3 ms·

"Copying doesn't take someone's work from them, he or she still has access to it." Understood, but as I guess I didn't state myself very well, I personally cho

by bmelton 13y ago

"Copying doesn't take someone's work from them, he or she still has access to it." Understood, but as I guess I didn't state myself very well, I personally choose that it's theirs to control distribution of as well, so much as they're able. I always think of it in a 'tragedy of the commons' sense -- what if everybody did it? What would happen then? And in the case of many of my favorite artists, if everybody pirated their work, they'd be insolvent, and likely stop making my favorite songs. In similar comparison, what if I stood on your yard? You still have your yard. I haven't taken anything from you at all. I'm just in your yard. What if I invite 200 people to stand in your yard. What if we stand in your house? Anyway, like I said, it's complicated, and I don't begrudge anyone for where they fall on the particular spectrum, because I by no means have what I consider 'ironclad' arguments that aren't informed by my own bias. That said, I choose to err on the side of respect for copyright.

bvk 13y ago
The yard analogy doesn't work. You can't stand in a certain place in your yard when someone else is standing there. They are denying you the use of your property, however temporarily. The same goes for people standing in your house (which brings up privacy problems that are orthogonal to intellectual property). There are also maintenance costs - your yard might be ruined by hundreds of people walking over it, and you'd have to pay for its upkeep. Those are both good reasons for protecting physical private property that don't apply to ideas.
- bmelton 13y ago
  No, I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. You're right that the yard analogy doesn't work -- but that's the problem, there's no analogy that does, not completely. I agree that it was poorly thought, but it was late, and as I hadn't heard the yard analogy before, my sleep-deprived brain thought it was somewhat novel. In retrospect, I agree that it wasn't. I simply choose to respect the creator's wishes. If they hadn't created it, I wouldn't have been able to get enjoyment out of it, and to me, that's worth something. Yes, I appreciate that copying something isn't necessarily theft, but it does violate their wishes, and that seems a poor way to repay someone for creating something I like so much that I would consider taking it.

by bmelton 13y ago

bvk 13y ago

The yard analogy doesn't work. You can't stand in a certain place in your yard when someone else is standing there. They are denying you the use of your property, however temporarily. The same goes for people standing in your house (which brings up privacy problems that are orthogonal to intellectual property). There are also maintenance costs - your yard might be ruined by hundreds of people walking over it, and you'd have to pay for its upkeep. Those are both good reasons for protecting physical private property that don't apply to ideas.

bmelton 13y ago
No, I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it. You're right that the yard analogy doesn't work -- but that's the problem, there's no analogy that does, not completely. I agree that it was poorly thought, but it was late, and as I hadn't heard the yard analogy before, my sleep-deprived brain thought it was somewhat novel. In retrospect, I agree that it wasn't. I simply choose to respect the creator's wishes. If they hadn't created it, I wouldn't have been able to get enjoyment out of it, and to me, that's worth something. Yes, I appreciate that copying something isn't necessarily theft, but it does violate their wishes, and that seems a poor way to repay someone for creating something I like so much that I would consider taking it.