4 ms·

No, one side is an author/content creator who has not been compensated. The other side is a person who is capable of rationalizing theft because it is a minor

No, one side is an author/content creator who has not been compensated. The other side is a person who is capable of rationalizing theft because it is a minor theft. The theft isn't of an object, it is theft of compensation due to a creator. Duplication isn't the issue.

Joky 11y ago
It's not because you're saying it like it's a fact that it will become one :/
carapace 11y ago
And now you are rationalizing. Welcome to the mess/party.
Karunamon 11y ago
Without derailing this into yet another "copyright infringement isn't stealing" thread, as far as the creator is concerned, they don't get compensated under other circumstances which are not commonly seen as infringement or even morally wrong. Example: A roommate watching a movie or playing a game with you. Spinning it as purely a compensation issue is being a bit reductive, IMO. And from there it leads directly into objectively unanswerable intent questions.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Just wait; I'm going to obtain an exclusive distribution license on DNA from the oldest bacterium in the world. All life will then have to compensate me every time any cell divides. Also, since DNA controls what you look like, including your silhouette, you will have to pay me every time you allow a light source to cast a shadow of yourself onto a flat surface. Also, when you take a bath, you displace a volume of water corresponding to your shape. That is an unlicensed copy. Your footprints in the dirt or snow, ditto, not to mention the fingerprints you leave on everything you touch. --- Man, think about it. Millions of years of evolution (based on continuous unrestrained copying and alteration on a massive scale) lead to Man. What does man do? Put three guitar chords together with some puerile, hackneyed lyrics, and insist on compensation from everyone that hears the crap.
dasil003 11y ago
Absent piracy, the money in the pirate's pocket would not magically have been in the content producer's pocket, which is the assumption underlying your ostensibly factual statement.
kazinator 11y ago
> The theft isn't of an object, it is theft of compensation due to a creator. Duplication isn't the issue. Based on my limited understanding of copyright law, it does in fact concern itself with actual duplication, and is rather mum about compensation. You can infringe by, say, altering something that is freely distributed in a way that is not permitted by its license (for instance changing the copyright notice to say that you created that work, rather than the author). The author could be adamant that permission to do that is not granted at any price (so that it's not an issue of compensation, but purely about unlicensed duplicates with unauthorized alterations).

Joky 11y ago

It's not because you're saying it like it's a fact that it will become one :/

carapace 11y ago

And now you are rationalizing. Welcome to the mess/party.

Karunamon 11y ago

Without derailing this into yet another "copyright infringement isn't stealing" thread, as far as the creator is concerned, they don't get compensated under other circumstances which are not commonly seen as infringement or even morally wrong. Example: A roommate watching a movie or playing a game with you. Spinning it as purely a compensation issue is being a bit reductive, IMO. And from there it leads directly into objectively unanswerable intent questions.

kazinator 11y ago
Just wait; I'm going to obtain an exclusive distribution license on DNA from the oldest bacterium in the world. All life will then have to compensate me every time any cell divides. Also, since DNA controls what you look like, including your silhouette, you will have to pay me every time you allow a light source to cast a shadow of yourself onto a flat surface. Also, when you take a bath, you displace a volume of water corresponding to your shape. That is an unlicensed copy. Your footprints in the dirt or snow, ditto, not to mention the fingerprints you leave on everything you touch. --- Man, think about it. Millions of years of evolution (based on continuous unrestrained copying and alteration on a massive scale) lead to Man. What does man do? Put three guitar chords together with some puerile, hackneyed lyrics, and insist on compensation from everyone that hears the crap.

dasil003 11y ago

Absent piracy, the money in the pirate's pocket would not magically have been in the content producer's pocket, which is the assumption underlying your ostensibly factual statement.

kazinator 11y ago

> The theft isn't of an object, it is theft of compensation due to a creator. Duplication isn't the issue. Based on my limited understanding of copyright law, it does in fact concern itself with actual duplication, and is rather mum about compensation. You can infringe by, say, altering something that is freely distributed in a way that is not permitted by its license (for instance changing the copyright notice to say that you created that work, rather than the author). The author could be adamant that permission to do that is not granted at any price (so that it's not an issue of compensation, but purely about unlicensed duplicates with unauthorized alterations).