4 ms·

No, it was a lot different from Reddit or HN. Please stop trying to support the "pirating is okay". It's not. It's theft. You do not need or have to see those s

by sigzero 12y ago

No, it was a lot different from Reddit or HN. Please stop trying to support the "pirating is okay". It's not. It's theft. You do not need or have to see those shows. You want to watch them and you fulfill that want by pirating. That pirating may cause purchases later is a horrible argument for theft.

the8472 12y ago
>It's theft. Stop repeating that. It isn't. Even the courts agree on this one. And TPB did not engage in it either way.
- Donzo 12y ago
  Just because no one was strong armed for a loaf of bread does not mean that a theft did not occur. No one may have been deprived of physical property, but we do not live an entirely physical world. Piracy deprives content creators of opportunity: the opportunity to distribute their products in the way that they see fit. Perhaps this means that they give all of their work away for free through the channels of their choosing. Perhaps they sell it. Perhaps they don't sell it to people who live in certain regions. As a content creator, shouldn't I have the opportunity to give away my products (or sell them) in a way that I see fit?
  - the8472 12y ago
    Well, sure, you can sell it or give it away for free, that's up to you. But once you give it to someone you give someone a blob of information. Which is identical to the one you still have. That chunk of information is not intrinsically tied to you anymore. So you can easily control initial distribution. But to restrict further distribution you have to restrict actions of others. You have to limit their freedoms to do with that new copy of information. Is there a good reason to limit their freedoms? Maybe. But it doesn't occur to me as a natural right. Once you handed over a copy to someone else each of you control an identical set of information. You severed your ties. So if you want the rights of others restricted then - in my opinion - the burden of constructing a case why they should be is on you.
    - Donzo 12y ago
      Hmm... You place me in a tricky position, as I am generally against the limitation of freedom. Yet, it seems that some basic limitation on freedom is an essential part of society. In general, the most agreeable limitations involve restricting a person's freedom to harm others. Have content producers been harmed by piracy? I would argue that they have. Since piracy harms content producers, the rights of others to infringe on their content should be limited.
      - the8472 12y ago
        But that harm is only financial. It's a harm relative to potential profits they could have made if other people's rights to make copies were restricted in the first place. If you do not assume such a right then no harm is done.
        Donzo 12y ago
        You trivialize our economic system when you describe it as "only financial." People die over money. I don't want to defend the actions of the copy-write robber-barons. I do not know what the appropriate response for infringement should be. I ignore violations of my own content. Yet I believe that I have a right to the content that I produce. And I respect the rights of others' content. Do you believe that content producers should not have these rights?
        the8472 12y ago
        You missed half of my point. It's not only "just financial". It's also "just financial harm only if we are pre-supposing the the rights whose natural existence you're trying to prove in the first place"
        Donzo 12y ago
        I do not argue that the rights are natural. They are a legal and economic construct. There is nothing natural about them. But that does not mean that these rights do not exist. The question I ask you is, to whom should these rights belong? The entity that has labored to produce the content? Or the entity that has obtained a copy of that content?
  - wtetzner 12y ago
    The point is that copyright infringement isn't the same as theft. Just because they're both illegal doesn't mean they are the same thing.
thekingofspain 12y ago
I dunno. At a low level, piracy is just copying bits. It just so happens that certain bits contain some people's "intellectual property". If we concede that this makes sense and want to fight a losing battle anyway, it becomes a philosophical line-drawing fiesta about the bits you're copying. I propose instead that it's futile for people to try and monetize a certain sequence of bits given a certain interpretation. Then the natural conclusion is to move toward services, like free-to-play games or streaming products where the actual "bits on sale" are free, but the "action of using those bits to bring in the bits you want" is what costs money, rather than whatever the actual bits are.
- geographomics 12y ago
  You could say that about almost any activity in today's digital age. Sending abusive emails, making harassing phone calls, stealing money from people's bank accounts - these are also activities that essentially are also just copying bits. Describing these in such a way doesn't imply anything about the moral implications.
antihero 12y ago
What about content that you cannot legally obtain? For instance, TV shows that haven't aired in your country yet (or won't ever) due to greed or a whole load of other reasons? It's absurd that there are people there are people waiting cash in hand to get content, and they are denied because of some sort of broken mentality on how content should be distributed. Calling it theft is using a legal concept that is outmoded for the digital world. Theft implies that an object is removed from someone's possession in order to be taken. You can argue all you like that it deprives content creators of income (although even that is complex, in many contexts), but it is not, and never will be theft.
jimktrains2 12y ago
First, I never said "pirating is okay". Please stop putting words in my mouth. I support the idea that content creators paid for their work. Sometimes, in the context of F/OSS for instance, the creators choose to forgo that directly and often indirectly (e.g. donations). Secondly, downloading a work under a non-permissive copyright is not theft, and may not even be illegal. Content shifting is a legal thing to do. If I own a DVD one could argue that I could download an already ripped version of the DVD (CSS issues aside). Third, not everything linked to on TPB was covered under a non-permissive copyright. Please stop assuming everyone is an idiot and immoral.
- arfar 12y ago
  >Content shifting is a legal thing to do Small point, but it actually depends on the country's laws. In New Zealand, it's illegal to do that. It's even illegal to rip a CD you own. It's stupid and would never be enforecd, but it is the law.

by sigzero 12y ago

the8472 12y ago

>It's theft. Stop repeating that. It isn't. Even the courts agree on this one. And TPB did not engage in it either way.

Donzo 12y ago
Just because no one was strong armed for a loaf of bread does not mean that a theft did not occur. No one may have been deprived of physical property, but we do not live an entirely physical world. Piracy deprives content creators of opportunity: the opportunity to distribute their products in the way that they see fit. Perhaps this means that they give all of their work away for free through the channels of their choosing. Perhaps they sell it. Perhaps they don't sell it to people who live in certain regions. As a content creator, shouldn't I have the opportunity to give away my products (or sell them) in a way that I see fit?
- the8472 12y ago
  Well, sure, you can sell it or give it away for free, that's up to you. But once you give it to someone you give someone a blob of information. Which is identical to the one you still have. That chunk of information is not intrinsically tied to you anymore. So you can easily control initial distribution. But to restrict further distribution you have to restrict actions of others. You have to limit their freedoms to do with that new copy of information. Is there a good reason to limit their freedoms? Maybe. But it doesn't occur to me as a natural right. Once you handed over a copy to someone else each of you control an identical set of information. You severed your ties. So if you want the rights of others restricted then - in my opinion - the burden of constructing a case why they should be is on you.
  - Donzo 12y ago
    Hmm... You place me in a tricky position, as I am generally against the limitation of freedom. Yet, it seems that some basic limitation on freedom is an essential part of society. In general, the most agreeable limitations involve restricting a person's freedom to harm others. Have content producers been harmed by piracy? I would argue that they have. Since piracy harms content producers, the rights of others to infringe on their content should be limited.
    - the8472 12y ago
      But that harm is only financial. It's a harm relative to potential profits they could have made if other people's rights to make copies were restricted in the first place. If you do not assume such a right then no harm is done.
      - Donzo 12y ago
        You trivialize our economic system when you describe it as "only financial." People die over money. I don't want to defend the actions of the copy-write robber-barons. I do not know what the appropriate response for infringement should be. I ignore violations of my own content. Yet I believe that I have a right to the content that I produce. And I respect the rights of others' content. Do you believe that content producers should not have these rights?
        the8472 12y ago
        You missed half of my point. It's not only "just financial". It's also "just financial harm only if we are pre-supposing the the rights whose natural existence you're trying to prove in the first place"
        Donzo 12y ago
        I do not argue that the rights are natural. They are a legal and economic construct. There is nothing natural about them. But that does not mean that these rights do not exist. The question I ask you is, to whom should these rights belong? The entity that has labored to produce the content? Or the entity that has obtained a copy of that content?
- wtetzner 12y ago
  The point is that copyright infringement isn't the same as theft. Just because they're both illegal doesn't mean they are the same thing.

thekingofspain 12y ago

I dunno. At a low level, piracy is just copying bits. It just so happens that certain bits contain some people's "intellectual property". If we concede that this makes sense and want to fight a losing battle anyway, it becomes a philosophical line-drawing fiesta about the bits you're copying. I propose instead that it's futile for people to try and monetize a certain sequence of bits given a certain interpretation. Then the natural conclusion is to move toward services, like free-to-play games or streaming products where the actual "bits on sale" are free, but the "action of using those bits to bring in the bits you want" is what costs money, rather than whatever the actual bits are.

geographomics 12y ago
You could say that about almost any activity in today's digital age. Sending abusive emails, making harassing phone calls, stealing money from people's bank accounts - these are also activities that essentially are also just copying bits. Describing these in such a way doesn't imply anything about the moral implications.

antihero 12y ago

What about content that you cannot legally obtain? For instance, TV shows that haven't aired in your country yet (or won't ever) due to greed or a whole load of other reasons? It's absurd that there are people there are people waiting cash in hand to get content, and they are denied because of some sort of broken mentality on how content should be distributed. Calling it theft is using a legal concept that is outmoded for the digital world. Theft implies that an object is removed from someone's possession in order to be taken. You can argue all you like that it deprives content creators of income (although even that is complex, in many contexts), but it is not, and never will be theft.

jimktrains2 12y ago

First, I never said "pirating is okay". Please stop putting words in my mouth. I support the idea that content creators paid for their work. Sometimes, in the context of F/OSS for instance, the creators choose to forgo that directly and often indirectly (e.g. donations). Secondly, downloading a work under a non-permissive copyright is not theft, and may not even be illegal. Content shifting is a legal thing to do. If I own a DVD one could argue that I could download an already ripped version of the DVD (CSS issues aside). Third, not everything linked to on TPB was covered under a non-permissive copyright. Please stop assuming everyone is an idiot and immoral.

arfar 12y ago
>Content shifting is a legal thing to do Small point, but it actually depends on the country's laws. In New Zealand, it's illegal to do that. It's even illegal to rip a CD you own. It's stupid and would never be enforecd, but it is the law.