3 ms·

Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime. No matter what you call it, the artists are not getting paid for their co

Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime. No matter what you call it, the artists are not getting paid for their content when they have the right to require payment. That is not right, no matter how you slice it. I'm tired of people saying "but look how evil the artists/labels/companies are!" I don't care, it's no excuse. You're correct that they're shady, but just because you're correct doesn't make your actions right.

Wilduck 14y ago
> You're correct that they're shady, but just because you're correct doesn't make your actions right. You're correct that there are laws against sharing, but that doesn't make those laws right. > Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime. I guess your point is that things are illegal for a reason? There is certainly some truth to that. However, trying to enforce old ideas of copyright when digital distribution has created fundamental changes in how media is consumed seems shortsighted to me. Perhaps you'd be less disheartened if you recognized how many people, both artists and consumers, are successfully navigating digital distribution without resorting to draconian copyright and drm.
belorn 14y ago
If you are talking about morality, I would stay away from those that want to deny peoples access to general useful information. To quote professor Eben Moglen: The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  So a movie is information now? A song is information? Even the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t How about your name, address, ssn, CC number, and bank account information. Information wants to be free, right?

Wilduck 14y ago

> You're correct that they're shady, but just because you're correct doesn't make your actions right. You're correct that there are laws against sharing, but that doesn't make those laws right. > Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime. I guess your point is that things are illegal for a reason? There is certainly some truth to that. However, trying to enforce old ideas of copyright when digital distribution has created fundamental changes in how media is consumed seems shortsighted to me. Perhaps you'd be less disheartened if you recognized how many people, both artists and consumers, are successfully navigating digital distribution without resorting to draconian copyright and drm.

belorn 14y ago

If you are talking about morality, I would stay away from those that want to deny peoples access to general useful information. To quote professor Eben Moglen: The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?

paulhauggis 14y ago
So a movie is information now? A song is information? Even the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t How about your name, address, ssn, CC number, and bank account information. Information wants to be free, right?