4 ms·

I completely agree. It appalls me to see, day after day, comments on reddit boasting about how the poster continues to steal media to spite these various organi

I completely agree. It appalls me to see, day after day, comments on reddit boasting about how the poster continues to steal media to spite these various organizations. Isn't it obvious that when you steal a piece of media, you're stealing from its creator, i.e. the good guy?

rms 18y ago
>Isn't it obvious that when you steal a piece of media, you're stealing from its creator? It's a lot more complicated than that. And steal is the wrong word. You mean when you violate someone's copyright.
- jobeirne 18y ago
  Seems to me that copyright violation is tantamount to stealing. How does the situation being more "complicated" nullify the fact that when you steal (or violate copyright, whatever) something that was crafted for profit (else the creator would've released it for free) you're doing a complete disservice to the author?
  - rms 18y ago
    I believe that it is completely ridiculous to have this artificial construct of scarcity to try and increase the marginal cost for something that inherently has no scarcity: the marginal cost for a digital download is zero. Obviously if you replace paying the artist money for music with an illegal download you are doing a disservice to the author and the author's distribution company. If you weren't going to pay the author anything though, you can only benefit him, assuming you like the author's work enough to tell friends and/or attend live performances. Sure, it's better for the artist to get paid, but there is a distinction between doing a disservice and being morally wrong and the use of the word steal is an attempt to equate copyright violation with being morally wrong. In the end, illegal downloads are inevitable. It's impossible to entirely stop; all you can do is try and make the legal downloads as convenient and practical as possible (like Amazon's service). This is already changing the business model for artists. Live shows and packaging and merchandise become more important than ever. There's an analogous situation with software: desktop software is easily crackable but SaaS is often impossible to copyright violate. Most of the developers here are doing SaaS and they will indeed get paid for their work.
- blasdel 18y ago
  'violate' is still not the preferred nomenclature, it's a civil manner not a criminal one. You infringe upon someone's copyright, criminal piracy laws are what you can 'violate'.
  - rms 18y ago
    Thank you. You should edit your profile though, disparaging this community doesn't make you look very good.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    'violate' is still not the preferred nomenclature IP lawyer Robert Platt Bell uses it: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/09/copyright-primer.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/09/copyright-primer... Since most acts of infringement by Photocopier are de minimis and difficult to trace, we all have become comfortable making copies without thinking about whether our actions comprise a Copyright violation. By posting these tracts on the web, the dissenter effectively made an infinite number of copies of the tracts, thus creating an egregious Copyright violation. Similarly, uploading Copyrighted music to a website for redistribution, or operating a website where Copyrighted music is freely distributed (without permission) is an egregious violation of Copyright laws. the idea of distributing music for free (as in the original Napster model) just wouldn't work; and is a clear violation of Copyright law.

rms 18y ago

>Isn't it obvious that when you steal a piece of media, you're stealing from its creator? It's a lot more complicated than that. And steal is the wrong word. You mean when you violate someone's copyright.

jobeirne 18y ago
Seems to me that copyright violation is tantamount to stealing. How does the situation being more "complicated" nullify the fact that when you steal (or violate copyright, whatever) something that was crafted for profit (else the creator would've released it for free) you're doing a complete disservice to the author?
- rms 18y ago
  I believe that it is completely ridiculous to have this artificial construct of scarcity to try and increase the marginal cost for something that inherently has no scarcity: the marginal cost for a digital download is zero. Obviously if you replace paying the artist money for music with an illegal download you are doing a disservice to the author and the author's distribution company. If you weren't going to pay the author anything though, you can only benefit him, assuming you like the author's work enough to tell friends and/or attend live performances. Sure, it's better for the artist to get paid, but there is a distinction between doing a disservice and being morally wrong and the use of the word steal is an attempt to equate copyright violation with being morally wrong. In the end, illegal downloads are inevitable. It's impossible to entirely stop; all you can do is try and make the legal downloads as convenient and practical as possible (like Amazon's service). This is already changing the business model for artists. Live shows and packaging and merchandise become more important than ever. There's an analogous situation with software: desktop software is easily crackable but SaaS is often impossible to copyright violate. Most of the developers here are doing SaaS and they will indeed get paid for their work.
blasdel 18y ago
'violate' is still not the preferred nomenclature, it's a civil manner not a criminal one. You infringe upon someone's copyright, criminal piracy laws are what you can 'violate'.
- rms 18y ago
  Thank you. You should edit your profile though, disparaging this community doesn't make you look very good.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  'violate' is still not the preferred nomenclature IP lawyer Robert Platt Bell uses it: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/09/copyright-primer.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2008/09/copyright-primer... Since most acts of infringement by Photocopier are de minimis and difficult to trace, we all have become comfortable making copies without thinking about whether our actions comprise a Copyright violation. By posting these tracts on the web, the dissenter effectively made an infinite number of copies of the tracts, thus creating an egregious Copyright violation. Similarly, uploading Copyrighted music to a website for redistribution, or operating a website where Copyrighted music is freely distributed (without permission) is an egregious violation of Copyright laws. the idea of distributing music for free (as in the original Napster model) just wouldn't work; and is a clear violation of Copyright law.