Downloading is a human right.

[micahrp]

By "Show me a person who has never pirated digital content", I merely wanted to point out, that it's not really true that "You can 100% avoid the extanglement with the copyright holder", because you will EITHER have to pay for every singe copyrighted data that you see, OR pirate stuff, but there isn't really an option of just "leaving" copyrighted content alone.

In that way, we can make simplicistic analogies about designing a castle, or locking down a street, or other examples where you have the option of simply not being there, but the problem with copyright that it really *is* everywhere, and in that way, similar to a general tax that I didn't ever agree to pay.

(which doesn't necessarily make it right to ignore it, but makes it more necessary to question why is it there to begin with.

I don't wander the net sticking things in my computer any more than I would wander walmart sticking things in my pocket. To take the analogy further I also don't wander down the back alley's of the net looking for a dealer to hand me a copy of something he assures me is primo stuff or climb in the broken windows of websites looking for stuff to steal.

And what makes your analogies more appropriate than mine with the street musician?

Other than the fact that they are all illegal, which on it's own shouldn't be a source off morality. Other than the fact that right now the letter of the law says so, What makes copyright ifringement SELF-EVIDENTLY more comparable to stealing, than to walking on a street and choosing to stop next to a street musician for a few minutes?

I agree copyright holders shouldn't get special protection but they should get no less protection than any other item taken without the owner's express consent. And since the product is different it needs a different set of safe guards. I've worked in a drug store that kept an armed guard on the premises, what is the ditigal equivalent? I've worked in a photo lab and we refused to make copies of copyrighted works, what entity in your computer is doing that refusal? I am working as a programmer and I take it no less seriously.

Vegosiux said it best. It's a simple fact that IP is NOT a physical product, and it's control is not about whether something gets TAKEN from it's creator. The very idea that intellectual work must have an "equivalent" level of control to drug stores, leads to flawed analogies.

If we would take that claim to it's logical extreme, IP laws shouldn't have Public Domain, or Fair Use limits, since you don't get to fairly use other people's physical property, and physical property doesn't become public after 95 years, lost to it's owner . So even our current system admits that you can't draw direct paralells.

For the data you just happen perchance to see you can side with the copyright holder and report it just the same way you would report a mugging you happen to have a perchance to see. I refer you to the episode of Seinfeld where the group witnesses a mugging and ignores it and are held in violation of the local "Good Samaritan" law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busking_(U.S._case_law) (wow, never read US case law on Busking - Street Artist Expression)
For the street musician, to regulate the performer many municipalities require a street vendor liscence which clearly outlines what they are allowed to do and not to do which includes "even asking for a donation" and "They must also leave open reasonable alternative venues" where here in this forum people keep denying the viability of my suggestion of alternatives. So the street performer is a free speech user in a public setting. The copyright holder has not put their product into the open public, rather another individual has moved the product into a public space.

Wow, two bird with one stone. Copyright holders have the right to keep their products private not public and that transition is what is being violated. AND if it's private thats another reason it is NOT "culture".

The expiration of copyright is to force companies to roll over their ideas in a way that matches the human population rolls over, they knew it would lead to stagnantion if they did not. One example is Batman's copyright will expire at the end of 2034 under current law. Another is Sherlock Holmes copyright has expired which is why we have several TV shows based on him. I think there are many parallels which were created on purpose to help the product retain value in a fashion similar to physical objects. Other than real estate, what percent of physical objects last 95 years also?

Britian has its walking paths which cross private property (if I remember correctly your a fan of quoting British statutes) and granted that is me reaching for a fair use of private property but i will admit when I'm reaching.

 

[mgirl]

I....I... er... no.

A human right? Really? I thought human rights were, you know, things of actual importance, not the right to pirate stuff. I'm talking about when some person who can afford to buy a game/album/whatever but downloads it instead because they'd rather not pay for it. That's just theft. Not a human right.

 

[Kuredan]

"But... there's something I want... It's my RIGHT to get it! If I don't get what I want, I won't be happy and that's not right. I have a right to happiness... that's in like the Bill of Rights or something..."

That hyperbolic oversimplification sounds like a child. That's what pro-piracy sounds like to me. I've been guilty of it in the past... when I was a child (or teenager.) Then I grew up and realized the world didn't exist for my enjoyment and that the fulfillment of my desires was my own responsibility, not that of the desire itself. If I wanted something, I had to earn it. When I figured that out, I stopped pirating and started paying.

What makes copyright ifringement SELF-EVIDENTLY more comparable to stealing, than to walking on a street and choosing to stop next to a street musician for a few minutes?

In that analogy, the street performer has consented to perform and you are participating in their performance. You are not, for example, lurking outside their bathroom to listen to them sing in the shower. You are not recording the performer without their consent and distributing it without their knowledge. Piracy is not participation in a public exchange of culture. It is something done without the owner?s knowledge or permission with goal of acquiring the work for personal use without compensating the owner: Plain and simple. Yes, their work may still exist and you have not taken from a physical stock but it is still acquired without permission with the intent to convert the good to the taker?s use which is the definition of larceny, a type of theft.

Where copyright infringement comes into play is that the good is an intellectual property and the sale of the good is regulated with a license. You are not literally buying the song or the software: you are buying the right to its use through the medium, whether physical or digital. The types of legal actions incorporated into the good?s use are usually found in the licensing agreement or copyright statement. The upper limits of that use usually fall under ?Fair use? laws and they describe what can be done by those without the license for the good. Unauthorized distribution is generally not one of those legal uses and it doesn?t fall under ?Fair Use? and that makes that use illegal.

It is not a right to commit a illegal act: it is a choice. ?What if they made a right we currently enjoy illegal, surely then it would be our right to do something illegal since it should be our right after all.? Not really. It?s still a choice. If you think it?s a right worth fighting for, go for it, but be willing to pay the consequences if you?re wrong or if others oppose that right. So go ahead and pirate if you think it?s a right. I?ll think you?re a thief and so will the law, and you may deprive an artist or owner of their livelihood, but go ahead. Just don?t cry when they clap you in irons for your choice. Choices have consequences and crimes have punishments.

 

[Entitled]

snip

snip

Nice job ignoring the first half of my question, "Other than the fact that right now the letter of the law says so..."

You both properly described what the law says, and didn't say anything new with it. Yes, obviously, busking is legal, and piracy is illegal. D'uh.

Every variation of that, "content belongs to it's owner", or "you are not allowed to take it without permission", or "It is not a right to commit a illegal act", is basically a circular claim that can be reduced to the same thing:

"An IP holder has a Right to control copying, because Copyright says so". Or, in other words, "Piracy is wrong, because Copyright is a Right".

Which is just mixing up the terms right (as in the opposite of "wrong"), right (as in something that is considered naturally deserved, like the right to equality, or the right to have property), and right (as in the legal system allowing you to do something, e.g. "the right to own slaves", "the right to bear arms", "the right to smoke weed").

Not all legally granted Rights are morally justified, not all right things are granted as Legal Rights, and not even all righ things are Natural Rights.

So far, in this thread, I argued through showing examples of how art can stay profitable through other systems than limiting access to copies, I also brought examples of how unequal it is that a handful of business entities can entirely control billion people's access to most of the past century's pop-culture (unnexessarily, as seen in the previous point), and I described the progress of technology as inevitably making legal control over digital data unenforcable unless even more and more unequal and unbalanced legal rights are given to them.

No one even really tried to argue with these actual real life facts, instead just resorting to wordplay about how artists have Rights, and limiting those would be Wrong.

 

[chikusho]

I'm sorry, but surely you can find a better source of information on this than a guy who founded something called the "Swedish Pirate Party" and whose Facebook profile picture has him wearing an eyepatch. I clicked his provided sources, and most of them are Wikipedia articles. The most reputible source I found was this, [http://echrblog.blogspot.in/2013/01/copyright-vs-freedom-of-expression.html] which looks a lot more reliable than this fellow. And it's not even that I think he's lying, I think it just feels like getting the pundit's opinion rather than the proper news source.

The Swedish Pirate Party holds two seats in the UN and has grown from a small grass roots movement in Sweden into serious political involvement in numerous countries around the world. While piracy by way of copyright violation is one of their main topics, it's far from the core of their political platform, which focuses on patent and copyright reform and human and civil rights and liberties (while also being the one of the handful of parties in the world that has proven to understand the internet).

He's linking to wikipedia articles because they provide a good summary of the institutions, terms and documents he's referring to. Did you take a look at the sources cited in the wikipedia articles? I find them to be quite reputable.
Also, this is his interpretation of the conclusion made by the french court (the original as well as the translation is linked in the post), explained concisely with the text he's basing it on.

I've never liked the idea of a "pirate party" people. Yes people should be able to share open-source software and such, but to proudly go around shouting "Hey! Artists don't deserve shit for their work if we can find other methods!" just seems childish to me. Yes the debate on piracy is multi-faceted, and let's not muddle piracy and open-source stuff, but I feel like people who enter the debate as "pro piracy" are not doing anyone any favors. It would be like someone who is pro-choice going in saying they are "pro fetus killing." There are better ways than that to present yourself.

Noone is saying that "artists don't deserve shit for their work" (although there is plenty of criticism towards the current structure of how those payments are handled). Even the piracy issue is more related to protecting individuals from various forms persecution by corporate interests, and encouraging creation and innovation in culture and technology rather than a matter of people being entitled to free stuff. There's plenty of information on their view on these issues if you're interested.
Also, while some people (like you, for instance) assume a political standpoint and attach some silly articles to them based on their name, if they hadn't called themselves "The Pirate Party", perhaps you wouldn't be talking about them at all, which politically is way worse. In this instance, anyone who cares to get into their politics will see the reasoning behind this decision.

 

[Vigormortis]

My username is not ironic, it refers to exactly that, to people feeling entitled to constantly grab for more and more rights, and personal benefits, and values, and control, as much as possible. And to my willingness to admit that I'm one of them.

Ha, no. More and more rights? No. It's about grabbing more and more material goods for yourself without having to work for it. But keep telling yourself otherwise. It amuses me to no end to hear people try to rationalize pirating software. It's like watching a jewel thief attempt to rationalize his acts to a judge.

"But those people over there have shiny jewels! Why can't I? I have a right to have those jewels! They were there in the open for everyone, right? Why shouldn't I just be able to take them?!"

You can talk all you want about "artists' rights", or about forced comparisons to taking away someone's property, or whatever it is why you think that people SHOULDN'T feel entitled to information that is already there and easily distributable, but the fact is, that this is all just a tug-of-war between multiple different interests, publishers, artists, consumers, the public, pirates, all feeling entitled to dictate the terms of what's coming next.

I...what? Seriously, where in any of my posts did I even mention "artist rights" or any of the other things you persistently bring up?

Who needs drugs? I can just read forum responses online. I'll end up feeling just as dazed and confused.

Huh? Crowdfunding is rendered antiquated by the Internet? Ok, I'm listening that one.

No. Not what I meant at all.

What I actually meant was, the concept of paying first for goods and service to be rendered later (something you were keen to herald as "revolutionary"), is rendered antiquated in a world with the internet. In effect, an on-demand world. A world where you can get what you want in an instant.

So the concept of having a "contemporary" method of peddling wares being pay first, receive much, much later (maybe) is, as I said, antiquated.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless, I'm done with this. It's apparent you and I are discussing drastically different topics and everything I'm saying is falling on deaf ears. You simply look for key words and then type down the same old tired arguments in response.

I want no part in that kind of discussion.

Good day.

 

[Doom972]

Makes sense. Downloaders shouldn't be held accountable as they can't possibly be sure about the legality of every file they download. On the other hand, Uploaders of copyrighted material should be held accountable, since they should know if it belongs to them, or if the creator of that file is ok with it.

 

[Doom972]

Makes sense. Downloaders shouldn't be held accountable as they can't possibly be sure about the legality of every file they download. On the other hand, Uploaders of copyrighted material should be held accountable, since they should know if it belongs to them, or if the creator of that file is ok with it.

It's pretty easy to tell often times. Most reasonable people are well informed enough to know it's illegal when they're downloading Skyrim for free.

Most reasonable people would understand that this is not the kind of case I was referring to. For example, if you can watch a music video on Youtube, is it legal to download it? Is it legal to download the mp3 of the song via torrent for free? The answer is different for different cases and different countries. A user shouldn't be afraid to download files because they might be illegal. Since it's reasonable to assume that an honest uploader won't bother uploading stuff that aren't his or haven't been given permission to upload, it makes more sense to go after uploaders.

 

[Doom972]

Makes sense. Downloaders shouldn't be held accountable as they can't possibly be sure about the legality of every file they download. On the other hand, Uploaders of copyrighted material should be held accountable, since they should know if it belongs to them, or if the creator of that file is ok with it.

It's pretty easy to tell often times. Most reasonable people are well informed enough to know it's illegal when they're downloading Skyrim for free.

Most reasonable people would understand that this is not the kind of case I was referring to. For example, if you can watch a music video on Youtube, is it legal to download it? Is it legal to download the mp3 of the song via torrent for free? The answer is different for different cases and different countries. A user shouldn't be afraid to download files because they might be illegal. Since it's reasonable to assume that an honest uploader won't bother uploading stuff that aren't his or haven't been given permission to upload, it makes more sense to go after uploaders.

I am sorry for assuming you weren't blatantly ignoring a significant possibility when trying to say something so broad as downloaders shouldn't be held accountable. Next time I won't assume integrity.

It's a matter of priorities it seems. I prefer that innocents won't have to fear breaking the law with each download, rather than making sure that copyright laws are strictly enforced. Someone's life shouldn't be ruined for downloading some files.

 

[Valkrex]

Piracy = stealing.


That's all there is to it. Don't care what a law says, if you take a product (or a copy of a product as the case may be with digital products) you are stealing and depriving the creator their hard earned profits.


I really don't get why people defend piracy. They are essentially defending theft, and are being smug self-righteous assholes at the same time.

Piracy DOES NOT help ANY industry. Just like breaking into a store and taking everything for free doesn't help. It actively harms the content creators.

Uhh, no. Piracy is a lot of thing but it is not theft. You're not actually taking something from someone else so that the person in question no longer has it, you are copying it.

You can discuss the moral implications of this for a hundred years but one thing is clear, piracy does not equal theft.

I discussed with someone earlier in the thread. Someone else posted that same argument, and I learned that it isn't stealing, but more along the lines of copyright infringement.

Seriously read the whole thread before picking a response and chewing it out.

Sorry if I'm annoyed but this is seriously about the sixth time this has happened.

 

[chikusho]

It is for a fact an outrageous claim.
Our greatest artworks of almost any era has been works of commission.

The Sistine Chapel was made on the wealth of the church.

The great symphonies were composed for the entertainment of the noble or use of political parties.

The whole idea of purist art for the sake of art denies people the ability to live on their craft and hone it. Really it is an absurd suggestion. We like their artwork for their talent and their skill to execute said talent. Talent is what you are born with in my opinion, but skill takes practice. Practice takes time. And time is money.

Our greatest artworks and scientific discoveries of almost any era have been works of passion and talent.
The purist art for the sake of art is how someone knows to commission things from the people creating said art.
Also, if an artist does not supply something of value, there will never be demand for it and there won't be any business involved.
The commissioning of art and science is usually what tangles up great artists and discoveries in a bearucratic web of ownership and monopoly of culture and technology from benifiting humanity. The fact that there exists infinitely more people being able to live of their art today than there ever has due to the free spreading of content on the internet should be proof of this.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Artists are the least important people in the world,
So, whatever you do, don't be an artist...girl.
Artists make a living dressin' up like a falafel.
Artists shed a tear when they're called something awful.

 

[chikusho]

You forgot skill. Passion, Talent and skill. All the talent and passion in the world isn't going to help you learn 3 point perspective if you dont have the time to study it. Like i said. Skill takes time and time is money.

And dont go telling me "there are tons of people that live from the free spread of art today due to the internet" when there is just as big a number of talented people who cant live from it. If you can argue one way I can argue another. The whole idea of Art for arts sake is nice, but it only works in a utopia.

Well, of course, if you are passionate about something you take the time to become more skillful at it. I thought that was a given. It's the very definition of passion. That time does not equal money, that time equals the purpose of life itself.
Art for arts sake is the whole reason it even exists as a business model. It's also the same reason that the current business model has been and is actively trying to bastardize the very art that created it.

Also, as I said, "if an artist does not supply something of value, there will never be demand for it and there won't be any business involved", which counters your argument beautifully. Some of the greatest artist, scientists, visionaries and thinkers of the history of the world have all been scraping by throughout their entire lives only to be discovered towards the end or even after their death. Today, due to the free content distribution of the internet, including the illegal kind, these people can reach a huge audience that previous generations could not. Case in point, more people can live of their art due to free content spreading on the internet than has ever been possible. Spreading of content increases interest, which increases audience, which increases revenue.

 

[micahrp]

snip

snip

Nice job ignoring the first half of my question, "Other than the fact that right now the letter of the law says so..."

You both properly described what the law says, and didn't say anything new with it. Yes, obviously, busking is legal, and piracy is illegal. D'uh.

Every variation of that, "content belongs to it's owner", or "you are not allowed to take it without permission", or "It is not a right to commit a illegal act", is basically a circular claim that can be reduced to the same thing:

"An IP holder has a Right to control copying, because Copyright says so". Or, in other words, "Piracy is wrong, because Copyright is a Right".

Which is just mixing up the terms right (as in the opposite of "wrong"), right (as in something that is considered naturally deserved, like the right to equality, or the right to have property), and right (as in the legal system allowing you to do something, e.g. "the right to own slaves", "the right to bear arms", "the right to smoke weed").

Not all legally granted Rights are morally justified, not all right things are granted as Legal Rights, and not even all righ things are Natural Rights.

So far, in this thread, I argued through showing examples of how art can stay profitable through other systems than limiting access to copies, I also brought examples of how unequal it is that a handful of business entities can entirely control billion people's access to most of the past century's pop-culture (unnexessarily, as seen in the previous point), and I described the progress of technology as inevitably making legal control over digital data unenforcable unless even more and more unequal and unbalanced legal rights are given to them.

No one even really tried to argue with these actual real life facts, instead just resorting to wordplay about how artists have Rights, and limiting those would be Wrong.

Where did I say illegal or legal? I proved public versus private. Are you saying this privacy is immoral and should be illegal?

We all have ignored examples, but I do try to only remove my part of the pervious responses so I can go section by section of the other persons posts and both complete sides can be seen at the same time without going dual screen. I heard no disagreement that the internet is a lawless place full of back alley dealers and people climbing into broken windows with non-helpful intent, but that doesn't mean you agreed to that is a real reflection of reality. I got no response (not even a snear) to the fair use of private property example when someone stated there is no fair use of private property.

For the company example here is my specific redress. The suggestion is an attempt to decouple supply and demand. In the supply and demand economy satisifing demand without also satisfying supply hurts the economy. If all the entertainment companies switched to that suggested model (which is an already saturated market) would jobs be lost or gained? Would all the companies make survive or what percent do you think would go out of business? My suggested solution that has been repeatedly dismissed (when the only dismissal I can understand is laziness) is to GROW the supply side. If you disagree with the companies go compete against them with that better model and drive them out of business yourself. More supply leads to more jobs and often lower prices when there is true competition.

Levels of technology creating unenforceable situations does not make those technologies morally right to use. What if someone could untraceably kill over the internet (just stepped into Deathnote territory) or untraceably steal money over the internet from bank accounts (Im trying to step back and give the more real current example) should we legalize that killing/stealing? Or would the government try to find some "unbalanced" way of enforcement? The governments response to all those technology-unenforceablity situations should be consistant.