from everything and have stopped "sharing is caring"

unsupp0rted 1y ago

There's no moral argument against ripping DVDs one way or the other. There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. But there's nothing immoral about copying or watching something you came across. The author isn't injured by it- nobody is. Except, like I said, perhaps society in general.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
> arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. They really, really don't. The tradeoff of offering temporary legal privileges in exchange for a future richer public domain resulted in better stuff for everybody. Those legal privileges have become effectively permanent, so the trade is broken.
beanjuice 1y ago
citation?
Voultapher 1y ago
> There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. They make rich people richer, we have ample evidence for that. But research ... the majority is funded by governments. But content creation ... the majority of high quality Youtube for example in funded in advance by Patreon and similar solutions.
thedevilslawyer 1y ago
>There's a civil/economic argument: arguably copyright/intellectual property make for stronger societies that produce better stuff for everybody. You raise a valid point. When copyright was first envisioned in 1710, the world population was 600M, literacy rates b/w 5-25% (rural/urban). That argument does not stand today - we don't need protections since the number of producers of better stuff will simply compete in the market of ideas. Pearl clutching of ideas isn't a problem.

MangoToupe 1y ago

The main moral argument for intellectual property rights seems to be "because that's how the world already works and we don't want to disrupt that less it be artists or inventors that get the shaft", and yet we don't have strong cases of intellectual property protecting artists or inventors in the first place. Not as a primary effect of IP, anyway.

xtracto 1y ago

In my country it is not illegal to download or share copyright content for non-profit and personal use. It's the IPTVs, torrent and streaming pirate sites with Ads or asking for money the ones that should die (that's why I don't agree with Anna's Archive profiting from sharing copyrighted content). As I said before: it's 2025, we shouldn't need an ad infested "website" to share, discover and download content in a p2p fashion. Kademilla and similar DHT truly decentralized tech has existed for more than 15 years... The problem is that new generations want to profit from everything and have stopped "sharing is caring"