Indeed. This exercise is far more informative for me and learning from others who are creators and how to best support the creators in my life from this constant incursion.
Stage 9 gets cease and desist order from CBS
- Thread starter StarTrekRecuts
- Start date
People can hold value in something without paying for it. For example, if someone sees an item for sale for $200 at one place and the exact same item available for $100 at another place, they would prefer the item at the $100 price. This is basic supply and demand economics 101 here. But if the item is available for $0, people are going to prefer to get it there instead regardless of how much they value the item. People can donate their money to the owner directly or a charitable cause if they're worried the other issues you raised.
Most people violate copyright laws at some point because it's so easy to do. Law enforcement is usually not concerned with copyright infringement unless it's very widespread and blatant. Because so many people do it and the laws are so complicated. Most people don't care either. The main products that tend to be infringed against are the really popular ones where individual violations are inconsequential to the company who created the product. Star Trek fan books probably not so much, if that's what you're worried about.
It's economics 101. You're not going to change that.
According to the government and "might makes right" logic. Man-made laws are arbitrary and there are procedures in place to change them if enough people are in agreement.
The power is granted to authors to control copies or resemblances to their work in order to promote of science and useful arts. But not everyone agrees copyright laws work. The open source community has created plenty of useful applications without copyright law.
Didn't you declare victory? Why are you back?
If the owner of the item wishes to give it away for free, that's up to the owner. But, when someone takes it and then gives it away for free, that's sorta where you analogy breaks down, right? If I go to that market and take it, HEY, I got it for free, right? But, that's stealing, right?
So, because a crime is EASY it's ok? That's right, you're amoral.
For those of us who aren't, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Because doing something wrong is easy doesn't make it right.
True. But, then, it's not like a copyright owner doesn't have recourse. So..., what's your point?
The law REALLY isn't that complicated.
THAT'S the thing. People don't care. They don't care because they see it as an easy and cheap way of getting shit. But that doesn't mean it's RIGHT. People are not entitled to free shit. People who think they are entitled to free shit are assholes who don't like being called what they are: thieves.
So, because it's a popular show, it's ok to do the wrong thing? Ok, that's right, you're amoral. You don't care.
I'm worried about ALL of it. A company isn't just a thing. A show isn't just a thing made by a company. A show hires PEOPLE. Not just the actors or the writers. It's takes a LOT of people to make a TV show, it's takes a LOT MORE money to make a genre TV show. That means a company has to MAKE money in order to see a reason to make that show.
If they lose out because people like you just want to take it without paying for it, then they don't make money. Then they don't make shows that cost a lot of money. They don't hire make up artists, costumers, electricians. Actors, writers.
By stealing a TV show off the internet, you impact people's lives in a very specific way.
But, as you have said, you are amoral, you don't care how your actions affect others. As long as you get your shit.
I'm beginning to suspect, you don't actually understand that phrase.
For the others who might follow, who don’t know any better. Or at least that’s what I’ve convinced myself.
Yeah just doing my victory dance while watching you trying to do yours. Yes but that analogy breaks down when you equate physical theft with copying. Say the owner has 10 shoes and one of them is copied, how many does the owner have left? oh 10, I guess that's not stealing since all of the shoes are still there, right?
It's about as serious as jaywalking. If the risk is low, the law is non-enforceable, people don't care, it's generally okay. Technically going 1 mile per hour over the speed limit is a crime, I'm sure most people would still say it's okay. www.dumblaws.com can give you ideas. If the intent is that the consumer wouldn't have paid for the item anyway, that would make it a victimless crime. Sometimes beneficial to the owner if the consumer does it to test out a product before purchasing or helps the owner freely advertise their product.
Game of Thrones is the most stolen show ever, they seem to be doing pretty good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity as I worry about, people tend to inflate their prices when they have exclusive control over them.
I have yet to see compelling evidence that the laws must change.
Good for them. I have no issue against them. But, I highly doubt that all creators would agree or find it beneficial. Especially since it is their property. As such, they are allowed to control it. I see no reason to distinguish between physical good and digital goods. The amount of monetary harm caused shouldn't be a requisite for determining consequences. The fact that is causes harm at all violates a fundamental principle of human interactions and freedoms. That you can do what you want with your property but don't tell me what to do with mine. Taking an unauthorized copy is telling me what to do with my property. No, thank you. I don't want that world.
More generally, what gives someone the right to own any property at all? Why all the entitlement?
"My people taught me, a man does not own land. He doesn't own anything but the courage and loyalty in his heart" - Chakotay
Chakotay is a poor reference. A caricature based upon a charlatan's false Native American research.
A person is allowed to benefit from the fruit of their resources, be it their time, their money or their creativity. What gives the right for another person to benefit from one's work without their permission?
So a physical analogy is ok when you do it, but when I do it, it’s all wrong.
Gotcha.
#goalpostsmoved.
It’s only victimless if you don’t care about the victims being able to pay their rent. Or feed themselves.
So? It’s ok to steal because they are rich?
Power makes it right apparently. That's how Europe stole the United States from the Indians. Why should their permission matter in cases where they can't do anything about it? Even more general, what determines natural rights? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ it looks pretty theoretical
Talk about might makes right, that’s exactly what you are suggesting with the power of copying. It’s so easy, so it should be right!
And ultimately that’s your sole basis for getting rid of copyright: because it’s easy to steal! Not that copyright is harmful. Not that copyright is getting in the way of creation. But it’s easy to get shit for free and you want it without repercussions.
That's a reductionist argument and moving the goal posts, again. The lack of acknowledgement of a person's ability to profit from their work is telling.
So when I correct your analogy it's goal post shifting but when you do it, it's not? Also #goalpostsmoved
I don't associate products with their inventors or labor involved, most people don't. Like when I purchase cheap shoes from Wal-Mart that I find out later were made in sweatshop conditions, I don't think about it. Or animal rights when I eat a burger. I have seen documentary films about animal cruelty but I still eat meat anyway. Maybe a cheap item on e-bay was really stolen, who knows.
Less wrong than the destitute conditions you were describing in other examples.
Possibly, I'm still evaluating whether might makes right. Back in the day if the alternative to buying a book was to pull out a pencil and start copying, I'd rather buy the book. Or to get a song for free, wait for it to come up on the radio, I'd rather buy the album. Technology making jobs obsolete is a fact of life.
So maybe instead of changing laws that would cause more harm than good, you educate yourself about where things come from.
Your ignorance isn’t a compelling argument to change the law.
Yeah, you’re definitely a might makes right person.
More like "technology makes right.' Obviously, if we can do it with technology is must be Ok.
I doubt the laws would be changed any time soon, if ever. But people are under little obligation to follow them too. You don't have to look far to see that so they pretty much don't exist anyway. Hundreds of millions of people do it. 70% of online users see nothing wrong with it.
And now we've moved to mob rule. Might makes right indeed.
Ah, tyranny of the majority.
The moment you tried to equate fans being allowed to do whatever they want with impunity to the fight for civil rights is the moment you lost me. One was a perilous fight for basic freedoms that people were deprived of, the other is a lame attempt to assert that a privilege should be recognized as a deprived right.
Similar threads
