Copyright

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #1445.

See full discussion instead
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1375· Collapse

Am I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?

CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Yes.

Criticism of #1375
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1378· Collapse

Why? I don't get that. She's not losing anything.

Criticism of #1377Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

You’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.

Criticism of #1378
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1382· Collapse

Why am I violating her rights?

Criticism of #1379Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Because she owns the copyright.

Criticism of #1382
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1384· Collapse

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.

Criticism of #1383Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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.

Criticism of #1384
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1386· Collapse

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?

Criticism of #1385Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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.

Criticism of #1386
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1436· Collapse

There, the owner is short of a bike. Returning it to him will make him whole. The situation looks quite different in the case of information, at least in my eyes. What exactly is to be returned?

Criticism of #1392Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Maybe you could simply pay her the price of the book plus interest plus a fee for the inconvenience. Plus some ‘deterrence fee’ so that most people don’t even think of doing it to begin with.

Criticism of #1436
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1439· Collapse

But I didn't agree to buy the book. I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't found it on pirate bay, let's say.

Criticism of #1437Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

You didn’t trade value for value. You traded nothing at all and only received. A free market and justice depend on people interacting as traders, not as leeches (objectivism).

Criticism of #1439
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago·#1442· Collapse

I have received a pattern of information. Information cannot be owned as it is non-scarce. JK Rowling is asking me to give her money for something that was never hers to begin with.

Criticism of #1441Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Duplicate of #1346.

Criticism of #1442