2 ms·

> Your question is a loaded question It is not. Abolishing copyright completely, as the parent seems to desire, implies free access to songs, books, movies. >

by tgv 4mo ago

> Your question is a loaded question It is not. Abolishing copyright completely, as the parent seems to desire, implies free access to songs, books, movies. > a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership If you pose it this way: can't creators decide who gets access to their creations? Is it not inherently theirs? What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread? > there is no damage ... So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway?

RiverCrochet 4mo ago
> can't creators decide who gets access to their creations? If it's on their physical property. > Is it not inherently theirs? No. For example, a creator of a song does not own my hard drive. > What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread? Operating system calls used in copying data locally and sending/receiving network data locally/remotely fail on pieces of bread, but don't on a series of bits that when given to an .mp3 player make sound. > So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway? Saying somethng is stealing X is a false premise if the owner is not deprived of X. Saying X is depriving Y of future profits is false unless you know for a fact that X was going buy anything from Y.