When you start arguing that people have no right to ask for compensation from the people who derive value from their work, you're a single half-step from advocating slavery.
Care to show me where copyright infringers are forcing artists to make copies for them for free? The original artist very likely isn't even involved in the process whatsoever.
And food is a physical good that takes time to produce. Not a good analogy.
about taking something from somebody by force
Who is taking anything? No one. If anything, it's copyright that is forceful.
You are confusing physical goods and property with copyrighted materials.
Actually, that's simply wrong. Look at the comment I responded to. It's the typical "it's the same as theft" comment. I believe he, more than I, was the one who confused physical goods with copyrighted materials.
But if you don't want to respect the content holders wishes, then you shouldn't expect anyone to respect your wishes regarding your property.
Really? So if a law deemed unjust is broken by someone, everyone else should be able to break any laws to harm them (even laws deemed just)? That doesn't seem to make any sense. If you wish, I can create scenarios of all kinds of unjust-sounding laws that benefit certain people being broken and then at the end claiming that the law breakers shouldn't expect anyone to respect their right to not be murdered simply because of that (as if law equates to morality).
Of course I should expect it; I don't deem normal property laws to be unjust.
it deprives them of the remuneration to which they are entitled
So in other words, they've 'lost' something they never had (potential profit).
Whether the infringement costs the copyright holder additional money or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled to be compensated for their copyrighted work as they deem fit.
It doesn't have anything to do with what I said, either.
What other motivation would you ascribe to copyright infringement other that that?
What other motivation would you ascribe to people who support copyright than that? You can create a sense of "entitlement" out of literally anything. It's just a meaningless attack.
That said, I'd ascribe the motivation of, "It's there, so I'll download it."
And hyperbole such as that doesn't make for any kind of argument at all
Take a look at what I responded to. There was no argument to be made.
Further, nearly all of the rationalizations
Ah, yes, "rationalizations." That funny word that people like to use to describe any of their opponents. The word that some believe they can simply utter and that will be the end of that. If you want to say something is rationalizing, you have to actually prove that they are.
with many of them stating or implying that copyrighted materials should be treated as physical property with regards to manufacture and pricing
Who implied that?
This, of course, is is simply an attempt to avoid paying for your entertainment, and no matter how you phrase it, it's selfish and greedy
Hey, I can play that game, too! This, of course, is simply rationalization, and no matter how you phrase it, you will always be 100% incorrect!
this isnt the biggest problem out there right now.
I agree, but it's rather subjective. And it doesn't even need to be the biggest problem; society can tackle multiple issues at once.
and a populace that ignores its laws as it sees fit is a bigger issue than that Snow White will be copyrighted until the end of time.
Above you say that it isn't the biggest problem out there right now. I cannot see how breaking copyright law would be all that serious in light of that fact (no more serious than allowing the problem to persist). Yes, laws deemed unjust will more likely be ignored whether or not you label it a "first world problem."
Unless, of course, you were just referring to a population filled with individuals that break nearly every law on a whim, but that situation is highly unlikely.
That's a possibility. And given the subjective nature of the word "just," a very real possibility.
Of course, I think you should realize that I was merely pointing out that the legality of something doesn't necessarily make something right or wrong. The same can be said for arbitrary "agreements."
If you are the original purchaser of said content, you have entered into that agreement.
Some would disagree that merely buying something means that you have entered into some agreement (one whose terms you might not even be able to know until after you've bought it). Furthermore, you might not have purchased the product at all. You might have got a copy from someone who did (and therefore, if such an agreement exists, they're the ones who broke it).
Not every contract/EULA is legally enforceable, either. Neither are they always 'just.' You could say that they just shouldn't buy the product, but many consumers would have difficulty even reading these elusive "agreements" or realizing the full implications of them. If copyright doesn't exist, then such agreements are rather meaningless if they're no longer recognized by the law.
Just because you don't like their terms doesn't give you the right do acquire it however you see fit.
Ah, but the law might very well give me that right.
Apparently you completely misunderstood the point I was trying to convey. Not all laws are just. That's it. This "agreement" that not everyone even agreed to (an agreement you didn't agree to doesn't actually exist) might not be just either. Hence, his statement that it's not "morally correct" to break it isn't necessarily true.
No one mentioned anything about stealing. As far as I'm aware, this is about copyright infringement, which has a separate legal definition.
The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations
I just expressed why I feel it's a bad idea to call it "theft." Because it confuses people about what's actually happening. It doesn't matter what I think, though, because it'll continue happening.
Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction
I disagree.
they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone calls both "theft" what does arguing about that term actually gain?
What does arguing about anything gain? In the end, nothing.
Do we now? I've personally seen a fair number of people who really do believe it's theft. I've also seen people who didn't know what copyright infringement was and believed that it's actually theft in the most literal sense simply because many people happen to call it that. Calling what may be a crime in some places "theft" really can confuse people.
It is not morally correct to break this agreement.
And just who decided that? Not everyone agreed to such a thing, anyway. Laws deemed unjust do indeed exist, and that applies to any forced "agreements" as well.
Why would "torturing semantic arguments" make someone feel good about something? If what you said implies "sharing something that is legally owned by someone else" (assuming this is copying) and he attempted to correct your original word usage in a way that means the same thing as what you meant, he'd just be saying the same thing. So how would that make him feel any better?
It's still censorship even if it's being done to only a small number of people (your kids, for instance). Call it "filtering" if you like, but the information is being blocked/censored even if the people affected by it are small in number.
How would the rule of law work in a free society if EVERYONE always got to decide, based on their own personal belief systems, which laws they should be obliged to obey and which they shouldn't?
It would continue to work as it always has. Laws deemed 'unjust' would be less likely to be followed, and the rest that are deemed to be 'good' would likely be followed.
I believe the popularity of Megaupload was blatantly built on the appeal of copyrighted content and file sharing of non-infringing content was at best a side show.
I don't have actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true.
Have you been reading? That they make money off of advertisements and premium accounts, not copyrighted works. In order to make money off of copyrighted works, they'd have to sell them directly.
That's really just an unsupported opinion which I don't share.
It's just an opinion.
If you are interested, you quite reasonably feel differently.
That is precisely what I'm arguing. Read the indictment before you go running your mouth off.
That was one of the things you were saying, but I still do not believe they made money off of copyrighted works. That was my point. If knowingly letting people infringe copyright is a crime (if it is), then that's a separate issue. In my opinion, it cannot be said that they actually made money off of the content itself.
Personally, I don't want my music being used by a fatass german named Kim Dotcom to sell ads for hemorrhoid cream or cheeseburgers or whatever the fuck.
I don't care.
Is that so wrong?
I don't believe it's wrong to simply desire that it not happen. But to waste taxpayer money in a futile effort to stop what cannot be stopped, and what I believe should be a civil matter if it's illegal at all? Yes, I believe that's wrong.
Megaupload was in fact showing movies/tv/music to visitors who did not upload those songs themselves and making money by forcing them to watch advertisements while they did so.
My argument is that it does not matter that they made money off of advertisements. I believe they have every right to put advertisements on their website and make money from them, even if some of the content may be copyrighted. I believe that the only way to make money off of the copyrighted works themselves would be to sell individual copies to people.
Whether law enforcement and the prosecution over-reached is a related matter, but possibly not essential to the case.
It may not be essential to the case, but it's what I, personally, care about. I don't believe I mentioned what I think the law is, but only what I think it should be.
Alright. That is your opinion, after all. But I'd put an actual murder on a whole different scale than the mere possibility that potential gain was lost.
That said, if someone had a personal interesting in the matter, that wouldn't make their arguments any stronger. That's like letting someone whose child was murdered be the judge, jury, and executioner for the accused.
Slashdot Mirror
When you start arguing that people have no right to ask for compensation from the people who derive value from their work, you're a single half-step from advocating slavery.
Care to show me where copyright infringers are forcing artists to make copies for them for free? The original artist very likely isn't even involved in the process whatsoever.
And food is a physical good that takes time to produce. Not a good analogy.
about taking something from somebody by force
Who is taking anything? No one. If anything, it's copyright that is forceful.
If society was not able to determine right or wrong Rosa Park would have been a slave.
She might very well have been. Who knows what the mob will think? And laws don't necessarily equate to morality.
Right and wrong have improved tremedously
No, they're just different from before.
You are confusing physical goods and property with copyrighted materials.
Actually, that's simply wrong. Look at the comment I responded to. It's the typical "it's the same as theft" comment. I believe he, more than I, was the one who confused physical goods with copyrighted materials.
But if you don't want to respect the content holders wishes, then you shouldn't expect anyone to respect your wishes regarding your property.
Really? So if a law deemed unjust is broken by someone, everyone else should be able to break any laws to harm them (even laws deemed just)? That doesn't seem to make any sense. If you wish, I can create scenarios of all kinds of unjust-sounding laws that benefit certain people being broken and then at the end claiming that the law breakers shouldn't expect anyone to respect their right to not be murdered simply because of that (as if law equates to morality).
Of course I should expect it; I don't deem normal property laws to be unjust.
it deprives them of the remuneration to which they are entitled
So in other words, they've 'lost' something they never had (potential profit).
Whether the infringement costs the copyright holder additional money or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled to be compensated for their copyrighted work as they deem fit.
It doesn't have anything to do with what I said, either.
What other motivation would you ascribe to copyright infringement other that that?
What other motivation would you ascribe to people who support copyright than that? You can create a sense of "entitlement" out of literally anything. It's just a meaningless attack.
That said, I'd ascribe the motivation of, "It's there, so I'll download it."
And hyperbole such as that doesn't make for any kind of argument at all
Take a look at what I responded to. There was no argument to be made.
Further, nearly all of the rationalizations
Ah, yes, "rationalizations." That funny word that people like to use to describe any of their opponents. The word that some believe they can simply utter and that will be the end of that. If you want to say something is rationalizing, you have to actually prove that they are.
with many of them stating or implying that copyrighted materials should be treated as physical property with regards to manufacture and pricing
Who implied that?
This, of course, is is simply an attempt to avoid paying for your entertainment, and no matter how you phrase it, it's selfish and greedy
Hey, I can play that game, too! This, of course, is simply rationalization, and no matter how you phrase it, you will always be 100% incorrect!
There, now you've been defeated by my arrogance.
This, in my estimation, is fair
That's infinitely interesting.
this isnt the biggest problem out there right now.
I agree, but it's rather subjective. And it doesn't even need to be the biggest problem; society can tackle multiple issues at once.
and a populace that ignores its laws as it sees fit is a bigger issue than that Snow White will be copyrighted until the end of time.
Above you say that it isn't the biggest problem out there right now. I cannot see how breaking copyright law would be all that serious in light of that fact (no more serious than allowing the problem to persist). Yes, laws deemed unjust will more likely be ignored whether or not you label it a "first world problem."
Unless, of course, you were just referring to a population filled with individuals that break nearly every law on a whim, but that situation is highly unlikely.
Only the ones you don't agree with amirite?
That's a possibility. And given the subjective nature of the word "just," a very real possibility.
Of course, I think you should realize that I was merely pointing out that the legality of something doesn't necessarily make something right or wrong. The same can be said for arbitrary "agreements."
If you are the original purchaser of said content, you have entered into that agreement.
Some would disagree that merely buying something means that you have entered into some agreement (one whose terms you might not even be able to know until after you've bought it). Furthermore, you might not have purchased the product at all. You might have got a copy from someone who did (and therefore, if such an agreement exists, they're the ones who broke it).
Not every contract/EULA is legally enforceable, either. Neither are they always 'just.' You could say that they just shouldn't buy the product, but many consumers would have difficulty even reading these elusive "agreements" or realizing the full implications of them. If copyright doesn't exist, then such agreements are rather meaningless if they're no longer recognized by the law.
Just because you don't like their terms doesn't give you the right do acquire it however you see fit.
Ah, but the law might very well give me that right.
and should be respected.
Who decided that?
Apparently you completely misunderstood the point I was trying to convey. Not all laws are just. That's it. This "agreement" that not everyone even agreed to (an agreement you didn't agree to doesn't actually exist) might not be just either. Hence, his statement that it's not "morally correct" to break it isn't necessarily true.
No one mentioned anything about stealing. As far as I'm aware, this is about copyright infringement, which has a separate legal definition.
you are taking something that is not yours
You're not taking anything. You're copying it, and in a way that introduces no further cost to the person who created the original copy.
no matter how special and entitled a person thinks they are
It doesn't even have to have anything to do with entitlement. The content is there so it gets downloaded.
In other words, it is theft.
No, my friend, it is rape. And murder. If you want to have a truly impressive argument, include as many inflammatory terms as you can think of.
The word "theft" is just a shorthand for a variety of different situations
I just expressed why I feel it's a bad idea to call it "theft." Because it confuses people about what's actually happening. It doesn't matter what I think, though, because it'll continue happening.
Saying that one is theft and one isn't theft is not a meaningful distinction
I disagree.
they are both illegal activities because we said so and if everyone calls both "theft" what does arguing about that term actually gain?
What does arguing about anything gain? In the end, nothing.
we all know that
Do we now? I've personally seen a fair number of people who really do believe it's theft. I've also seen people who didn't know what copyright infringement was and believed that it's actually theft in the most literal sense simply because many people happen to call it that. Calling what may be a crime in some places "theft" really can confuse people.
It is not morally correct to break this agreement.
And just who decided that? Not everyone agreed to such a thing, anyway. Laws deemed unjust do indeed exist, and that applies to any forced "agreements" as well.
Why would "torturing semantic arguments" make someone feel good about something? If what you said implies "sharing something that is legally owned by someone else" (assuming this is copying) and he attempted to correct your original word usage in a way that means the same thing as what you meant, he'd just be saying the same thing. So how would that make him feel any better?
Copyright infringement is actually rape, anyway.
People like to get paid for their creations
And I'd also like to have billions of dollars. Of course, it's up to me to figure out how to get it. If I can't, too bad for me.
but, copying your GPL'd program without credit is stealing
That isn't stealing either. If there are people who say it is, I don't know why you'd generalize and pretend as if everyone thinks this.
It's still censorship even if it's being done to only a small number of people (your kids, for instance). Call it "filtering" if you like, but the information is being blocked/censored even if the people affected by it are small in number.
Not after the OtherOS/rootkit debacles. Support Microsoft likely isn't a good idea, either.
How would the rule of law work in a free society if EVERYONE always got to decide, based on their own personal belief systems, which laws they should be obliged to obey and which they shouldn't?
It would continue to work as it always has. Laws deemed 'unjust' would be less likely to be followed, and the rest that are deemed to be 'good' would likely be followed.
Is it censorship when it is voluntary?
Is existing information being censored when you sign up for the service? Then yes. But it's voluntary in that case.
ISPs in the US do the same thing as this company.
The worst part is that there are no ISPs to switch to. Comcast is the only one available to me unless I want satellite or dial up (which I don't).
I believe the popularity of Megaupload was blatantly built on the appeal of copyrighted content and file sharing of non-infringing content was at best a side show.
I don't have actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true.
What are your arguments, exactly?
Have you been reading? That they make money off of advertisements and premium accounts, not copyrighted works. In order to make money off of copyrighted works, they'd have to sell them directly.
That's really just an unsupported opinion which I don't share.
It's just an opinion.
If you are interested, you quite reasonably feel differently.
That is precisely what I'm arguing. Read the indictment before you go running your mouth off.
That was one of the things you were saying, but I still do not believe they made money off of copyrighted works. That was my point. If knowingly letting people infringe copyright is a crime (if it is), then that's a separate issue. In my opinion, it cannot be said that they actually made money off of the content itself.
Personally, I don't want my music being used by a fatass german named Kim Dotcom to sell ads for hemorrhoid cream or cheeseburgers or whatever the fuck.
I don't care.
Is that so wrong?
I don't believe it's wrong to simply desire that it not happen. But to waste taxpayer money in a futile effort to stop what cannot be stopped, and what I believe should be a civil matter if it's illegal at all? Yes, I believe that's wrong.
Megaupload was in fact showing movies/tv/music to visitors who did not upload those songs themselves and making money by forcing them to watch advertisements while they did so.
My argument is that it does not matter that they made money off of advertisements. I believe they have every right to put advertisements on their website and make money from them, even if some of the content may be copyrighted. I believe that the only way to make money off of the copyrighted works themselves would be to sell individual copies to people.
Whether law enforcement and the prosecution over-reached is a related matter, but possibly not essential to the case.
It may not be essential to the case, but it's what I, personally, care about. I don't believe I mentioned what I think the law is, but only what I think it should be.
Alright. That is your opinion, after all. But I'd put an actual murder on a whole different scale than the mere possibility that potential gain was lost.
If a US company started (and they have by the way) which has a set of rules you don't like you change ISP companies right?
No.
That's insanely off-topic.
The "naked pics" part, anyway.
That said, if someone had a personal interesting in the matter, that wouldn't make their arguments any stronger. That's like letting someone whose child was murdered be the judge, jury, and executioner for the accused.