5 ms·

When did stealing other peoples' life work segue from a guilty necessity to a noble cause? I missed that.

by lorddoig 12y ago

the8472 12y ago
Stealing? Do we really need to rehash the old theft vs. copyright infringement argument?
- rhino369 12y ago
  The idea that theft can only happen to physical stuff is part semantics and part myth. Things like theft of service don't include physical goods. Stealing: to take another person's property without permission or legal right Intellectual property is property in every sense of the word. The argument, "BUT I'm copying not taking!" is treating the property as the digital file, but that file merely represents the intellectual property. So is the argument that the person isn't harmed because its merely a copy. First, stealing doesn't have to the mean the person suffered real harm. You can steal something I forgot I own, it won't hurt me but it is theft. But the major issue is that copyright infringement does in the aggregate hurt content creators. Shoplifting and copyright infringement are essentially the same level of harm to businesses.
kefka 12y ago
When did imprisoning people for standing up for free speech not become a noble cause? Also, show me one thing he copied without permission.
butwhy 12y ago
You could say the same thing about Youtube in the beginning. Except for the fact that Youtube was even worse because people were uploading copyrighted material there and it was actually hosted by them and existed in the US. Whereas TPB was in Sweden and only linked to files.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Well, lots of people did say the same thing about YouTube. That's why they were sued.
lmm 12y ago
When a generation grew up doing it, and found that civilization did not collapse, found that in fact content was getting better and better?
84koba 12y ago
Roughly about the same time that the scarcity of digitally generated goods became a lie. I'm not stealing from you, I'm getting a fully functional copy that doesn't affect your own copy in any way. It might though affect your capacity to profit from an artificially enforced inefficiency in distribution though, as opposed to finding a manner to attaching an intrinsic value to your trinkets. The fact that you put a lot of effort into something doesn't equate to it by itself being worth anything. Reductio ad absurdum: Regardless of how much effort you put into masturbation, your bodily fluids aren't more valuable because of it. And if your business model entails making people pay for viewing them inside a box rigged to make other people around it infertile, your business model is doomed.

When did stealing other peoples' life work segue from a guilty necessity to a noble cause? I missed that.

the8472 12y ago

Stealing? Do we really need to rehash the old theft vs. copyright infringement argument?

rhino369 12y ago
The idea that theft can only happen to physical stuff is part semantics and part myth. Things like theft of service don't include physical goods. Stealing: to take another person's property without permission or legal right Intellectual property is property in every sense of the word. The argument, "BUT I'm copying not taking!" is treating the property as the digital file, but that file merely represents the intellectual property. So is the argument that the person isn't harmed because its merely a copy. First, stealing doesn't have to the mean the person suffered real harm. You can steal something I forgot I own, it won't hurt me but it is theft. But the major issue is that copyright infringement does in the aggregate hurt content creators. Shoplifting and copyright infringement are essentially the same level of harm to businesses.

kefka 12y ago

When did imprisoning people for standing up for free speech not become a noble cause? Also, show me one thing he copied without permission.

butwhy 12y ago

You could say the same thing about Youtube in the beginning. Except for the fact that Youtube was even worse because people were uploading copyrighted material there and it was actually hosted by them and existed in the US. Whereas TPB was in Sweden and only linked to files.

icebraining 12y ago
Well, lots of people did say the same thing about YouTube. That's why they were sued.

lmm 12y ago

When a generation grew up doing it, and found that civilization did not collapse, found that in fact content was getting better and better?

84koba 12y ago

Roughly about the same time that the scarcity of digitally generated goods became a lie. I'm not stealing from you, I'm getting a fully functional copy that doesn't affect your own copy in any way. It might though affect your capacity to profit from an artificially enforced inefficiency in distribution though, as opposed to finding a manner to attaching an intrinsic value to your trinkets. The fact that you put a lot of effort into something doesn't equate to it by itself being worth anything. Reductio ad absurdum: Regardless of how much effort you put into masturbation, your bodily fluids aren't more valuable because of it. And if your business model entails making people pay for viewing them inside a box rigged to make other people around it infertile, your business model is doomed.