Activity feed
#1397·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoI wasn't aware that I signed such a contract when buying a book. I think for the contract to be valid I have to be aware of the conditions, no?
Ignorance of the law is not generally a legal defense, afaik.
If it were, any criminal could simply claim he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal. Which would be arbitrary.
Which brings us, again, to the purpose of the law: to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life (#1345).
#1397·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoI wasn't aware that I signed such a contract when buying a book. I think for the contract to be valid I have to be aware of the conditions, no?
Copyright is a well known law in widespread use.
#1385·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoOk let’s rewind the clock and say JK Rowling has finished writing Harry Potter but she hasn’t published it yet.
And she says: I’m going to publish and sell this book on condition that anyone who buys it not distribute it further. They can read it but they can’t redistribute it without my permission.
Those are the terms of publication. It’s a contract. And anyone who buys the book is then bound by the contract.
She would not publish the book otherwise.
She created a value and she wants to trade that value for something specific (money in exchange for reading, not redistributing).
Others are free to take her up on the offer or ignore her.
I wasn't aware that I signed such a contract when buying a book. I think for the contract to be valid I have to be aware of the conditions, no?
Copyright doesn’t prevent people from talking about someone else’s text in their own words, as much as they want.
No. Copyright never prevents consenting parties from sharing text freely as long as everyone agrees that that’s ok (see #1330).
#1391·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoNot like signing NDA since you are free to talk about the ideas in the book in your own words, but kinda like breach of contract yeah.
Okay well I have never thought of it in those terms. I definitely think NDAs should be enforceable.
#1386·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoSo it's not me who's pirating the book that is violating her right. It's whoever uploaded it for me to download it, right?
If someone steals a bike and then gifts it to you that doesn’t mean the owner can’t have it back just because you didn’t steal it. Same for copyright.
#1389·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoLol no, I'm trying to understand your point. You're saying that buying a book is a bit like signing an NDA, where I can be held liable for breach of contract if I disclose information. Did I get that right?
Not like signing NDA since you are free to talk about the ideas in the book in your own words, but kinda like breach of contract yeah.
Lol no, I'm trying to understand your point. You're saying that buying a book is a bit like signing an NDA, where I can be held liable for breach of contract if I disclose information. Did I get that right?#1387·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoIf you’re looking for someone to assuage your guilt over having pirated copyrighted content in the past, you won’t get that from me.
Lol no, I'm trying to understand your point.
#1386·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoSo it's not me who's pirating the book that is violating her right. It's whoever uploaded it for me to download it, right?
If you’re looking for someone to assuage your guilt over having pirated copyrighted content in the past, you won’t get that from me.
#1385·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoOk let’s rewind the clock and say JK Rowling has finished writing Harry Potter but she hasn’t published it yet.
And she says: I’m going to publish and sell this book on condition that anyone who buys it not distribute it further. They can read it but they can’t redistribute it without my permission.
Those are the terms of publication. It’s a contract. And anyone who buys the book is then bound by the contract.
She would not publish the book otherwise.
She created a value and she wants to trade that value for something specific (money in exchange for reading, not redistributing).
Others are free to take her up on the offer or ignore her.
So it's not me who's pirating the book that is violating her right. It's whoever uploaded it for me to download it, right?
#1384·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoOkay so without referring to current legislation. I understand that it is currently illegal, just like tax evasion, but that won't go far in persuading me that it isn't right.
Ok let’s rewind the clock and say JK Rowling has finished writing Harry Potter but she hasn’t published it yet.
And she says: I’m going to publish and sell this book on condition that anyone who buys it not distribute it further. They can read it but they can’t redistribute it without my permission.
Those are the terms of publication. It’s a contract. And anyone who buys the book is then bound by the contract.
She would not publish the book otherwise.
She created a value and she wants to trade that value for something specific (money in exchange for reading, not redistributing).
Others are free to take her up on the offer or ignore her.
Okay so without referring to current legislation. I understand that it is currently illegal, just like tax evasion, but that won't go far in persuading me that it isn't right.
#1379·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoYou’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.
Why am I violating her rights?
#1380·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoYour perspective on whether she loses anything really doesn’t matter. That’s the same even for cold hard property. If I exchange your tic tacs for $1,000,000 without your consent, you only win, you didn’t lose, but it’s still theft.
agreed
Your perspective on whether she loses anything really doesn’t matter. That’s the same even for cold hard property. If I exchange your tic tacs for $1,000,000 without your consent, you only win, you didn’t lose, but it’s still theft.
You’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.
#1375·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoAm I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?
Yes.
#1338·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoAll that being said, I think crediting people for inspiration is good form and should be part of common polite behavior.
Credit is a different matter from copyright. Plagiarism and copyright infringement aren’t the same thing.
Am I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?
#1371·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
I should be clear though that it is only right for the law to interfere with property to protect others’ rights. It’s not right for the law to confiscate your money to collect taxes, say.