4 ms·

This old dead horse doesn't need any more beating, but apparently the obvious has to be stated once again: when you copy a digital "good" you don't deprive its

by wazoox 14y ago

This old dead horse doesn't need any more beating, but apparently the obvious has to be stated once again: when you copy a digital "good" you don't deprive its owner from it. Therefore this is NOT stealing in any way. Not even remotely akin to stealing. Let's get it straight a last time (I hope): if you have an apple and I take it, you haven't got it anymore. Digital goods are INFORMATION. When you give me an information YOU STILL F*CKING HAVE IT. By your twisted way of thinking, people reading headlines in papers at the store are burglars, and so are people reading the time on your watch without asking you first. This cannot be the case. This shouldn't be the case. This won't be the case.

madao 14y ago
Your twisting my words now, people pay for headlines with advertising and what not, we are talking about music or perhaps even movies, these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money, not for your enjoyment or for your friends enjoyment, them make it and package it. Then someone comes downs rightfully buys it and enjoys the fruits of others labours. What is not right is to reward artists by telling them that their hard work is just information free to be handed out to everyone, seriously call it what you want, you are stealing from these people. They don’t want you to give it to your friends or random people off the internet, they want you to pay for it. If you really don’t like it, go and create your content and release it under creative commons and stop watching and listening to commercial movies/radio.
- wazoox 14y ago
  > these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money Just to make it clear: I've been a professional musician, a composer an arranger, and I've played with Touré Kunda and recorded with Deep Forest. I've also been a graphic artist and built the official TV CGs effects for World Cup 1998. I pretend to know quite a bit about why people (including myself) create music or art, and I can affirm you that even the worst commercial, tasteless eurodance artist doesn't do it for the money first. They want to perform their art first, then seek a way to get money while doing it. Selling your art can take numerous forms. For musicians, most of the time the better part of their revenue comes from concerts and not recorded music (usually at best they get a few percents of a CD price anyway). > you are stealing from these people. I've only extremely rarely downloaded any media from the net, and only things unavailable by other ways. I'm standing on principles and not looking for excuses. > If you really don’t like it, go and create your content and release it under creative commons and stop watching and listening to commercial movies/radio. Amusingly enough, that's exactly what I'm doing.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money So? Disney produced "John Carter" expressly for money. Microsoft designed the Zune expressly for money. MySpace built their social networking platform expressly for money. Were their rights violated because these products were failures? No one is guaranteed a positive return on their speculative ventures. People aren't entitled to be rewarded solely for effort, and they don't have the right to attempt to re-engineer other people's affairs in order to secure a higher payoff on their activities.
JC001 14y ago
The argument isn't over whether it's a physical token that won't be available for sale. Even without a physical token it's still stealing. If everyone were to just take digital content without paying for it, would this still be ok? If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't receive compensation? And how does this apply to other non-digital marketplaces: If you went to a dentist to have your teeth cleaned, would it be ok to never pay the dentist? After all, the dentist is still able to clean other teeth? If you had your car towed to a mechanic, does the tow truck driver have to be paid?
- madao 14y ago
  I love how I am getting down voted because people don't believe in paying for what is due, personally down vote away, I consider it a compliment.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    You're getting downvoted for willfully conflating two different terms in a game of semantics in order to muddy the waters in support of your argument, you arrogant little shit.
- danenania 14y ago
  "If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't receive compensation?" Why should we restrict freedom of information and create a huge Orwellian enforcement bureaucracy just to make it easier for a small segment of society to make money off digital content? If your business model requires forcibly prohibiting people to share strings of 1s and 0s to be successful, then find a better business model. If you can't, that's your problem. I agree that content creators deserve respect and attribution, but the freedom to share information is much more important as a social principle.
  - JC001 14y ago
    Are we talking about "freedom of information" or are we talking about music, movies, tv shows, software and other content that was created for the sole purpose of economic income? "Information" to me sounds like you're talking about something more fundamental, I'm just not sure what. But sharing copyrighted material should by no means be considered something that is a social principle.

by wazoox 14y ago

madao 14y ago

Your twisting my words now, people pay for headlines with advertising and what not, we are talking about music or perhaps even movies, these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money, not for your enjoyment or for your friends enjoyment, them make it and package it. Then someone comes downs rightfully buys it and enjoys the fruits of others labours. What is not right is to reward artists by telling them that their hard work is just information free to be handed out to everyone, seriously call it what you want, you are stealing from these people. They don’t want you to give it to your friends or random people off the internet, they want you to pay for it. If you really don’t like it, go and create your content and release it under creative commons and stop watching and listening to commercial movies/radio.

wazoox 14y ago
> these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money Just to make it clear: I've been a professional musician, a composer an arranger, and I've played with Touré Kunda and recorded with Deep Forest. I've also been a graphic artist and built the official TV CGs effects for World Cup 1998. I pretend to know quite a bit about why people (including myself) create music or art, and I can affirm you that even the worst commercial, tasteless eurodance artist doesn't do it for the money first. They want to perform their art first, then seek a way to get money while doing it. Selling your art can take numerous forms. For musicians, most of the time the better part of their revenue comes from concerts and not recorded music (usually at best they get a few percents of a CD price anyway). > you are stealing from these people. I've only extremely rarely downloaded any media from the net, and only things unavailable by other ways. I'm standing on principles and not looking for excuses. > If you really don’t like it, go and create your content and release it under creative commons and stop watching and listening to commercial movies/radio. Amusingly enough, that's exactly what I'm doing.
Gormo 14y ago
> these people produce and create these forms of entertainment expressly for money So? Disney produced "John Carter" expressly for money. Microsoft designed the Zune expressly for money. MySpace built their social networking platform expressly for money. Were their rights violated because these products were failures? No one is guaranteed a positive return on their speculative ventures. People aren't entitled to be rewarded solely for effort, and they don't have the right to attempt to re-engineer other people's affairs in order to secure a higher payoff on their activities.

JC001 14y ago

The argument isn't over whether it's a physical token that won't be available for sale. Even without a physical token it's still stealing. If everyone were to just take digital content without paying for it, would this still be ok? If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't receive compensation? And how does this apply to other non-digital marketplaces: If you went to a dentist to have your teeth cleaned, would it be ok to never pay the dentist? After all, the dentist is still able to clean other teeth? If you had your car towed to a mechanic, does the tow truck driver have to be paid?

madao 14y ago
I love how I am getting down voted because people don't believe in paying for what is due, personally down vote away, I consider it a compliment.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  You're getting downvoted for willfully conflating two different terms in a game of semantics in order to muddy the waters in support of your argument, you arrogant little shit.
danenania 14y ago
"If so, why would anyone produce the digital content knowing they won't receive compensation?" Why should we restrict freedom of information and create a huge Orwellian enforcement bureaucracy just to make it easier for a small segment of society to make money off digital content? If your business model requires forcibly prohibiting people to share strings of 1s and 0s to be successful, then find a better business model. If you can't, that's your problem. I agree that content creators deserve respect and attribution, but the freedom to share information is much more important as a social principle.
- JC001 14y ago
  Are we talking about "freedom of information" or are we talking about music, movies, tv shows, software and other content that was created for the sole purpose of economic income? "Information" to me sounds like you're talking about something more fundamental, I'm just not sure what. But sharing copyrighted material should by no means be considered something that is a social principle.