4 ms·

I don't see why it's any business of the government to restrict what people share with each other. I support copyright in what I see as its primary role of poli

by sho 18y ago

I don't see why it's any business of the government to restrict what people share with each other. I support copyright in what I see as its primary role of policing "passing-off" type activity - ie, trying to sell something you have no right to sell - but restricting private citizen A sending $whatever to private citizen B? No way. And TPB facilitates the latter, not the former. "It's a pity that everyone calls this 'file sharing' (which sounds so innocent)" People call it "file sharing" because it's about, get this, sharing files. What those files are is basically beside the point. I do not have a contract with the RIAA or MPAA to refrain from storing or transmitting data which may be derived from their works; if they can't make money in a world where people can exchange information freely, well, sucks to be them. It's all moot anyway really. File sharing is a fait accompli. All these court actions are doing is speeding the development of the next generation, and then the war will truly be lost.

jgrahamc 18y ago
"I support copyright in what I see as its primary role of policing "passing-off" type activity - ie, trying to sell something you have no right to sell - but restricting private citizen A sending $whatever to private citizen B? No way. And TPB facilitates the latter, not the former." So if you wrote a piece of software you wouldn't have a problem with me taking that piece of software and not paying you for it. Right? Your only concern would be if someone started trying to sell your software and make money from it. Right? In both cases someone enjoyed the fruits of your labor without compensating you for it.
- makecheck 18y ago
  Software companies have been taking exactly the same approach as music labels, with similar results. I write software, and no, I don't care if anyone ever pays for it "properly". Software is buggy enough already without having protection mechanisms in place that could also have bugs (and they do; I have been burned before, with programs refusing to run that were convinced my original disk was somehow not valid).
- sho 18y ago
  "In both cases someone enjoyed the fruits of your labor without compensating you for it." What labour? I didn't expend any labour at all making a copy of that program. Why should I be compensated? Why should I even know? Your thesis relies upon an arbitrary, and I would say quite baseless, link between a piece of information of whatever form and some kind of implied reward for its originator. But this system breaks down completely when copies can be made at almost zero cost. The labour and hence reward does not and should not multiply automatically in proportion to the number of copies in existence. How could it? As an example of how arbitrary and harmful your belief system is, take, say, mathematical theorems. As you know, we have many mathematicians around the world. They work, very hard, on extending mathematical knowledge. And yet, unlike a movie or a song, a mathematical theorem is not copy-protectable. You use any number of those theorems every day, if not directly then in the products in your life. No mathematicians are being compensated for your use of their labours. No-one suggests that unless mathematics are copy protected (life plus 75), that people will stop doing maths. Why isn't that protected too? Especially considering mathematics is rather more important for our society than a few movies? Information in and of itself has no "reward" value, zip, zero. It may, of course, have immense "use to society" value - hence the importance of its sharing, as wide as possible and as easily as possible. More along the "examine your beliefs" theme: why is there such a discrepancy between patents and copyrights? I happen to believe in patents, if done properly. They encourage innovation in manufacturing and technology. They are of immense importance. And yet patents are generally 20 years. Why so short? To encourage innovation, of course. Why are copyrights so long? To encourage innovation, of course. Do you detect any cognitive dissonance in the two above statements? Right, I'll stop before I go any further off along this tangent : )

by sho 18y ago

jgrahamc 18y ago

"I support copyright in what I see as its primary role of policing "passing-off" type activity - ie, trying to sell something you have no right to sell - but restricting private citizen A sending $whatever to private citizen B? No way. And TPB facilitates the latter, not the former." So if you wrote a piece of software you wouldn't have a problem with me taking that piece of software and not paying you for it. Right? Your only concern would be if someone started trying to sell your software and make money from it. Right? In both cases someone enjoyed the fruits of your labor without compensating you for it.

makecheck 18y ago
Software companies have been taking exactly the same approach as music labels, with similar results. I write software, and no, I don't care if anyone ever pays for it "properly". Software is buggy enough already without having protection mechanisms in place that could also have bugs (and they do; I have been burned before, with programs refusing to run that were convinced my original disk was somehow not valid).
sho 18y ago
"In both cases someone enjoyed the fruits of your labor without compensating you for it." What labour? I didn't expend any labour at all making a copy of that program. Why should I be compensated? Why should I even know? Your thesis relies upon an arbitrary, and I would say quite baseless, link between a piece of information of whatever form and some kind of implied reward for its originator. But this system breaks down completely when copies can be made at almost zero cost. The labour and hence reward does not and should not multiply automatically in proportion to the number of copies in existence. How could it? As an example of how arbitrary and harmful your belief system is, take, say, mathematical theorems. As you know, we have many mathematicians around the world. They work, very hard, on extending mathematical knowledge. And yet, unlike a movie or a song, a mathematical theorem is not copy-protectable. You use any number of those theorems every day, if not directly then in the products in your life. No mathematicians are being compensated for your use of their labours. No-one suggests that unless mathematics are copy protected (life plus 75), that people will stop doing maths. Why isn't that protected too? Especially considering mathematics is rather more important for our society than a few movies? Information in and of itself has no "reward" value, zip, zero. It may, of course, have immense "use to society" value - hence the importance of its sharing, as wide as possible and as easily as possible. More along the "examine your beliefs" theme: why is there such a discrepancy between patents and copyrights? I happen to believe in patents, if done properly. They encourage innovation in manufacturing and technology. They are of immense importance. And yet patents are generally 20 years. Why so short? To encourage innovation, of course. Why are copyrights so long? To encourage innovation, of course. Do you detect any cognitive dissonance in the two above statements? Right, I'll stop before I go any further off along this tangent : )