5 ms·

I don't agree that he should be in jail, but the "restricted patterns of 1s and 0s" bit is like saying that murdering someone with a gun is just facilitating th

by ntumlin 14y ago

I don't agree that he should be in jail, but the "restricted patterns of 1s and 0s" bit is like saying that murdering someone with a gun is just facilitating the journey of a piece of refined earth that just happens to go through some watery carbon mass.

shard972 14y ago
That analogy is stupid, When you "pirate" something all you are doing is sharing files, nobody looses anything tangible when this happens and nobody is harmed. When you kill someone you take away their life. Can you see the difference?
- alexqgb 14y ago
  The analogy highlights the rhetorical technique of abstracting something to such a degree that opposition seems unreasonable. It's like saying "I was arrested just for being myself!" when in fact you were arrested for flashing people on the bus. As an approach, this kind of extreme reframing is both abusive and dishonest. When @ntumlin says "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" he completely disregards the intangible but very valuable order existing within them. Smash a glass to smithereens, but keep every one, and you still have "a bunch of atoms". Their arrangement, however, is very different - and far less valuable. Focusing only on the atoms to evade responsibility for the value lost in smashing the glass suggests you don't recognize the value of the unbroken glass, which is nonsense. Of course you recognize the value, which is why framing the situation to suggest otherwise is dishonest. And expecting others to go along with an obvious charade is abusive. Beyond your dishonesty, @ntumlin, there's also real harm in your actions (assuming they reflect your thinking). The thing you have failed to acknowledge is that that, when you make a copy, you create an obligation to pay the holder of the copyright a specific amount of money. In other words, when you make a copy a portion of your money stopped being yours and became the author's. He now has a claim (albeit a small one) on your wealth. In the event of a failure to pay, the thing stolen is not the file itself, it's the money. THAT'S what you're stealing. Not the music, the money. "Ok" you say "but I deleted the file". That's irrelevant. You're legal obligation isn't connected to having the file, it's connected to making it. Obviously, there are fair use laws that specify a range of situations in which making a copy doesn't trigger a corresponding obligation to pay. But if you're operating outside those parameters, then you're on the hook. There's no scarcity of files. But there's a real scarcity of people with the time, talent, and resources to make really worthwhile content. And it's the arrangements - not the bits - is what constitutes our culture. At present, there's no reasonable way to enforce people's obligations to share the cost of what they otherwise "share" freely. That's where you find the deprivation - in the money that is no longer changing hands. And, if you think that a person who goes bankrupt because they can no longer charge for their work isn't harmed, you need a new definition of "harm". One more thing: saying - as you do - that "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" to a person who may have sweated blood and tears for years to produce the arrangement that actually attracted your attention is just awful. It's an attitude that reflects something deeply rotten about you as a human being. Just understand this: culture thrives in spite of people like you, not because of them. In addition to the money you owe directly to artists, you own a debt of gratitude to those who did get them paid when you refused to do the same.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    When you make an unauthorized copy a portion of your money stopped being yours and became the author's. He now has a claim (albeit a small one) on your wealth. How much do I owe you? That's where you find the deprivation - in the money that is no longer changing hands. And if you think that a person who goes bankrupt because they can no longer charge for their work isn't harmed, you need a new definition of "harm". How does that not apply to second hand sales? Have I robbed RHCP when I sold my album on Ebay? After all, and unlike in P2P, the buyer was demonstrably willing to fork money for it, and so it's more likely that (s)he would have bought a new CD if I hadn't sold him/her mine.
    - fossuser 14y ago
      There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. I do think that filesharing should be legal, but the arguments you're making are losing ones. I think the real reason behind it relates to the purpose of copyright: http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 Apologies about linking to my own blog - but I wrote it up there so I don't have to rewrite it everywhere.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. For physical things, sure, but for digital goods, that's not so clear. A P2P network that automatically lent (copy+delete local) files would require only a very small number of bought copies, if the client could request a copy, play it and then release it immediately.
        TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        What moral right do creators have that they feel they can restrict music/movie/book/artwork as if the world still follows pure scarcity economics? I also acknowledge that creators should be justly compensated for their works that I intend to use.
klaut 14y ago
are you joking, right? You are actually comparing murder to sharing content online?

by ntumlin 14y ago

shard972 14y ago

That analogy is stupid, When you "pirate" something all you are doing is sharing files, nobody looses anything tangible when this happens and nobody is harmed. When you kill someone you take away their life. Can you see the difference?

alexqgb 14y ago
The analogy highlights the rhetorical technique of abstracting something to such a degree that opposition seems unreasonable. It's like saying "I was arrested just for being myself!" when in fact you were arrested for flashing people on the bus. As an approach, this kind of extreme reframing is both abusive and dishonest. When @ntumlin says "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" he completely disregards the intangible but very valuable order existing within them. Smash a glass to smithereens, but keep every one, and you still have "a bunch of atoms". Their arrangement, however, is very different - and far less valuable. Focusing only on the atoms to evade responsibility for the value lost in smashing the glass suggests you don't recognize the value of the unbroken glass, which is nonsense. Of course you recognize the value, which is why framing the situation to suggest otherwise is dishonest. And expecting others to go along with an obvious charade is abusive. Beyond your dishonesty, @ntumlin, there's also real harm in your actions (assuming they reflect your thinking). The thing you have failed to acknowledge is that that, when you make a copy, you create an obligation to pay the holder of the copyright a specific amount of money. In other words, when you make a copy a portion of your money stopped being yours and became the author's. He now has a claim (albeit a small one) on your wealth. In the event of a failure to pay, the thing stolen is not the file itself, it's the money. THAT'S what you're stealing. Not the music, the money. "Ok" you say "but I deleted the file". That's irrelevant. You're legal obligation isn't connected to having the file, it's connected to making it. Obviously, there are fair use laws that specify a range of situations in which making a copy doesn't trigger a corresponding obligation to pay. But if you're operating outside those parameters, then you're on the hook. There's no scarcity of files. But there's a real scarcity of people with the time, talent, and resources to make really worthwhile content. And it's the arrangements - not the bits - is what constitutes our culture. At present, there's no reasonable way to enforce people's obligations to share the cost of what they otherwise "share" freely. That's where you find the deprivation - in the money that is no longer changing hands. And, if you think that a person who goes bankrupt because they can no longer charge for their work isn't harmed, you need a new definition of "harm". One more thing: saying - as you do - that "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" to a person who may have sweated blood and tears for years to produce the arrangement that actually attracted your attention is just awful. It's an attitude that reflects something deeply rotten about you as a human being. Just understand this: culture thrives in spite of people like you, not because of them. In addition to the money you owe directly to artists, you own a debt of gratitude to those who did get them paid when you refused to do the same.
- icebraining 14y ago
  When you make an unauthorized copy a portion of your money stopped being yours and became the author's. He now has a claim (albeit a small one) on your wealth. How much do I owe you? That's where you find the deprivation - in the money that is no longer changing hands. And if you think that a person who goes bankrupt because they can no longer charge for their work isn't harmed, you need a new definition of "harm". How does that not apply to second hand sales? Have I robbed RHCP when I sold my album on Ebay? After all, and unlike in P2P, the buyer was demonstrably willing to fork money for it, and so it's more likely that (s)he would have bought a new CD if I hadn't sold him/her mine.
  - fossuser 14y ago
    There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. I do think that filesharing should be legal, but the arguments you're making are losing ones. I think the real reason behind it relates to the purpose of copyright: http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 http://zacharyalberico.com/day/2012/01/24 Apologies about linking to my own blog - but I wrote it up there so I don't have to rewrite it everywhere.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      There's obviously a difference between the indefinite ability to copy content and reselling a single used good. For physical things, sure, but for digital goods, that's not so clear. A P2P network that automatically lent (copy+delete local) files would require only a very small number of bought copies, if the client could request a copy, play it and then release it immediately.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        What moral right do creators have that they feel they can restrict music/movie/book/artwork as if the world still follows pure scarcity economics? I also acknowledge that creators should be justly compensated for their works that I intend to use.

klaut 14y ago

are you joking, right? You are actually comparing murder to sharing content online?