4 ms·

However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged

by soup10 14y ago

However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.

corin_ 14y ago
Roughly speaking I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? If I download a movie illegally right now then chances are Google and Firefox are immediately benefiting from it, and then even further away are Microsoft (OS), hardware manufacturers, etc. who profited off enabling me to do this. Is the line about intent rather than technicality? For example how driving a bus that a drug dealer is on is not illegal, but driving the getaway car from a robbery is? If it is, then how does one prove that Dotcom wants to support copyright violation, rather than his official stance of just believing that there is a level past which he can not be expected to police his customers?
jlgreco 14y ago
What, in the same way that manufacturing syringes that will be used to mainline illegal narcotics should not be "encouraged or tolerated"?
- soup10 14y ago
  It takes some twisted logic to think thats a valid analogy. Dropbox is a perfectly valid filehosting service because they take reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement. Megaupload(and mega) is not, because it's run by a person who has no real interest in preventing copyright infringement, and has shown that he's more than willing to profit off it, while he pretends that he doesn't know it's occurring or can't prevent it.
  - danenania 14y ago
    Define 'reasonable measures'. People use Dropbox to share copyrighted material all the time. Ditto S3, gmail, external hard drives, and any file storage method in existence. Enforcement of the standard you're promoting would require pervasive surveillance of every data storage and transfer method in the world, and backdoor access for all forms of encryption. Freedom of information and communication is orders of magnitude more important for a healthy and free society than copyright of digital goods, and you can't have both--they are fundamentally incompatible.
    - soup10 14y ago
      Arguing against piracy on the internet is a giant waste of my time because if you have it in your head that piracy is "good" or "ok" then you will rationalize bad arguments all day defending an incorrect position. To address your latest spurious post, dropbox, gmail, etc. Facilitate file sharing on a small scale. Public links to megaupload listed on public aggregating websites that list the latest 'releases' are an entirely different matter. You obviously know that but are willfully blind to it to make stupid arguments.
      - batgaijin 14y ago
        No, you are taking a childish view of the defenders of piracy. Let's say you are right. Explain to me how you would justify the pricing scheme we have for digital media to the average person on this planet, who most likely is Indian/Chinese/Nigerian and makes less that $5 a day. How much should we charge this individual? Do you think they have the same right as westerners to challenging themselves and experiencing other cultures? No, you assume that piracy is only white people that don't have a large allowance, which is a childish view perpetuated by the media. Most people don't have a computer, and if they are lucky enough to get one they should be able to have access to a large variety of the same digital goods. tl;dr show some goddamn empathy.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Arguing against piracy on the internet is a giant waste of my time because if you have it in your head that piracy is "good" or "ok" then you will rationalize bad arguments all day defending an incorrect position. Don't you have it in your head that danenania's position is incorrect and it's therefore a waste of time to argue the subject with you? It certainly seems so, specially since danenania isn't actually arguing for piracy, just that (s)he considers the steps of eliminating piracy to go against more important values. As an analogy, the fact that I defend almost absolute free speech doesn't mean I'm in favor of all speech, it just means that eliminating said speech is worse than allowing it to exist freely.
      - dmak 14y ago
        First of all, MegaUpload did take preventative measures, at least that is what they argue. It's clear you don't understand how dangerous it is to take down the provider for a users actions.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Twisted logic? Many organizations distribute syringes explicitly for heroin.
    - yoyizzle 14y ago
      Next you're going to be telling me they make pipes for smoking marijuana. Call me when you start making sense.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jopt 14y ago
> However you feel about copyright Hm. This makes it sound like your point stands regardless of personal ethics; as though > profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated is a provable, obvious, non-debatable stance. I don't think it is. I don't think profiting off it changes the basic ethics; if something is morally okay to do as a hobby, it should generally be morally okay to do as a business until proven otherwise. I wouldn't agree you always need the permission of someone upstream to share ideas or content. That's something we can discuss. Don't make it sound like you have the answer sheet in front of you.
officemonkey 14y ago
Congratulations, you've just made criminals of Google. Because clearly they profit off the distribution of other peoples work without their permission every day.
- peawormsworth 14y ago
  Gmail shows me ads related to the content of my email. Worse, it shows ads related to the content of emails sent by my friends and family.Some of which have no relationship or agreement with Google. Google does this to maximize advertising revenue. Google is profiting off the original works of my friends and family without their permission and provides them absolutely nothing in return. Now you may complain about the moral and ethical practice of distribution rights. But sharing with people you know is not distribution. Most countries have different laws for sharing then distribution. In my country it is naturally legal to share music and other recorded content. Your country may convince you that this immoral, but in the natural sense, sharing is never immoral. In fact it is compassion.
peawormsworth 14y ago
No artist is ever paid when Vevo displays an artists music video on Vevo. Yet, google pays artists who post their own work. That means Gangnam Style has probably make over a million dollars from advertising on Youtube. So who is stealing more? The distributors or Google. The answer is: they are all stealing. The largest portion always goes to the content manager. Pulling distribution from the hands of companies and putting it back into the artist control will see a much fairer distribution of wealth. Thus the conflict and artificial moral discussions we see pushed from media about this. Sharing is a moral act.
taproot 14y ago
> However you feel about copyright What do you have to say to those of us who disagree completely and fully with the entire concept of intelectual property? With the way I feel about copyright, I believe distribution of other peoples work, with permission or otherwise is something that should be actively encouraged and praised. Whether they profit off of it or not is completely irrelevant.

by soup10 14y ago

However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.

corin_ 14y ago

Roughly speaking I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? If I download a movie illegally right now then chances are Google and Firefox are immediately benefiting from it, and then even further away are Microsoft (OS), hardware manufacturers, etc. who profited off enabling me to do this. Is the line about intent rather than technicality? For example how driving a bus that a drug dealer is on is not illegal, but driving the getaway car from a robbery is? If it is, then how does one prove that Dotcom wants to support copyright violation, rather than his official stance of just believing that there is a level past which he can not be expected to police his customers?

jlgreco 14y ago

What, in the same way that manufacturing syringes that will be used to mainline illegal narcotics should not be "encouraged or tolerated"?

soup10 14y ago
It takes some twisted logic to think thats a valid analogy. Dropbox is a perfectly valid filehosting service because they take reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement. Megaupload(and mega) is not, because it's run by a person who has no real interest in preventing copyright infringement, and has shown that he's more than willing to profit off it, while he pretends that he doesn't know it's occurring or can't prevent it.
- danenania 14y ago
  Define 'reasonable measures'. People use Dropbox to share copyrighted material all the time. Ditto S3, gmail, external hard drives, and any file storage method in existence. Enforcement of the standard you're promoting would require pervasive surveillance of every data storage and transfer method in the world, and backdoor access for all forms of encryption. Freedom of information and communication is orders of magnitude more important for a healthy and free society than copyright of digital goods, and you can't have both--they are fundamentally incompatible.
  - soup10 14y ago
    Arguing against piracy on the internet is a giant waste of my time because if you have it in your head that piracy is "good" or "ok" then you will rationalize bad arguments all day defending an incorrect position. To address your latest spurious post, dropbox, gmail, etc. Facilitate file sharing on a small scale. Public links to megaupload listed on public aggregating websites that list the latest 'releases' are an entirely different matter. You obviously know that but are willfully blind to it to make stupid arguments.
    - batgaijin 14y ago
      No, you are taking a childish view of the defenders of piracy. Let's say you are right. Explain to me how you would justify the pricing scheme we have for digital media to the average person on this planet, who most likely is Indian/Chinese/Nigerian and makes less that $5 a day. How much should we charge this individual? Do you think they have the same right as westerners to challenging themselves and experiencing other cultures? No, you assume that piracy is only white people that don't have a large allowance, which is a childish view perpetuated by the media. Most people don't have a computer, and if they are lucky enough to get one they should be able to have access to a large variety of the same digital goods. tl;dr show some goddamn empathy.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Arguing against piracy on the internet is a giant waste of my time because if you have it in your head that piracy is "good" or "ok" then you will rationalize bad arguments all day defending an incorrect position. Don't you have it in your head that danenania's position is incorrect and it's therefore a waste of time to argue the subject with you? It certainly seems so, specially since danenania isn't actually arguing for piracy, just that (s)he considers the steps of eliminating piracy to go against more important values. As an analogy, the fact that I defend almost absolute free speech doesn't mean I'm in favor of all speech, it just means that eliminating said speech is worse than allowing it to exist freely.
    - dmak 14y ago
      First of all, MegaUpload did take preventative measures, at least that is what they argue. It's clear you don't understand how dangerous it is to take down the provider for a users actions.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Twisted logic? Many organizations distribute syringes explicitly for heroin.
  - yoyizzle 14y ago
    Next you're going to be telling me they make pipes for smoking marijuana. Call me when you start making sense.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jopt 14y ago

> However you feel about copyright Hm. This makes it sound like your point stands regardless of personal ethics; as though > profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated is a provable, obvious, non-debatable stance. I don't think it is. I don't think profiting off it changes the basic ethics; if something is morally okay to do as a hobby, it should generally be morally okay to do as a business until proven otherwise. I wouldn't agree you always need the permission of someone upstream to share ideas or content. That's something we can discuss. Don't make it sound like you have the answer sheet in front of you.

officemonkey 14y ago

Congratulations, you've just made criminals of Google. Because clearly they profit off the distribution of other peoples work without their permission every day.

peawormsworth 14y ago
Gmail shows me ads related to the content of my email. Worse, it shows ads related to the content of emails sent by my friends and family.Some of which have no relationship or agreement with Google. Google does this to maximize advertising revenue. Google is profiting off the original works of my friends and family without their permission and provides them absolutely nothing in return. Now you may complain about the moral and ethical practice of distribution rights. But sharing with people you know is not distribution. Most countries have different laws for sharing then distribution. In my country it is naturally legal to share music and other recorded content. Your country may convince you that this immoral, but in the natural sense, sharing is never immoral. In fact it is compassion.

peawormsworth 14y ago

No artist is ever paid when Vevo displays an artists music video on Vevo. Yet, google pays artists who post their own work. That means Gangnam Style has probably make over a million dollars from advertising on Youtube. So who is stealing more? The distributors or Google. The answer is: they are all stealing. The largest portion always goes to the content manager. Pulling distribution from the hands of companies and putting it back into the artist control will see a much fairer distribution of wealth. Thus the conflict and artificial moral discussions we see pushed from media about this. Sharing is a moral act.

taproot 14y ago

> However you feel about copyright What do you have to say to those of us who disagree completely and fully with the entire concept of intelectual property? With the way I feel about copyright, I believe distribution of other peoples work, with permission or otherwise is something that should be actively encouraged and praised. Whether they profit off of it or not is completely irrelevant.