6 ms·

You are NEVER forced to steal things that aren't essential to survival. Starving on the street and steal a loaf a bread, that's one thing. Don't want to partici

by jscheel 13y ago

You are NEVER forced to steal things that aren't essential to survival. Starving on the street and steal a loaf a bread, that's one thing. Don't want to participate in many varied ways of listen to music for free legally and so choosing to steal the next big album you want to hear, not ok, ever.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
psionski 13y ago
You are NEVER forced to steal bread. Don't want to participate in gathering seeds and wild fruits for free legally and choosing to steal bread, not ok, ever. I guess "essential" has many definitions, huh...
- untog 13y ago
  Come on, they're not in any way comparable.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    The UN declaration of human rights includes one sentence talking about the right to food, and many paragraphs talking about the right to participate in culture, community, communicate, and so on. So if we judge by that, the right to participate in culture is more important than the right to food (or more likely, is simply more often challenged and disagreed with). If the whole legal regime around copyright is having the effect of preventing people from participating in their culture/society, those laws are immoral and should be opposed.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Wait, are you implying that the UN has declared that stealing the results of someone's labor is justified because it's a "right"? We might as well declare anarchy and get it over with. I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
      - psionski 13y ago
        It's sad times we live in when creating culture is labeled "labor", "work" and so forth... About the "stealing" part - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jones-musicians-piracy_n_1258319.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-whit... artists are more than happy to let anyone experience their art, it's the producers that have a problem with it. I guess this is what you get when you allow business-minded people to define what being human is all about...
        talmand 13y ago
        Well, I was talking mostly about food. But if I use my culture as a basis for a song that I write and I wish to sell it to make money, then you're dang right I see it as stealing if someone takes it without my permission. If an artist wants to share it openly, then that's excellent. But if the artist wishes to make money from their effort why is it your "right" to demand otherwise? It's not about being business-minded, it's called having rights over your own property.
        Nursie 13y ago
        Because mostly it's not the artists who want to lock it up, and it's not the artists that stand to gain most from locking it up, it's the suits.
        talmand 13y ago
        Ok, how is that any different? An artist who works alone deserves your money but an artist who agrees to work with a third-party does not? Because the third-party might get a piece of the pie dictated by the contract the artist agreed to? That's an extremely weak defense of not paying for content. Are book stores okay? Because I'm sure they make money from the books they sell that they didn't personally write. Well, that's not an exact comparison but I hope you get my point. I have to say, I am astounded at the level of entitlement people seem to have when it comes to consuming content others worked to create. I want it, therefore it should be mine is the mantra of this type of thinking.
    - jscheel 13y ago
      Have you even read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Articles 23 and 25 are not supplanted by Article 27. In fact, Article 30 specifically states that you cannot interpret the UDHR in any way that would allow you to remove rights set forth in previous the articles. And, as surprising as this may sound, the UDHR doesn't specify order of importance based on word count.
- talmand 13y ago
  If those seeds or fruit happen to be on land that someone owns then you are stealing those as well.
Fuxy 13y ago
Ok. I agree forced may be a bit of a strong word since i can always choose not to pirate it. However what about books or scientific papers which are hidden behind pay walls or just incredibly expensive. The price of a good programming book is about £20. But when your monthly income is £300 that is a lot of money. Not to mention you have to pay electricity, gas, etc. and the prices for the utilities are not that much different. So your options are: 1. buy the book and not eat for 2 weeks 2. pirate it 3. don't do anything and let your progress as a programmer be hindered by the lack of knowledge That's what i call being forced. There's no situation where i can say i helped the author with the little i have and progressed in my development as a programmer. If you give in to the system they set up knowledge become the privilege of the wealthy I agree that content creators need to live but the one size fits all approach is really f*ed up. Open it up let people pay as much as they want or set different prices for different regions piracy will fall considerably if you do and for god sake don't limit peoples access to content by regions it's a sure way to increase piracy.
- jscheel 13y ago
  I will agree with you that it's definitely important for products to be priced appropriately for the region they are sold in. And, I understand that access to information can be a huge roadblock, which is why it's important for people to free up information as best as possible. Still, when you consider things like public libraries, free access to internet, etc., you have to question whether or not you have really tried to do it without pirating someone else.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Really? How about turning that around: how is it okay for me to pay more for something, solely because I live in a different country? This is known as the 'Australian Tax' here, and is at the point where for some software products (Microsoft's dev tools, e.g.) it's cheaper to buy a budget flight to the USA, buy them there, then return. Geographical pricing is morally indefensible.
    - jscheel 13y ago
MrScruff 13y ago
To play devils advocate, I'm not sure why you think the very poor should be concerned about respecting copyright law.
- jscheel 13y ago
  Because being poor doesn't give you the right to take from others to satisfy your own entertainment desires. I think Jean Valjean wouldn't have been quite the sympathetic character if he stole a lute instead of a loaf of bread ;)
  - MrScruff 13y ago
    Yes, but copyright abuse doesn't equate to stealing bread. I realise you already know this, but it's kind of a fundamental distinction here.
- Shish2k 13y ago
  Also thinking along devil's advocacy lines -- it seems that without a universal basic income, people naturally resort to theft and copyright infringement to pull themselves back up to the baseline quality of life. With the economy naturally balancing itself out either way (The rich either pay taxes or get stolen from; the poor either spend their money or don't have any), it seems to make sense to go for whichever option has the lowest overhead.

by jscheel 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

psionski 13y ago

You are NEVER forced to steal bread. Don't want to participate in gathering seeds and wild fruits for free legally and choosing to steal bread, not ok, ever. I guess "essential" has many definitions, huh...

untog 13y ago
Come on, they're not in any way comparable.
- jellicle 13y ago
  The UN declaration of human rights includes one sentence talking about the right to food, and many paragraphs talking about the right to participate in culture, community, communicate, and so on. So if we judge by that, the right to participate in culture is more important than the right to food (or more likely, is simply more often challenged and disagreed with). If the whole legal regime around copyright is having the effect of preventing people from participating in their culture/society, those laws are immoral and should be opposed.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Wait, are you implying that the UN has declared that stealing the results of someone's labor is justified because it's a "right"? We might as well declare anarchy and get it over with. I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
    - psionski 13y ago
      It's sad times we live in when creating culture is labeled "labor", "work" and so forth... About the "stealing" part - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-white-norah-jones-musicians-piracy_n_1258319.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-whit... artists are more than happy to let anyone experience their art, it's the producers that have a problem with it. I guess this is what you get when you allow business-minded people to define what being human is all about...
      - talmand 13y ago
        Well, I was talking mostly about food. But if I use my culture as a basis for a song that I write and I wish to sell it to make money, then you're dang right I see it as stealing if someone takes it without my permission. If an artist wants to share it openly, then that's excellent. But if the artist wishes to make money from their effort why is it your "right" to demand otherwise? It's not about being business-minded, it's called having rights over your own property.
        Nursie 13y ago
        Because mostly it's not the artists who want to lock it up, and it's not the artists that stand to gain most from locking it up, it's the suits.
        talmand 13y ago
        Ok, how is that any different? An artist who works alone deserves your money but an artist who agrees to work with a third-party does not? Because the third-party might get a piece of the pie dictated by the contract the artist agreed to? That's an extremely weak defense of not paying for content. Are book stores okay? Because I'm sure they make money from the books they sell that they didn't personally write. Well, that's not an exact comparison but I hope you get my point. I have to say, I am astounded at the level of entitlement people seem to have when it comes to consuming content others worked to create. I want it, therefore it should be mine is the mantra of this type of thinking.
  - jscheel 13y ago
    Have you even read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Articles 23 and 25 are not supplanted by Article 27. In fact, Article 30 specifically states that you cannot interpret the UDHR in any way that would allow you to remove rights set forth in previous the articles. And, as surprising as this may sound, the UDHR doesn't specify order of importance based on word count.
talmand 13y ago
If those seeds or fruit happen to be on land that someone owns then you are stealing those as well.

Fuxy 13y ago

Ok. I agree forced may be a bit of a strong word since i can always choose not to pirate it. However what about books or scientific papers which are hidden behind pay walls or just incredibly expensive. The price of a good programming book is about £20. But when your monthly income is £300 that is a lot of money. Not to mention you have to pay electricity, gas, etc. and the prices for the utilities are not that much different. So your options are: 1. buy the book and not eat for 2 weeks 2. pirate it 3. don't do anything and let your progress as a programmer be hindered by the lack of knowledge That's what i call being forced. There's no situation where i can say i helped the author with the little i have and progressed in my development as a programmer. If you give in to the system they set up knowledge become the privilege of the wealthy I agree that content creators need to live but the one size fits all approach is really f*ed up. Open it up let people pay as much as they want or set different prices for different regions piracy will fall considerably if you do and for god sake don't limit peoples access to content by regions it's a sure way to increase piracy.

jscheel 13y ago
I will agree with you that it's definitely important for products to be priced appropriately for the region they are sold in. And, I understand that access to information can be a huge roadblock, which is why it's important for people to free up information as best as possible. Still, when you consider things like public libraries, free access to internet, etc., you have to question whether or not you have really tried to do it without pirating someone else.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Really? How about turning that around: how is it okay for me to pay more for something, solely because I live in a different country? This is known as the 'Australian Tax' here, and is at the point where for some software products (Microsoft's dev tools, e.g.) it's cheaper to buy a budget flight to the USA, buy them there, then return. Geographical pricing is morally indefensible.
  - jscheel 13y ago

MrScruff 13y ago

To play devils advocate, I'm not sure why you think the very poor should be concerned about respecting copyright law.

jscheel 13y ago
Because being poor doesn't give you the right to take from others to satisfy your own entertainment desires. I think Jean Valjean wouldn't have been quite the sympathetic character if he stole a lute instead of a loaf of bread ;)
- MrScruff 13y ago
  Yes, but copyright abuse doesn't equate to stealing bread. I realise you already know this, but it's kind of a fundamental distinction here.
Shish2k 13y ago
Also thinking along devil's advocacy lines -- it seems that without a universal basic income, people naturally resort to theft and copyright infringement to pull themselves back up to the baseline quality of life. With the economy naturally balancing itself out either way (The rich either pay taxes or get stolen from; the poor either spend their money or don't have any), it seems to make sense to go for whichever option has the lowest overhead.