4 ms·

> Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not

> Torrents (and illegal downloads in general) are a strong incentive for copyright owners to improve their game. Otherwise it'd be a stagnant monopoly. I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Btw, there is no monopoly in the music or gaming industry (not that I know of, at least). There are laws for monopoly issues.

Karunamon 12y ago
It's "breaking the law" in the same way that violating the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is "breaking the law". The laws we're comparing have some interesting parallels too: * Usually they're way too strict given the conditions * They're not re-evaluated often enough * Their usefulness in modern society is debatable * Both are often not used for their original purpose * The consequences for breaking them are usually minimal, unless you're being flagrant, or: * The enforcers sometimes choose to crack down and make an example out of you, despite the fact that: * The supposed harm caused by disregarding them is dubious, and in fact: * Arguments can be made that disregarding them is a net positive * People who outsource their moral compasses to the legal system usually choose one of these to demonize people for (ignoring that obedience to law isn't an inherently noble thing) * Said people also usually compare the law to something it's not. (YOU'RE LITERALLY ENDANGERING CHILDREN/YOU'RE LITERALLY STEALING)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Its a rather common approach when the monopoly you are concerned about effectively controls the relevant area of law.
AustinG08 12y ago
In such an unfair fight, i'd argue it's the BEST method.

Karunamon 12y ago

It's "breaking the law" in the same way that violating the speed limit to keep up with the flow of traffic is "breaking the law". The laws we're comparing have some interesting parallels too: * Usually they're way too strict given the conditions * They're not re-evaluated often enough * Their usefulness in modern society is debatable * Both are often not used for their original purpose * The consequences for breaking them are usually minimal, unless you're being flagrant, or: * The enforcers sometimes choose to crack down and make an example out of you, despite the fact that: * The supposed harm caused by disregarding them is dubious, and in fact: * Arguments can be made that disregarding them is a net positive * People who outsource their moral compasses to the legal system usually choose one of these to demonize people for (ignoring that obedience to law isn't an inherently noble thing) * Said people also usually compare the law to something it's not. (YOU'RE LITERALLY ENDANGERING CHILDREN/YOU'RE LITERALLY STEALING)

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I'm not sure breaking the law (whether you agree with it or not) is the proper way to fight monopoly (?) or to push companies to "improve their game". Its a rather common approach when the monopoly you are concerned about effectively controls the relevant area of law.

AustinG08 12y ago

In such an unfair fight, i'd argue it's the BEST method.