If there was a right provided that allowed corporations to seize your entire sum of assets if you complained about them, would you feel the least bit morally conflicted about violating that right? Would you feel that you are deserving of punishment for refusing to respect that right?
That's the kind of harm copyright causes. It prevents you from certain speech and expressions so someone else can offer it to the market as a scarce good. Just because a law provides rights to people, that doesn't make it any more wrong to violate that right when that right also infringes on your inherent rights. The harm seems pretty clear to me.
Copyright is censorship. It gives people the power to tell you what you can't express so that they can make money being the sole source of that expression. It has chilling effects on all sorts of expressions that are just as valid as any other. Profit should not be a consideration when determining whether or not censorship is acceptable, because it's a dangerous path to more censorship (i.e. perpetually extending copyright terms).
That's not the point. I was trying to point out that prison is meant for people that are a clear threat to society if allowed to be free and that putting this person in there does nothing to mitigate the speculative harm he caused.
Illegal doesn't equate to wrong. Aiding escaping slaves was illegal prior to the emancipation. Was helping slaves escape wrong? Should people obey laws that they think are wrong or harmful simply because they are laws? Should we not challenge laws we think are wrong? Think about that the next time you feel the urge to look down at someone simply because they broke the law, because laws are not infallible.
So, having a copyright infringer take up space that could be occupied by a serial killer or rapist is the proportional response? What good has it done for society to separate this person from the rest of us? We can't even measure the harm he's accused of doing. How can we say then that we've prevented future harm from this person by locking him up? He has to have caused clear, measurable harm before we can say locking him up will prevent it from happening again? That's the same kind of thinking as, "We have no clue if he's done any harm, but we'll keep him locked up so he can't do it again."
To some degree it comes down to impatience. The 'I wan't it now' society...
Is that fair to lay blame at the feet of those people or is it the fault of an industry that refuses to serve people what they want because they think release windows create demand and, thus, more profit? If you aren't going to meet the demand of the market, someone else will whether it's legal or not. The responsible and mature response is to satisfy the demand before someone does it for you. The industry creates opportunities for infringement; they do it to themselves. Yet they ignore the most effective solution in favor of trying to threaten everyone to not do what they should be doing themselves so they can continue to ignore the demand from the market.
No, the harm is not hard to measure when the First Amendment is infringed. Censorship is the same every way around, it keeps people from expressing their thoughts in order to concede to another interest. The First Amendment is a fundamental right that is inherent in everyone. Copyright, however, is not. It also infringes on the First Amendment because some people want to use censorship to make money.
Do you think that this guy did anything morally wrong?
I think he's an indelicate jerk that lacks any tact and basic courtesy. I don't think he did anything morally wrong. What he did was refuse to be censored. I think censorship for the sake of profit is the amoral act.
Did you hear the rush of air go over your head? That was my point going by. Clearly, you missed it.
Let me dumb it down for you. The pilot knows that when he manipulates the controls, that the plane will do what he expects it to do; he need not know why it works in order to fly the plane. The engineer knows why those things do what the pilot expects them to do because he learned why they work rather than just how to operate them.
That's the difference between training and education. The engineer can do more than just fly the plane, he can change the way it flies. Training prepares you for doing one thing. Education prepares you for doing many things.
You can't account for data you don't have. That's like baking without all the measurements. You want to make a cake, and you have all the measurements, except for the baking soda. You make a guess, and the cake turns out terrible. In reality, you should have tried to find that information or not bothered with making a cake at all.
Except that profits are a myth. In order to profit, you need to bring in more money from your products than it took to produce them. In a fixed monetary supply (i.e. there is only $X in the economy and that amount is static), then employers have to continually cut wages of their workers so they spend more in consumption of goods than what they earn making them.
Well, a workforce that sees their paychecks shrink every week wouldn't stand for it. It would become apparent that someone is getting money for nothing. Instead, the monetary supply is progressively inflated so that your wages today will not buy as many goods tomorrow. If that's "working" I'd hate to see something utterly broken.
A pilot compared to an aeronautical engineer, for an example. A pilot knows how to make the plane fly, but rarely does the pilot know why it works. The engineer knows why the plane flies because his knowledge is not so superficial.
The point was that a college education has become a mandatory rite of passage into a career path. It's basically job training, whereas college used to be about learning how to think about an issue critically. The bar has been lowered so much that anybody that gets a degree has a very narrow set of specialized skills rather than leaving them with a tool set that will allow them to adapt to anything. It's the difference of learning "how" rather than "why".
It also says nothing for the value of user generated content. Participation in any medium could be considered a value to the economy because the economy applies to more than just money. There's a wealth of knowledge out there, and it's more accessible than it was when the primary means of distribution was physical containers such as books.
It's also unnecessary to complain about it too. We're not reading from stone tablets; we have dynamic content that can be updated, corrected, and expanded at will. There are so many trivial ways to deal with the problem that complaining actually takes more effort.
You're right. It's far too much of an imposition to do a quick search on a term in a blog article while you're already using a web browser. Why be self-reliant in finding information when you can just demand that every little detail be spoon-fed to you?
Honestly, you have the tools at your disposal and refuse to use them, while complaining that someone didn't do the work for you? That's pretty lazy. Those that inform themselves are better equipped than those that expect others to do the informing for them.
That's the problem with education these days. They fill people full of rote knowledge, but don't teach them how to gather their own knowledge. It's the difference between being an independent thinker and a dependent thinker. It's not the author's fault for not doing what you should already be doing for yourself.
I can't even count how many times I've come across something in an article that I wasn't familiar with and immediately did a search to elucidate it.
A majority doesn't make it right nor true. That's the problem with government and the courts. They rely on a majority opinion, even if it doesn't fit the data. What the majority says, goes. That's not a rational basis for solving problems.
There's a saying, "What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."
"No one owns it" is exclusive. That means that everyone is excluded from owning it. That doesn't imply that everyone can have use of it. Example: Nobody owns dark matter.
In contrast, "everyone owns it" is universally inclusive and everyone can use of it. Example: The park belongs to everyone. Content is an even stronger example of "everyone owns it", because not only is the ownership universally exclusive, it is universally accessible. Everyone possesses the whole without diminishing others from possessing it.