Quote:
Originally Posted by scveteran
The very fact that you say you find it tasteless, means that you are upset with them. You may say you wouldn't be angry, but we all know better because of what you said.
Here you point out the fact that if the work did well enough to make substantial money, you would have the copyright. That tells me that you would indeed try to make money off the work, if only you could. That means you really should not be stealing from those people who what you wish you could do.
Your second point was plain ludicrous. You do have not only a legal obligation to pay for the items you steal, but a moral one as well.
It is also stupid to think you have a DUTY to enjoy as much content as possible for the least cost. The DUTY you have is to obey the law.
If you want to help society by getting the producers to lower prices and give better service, you can do that through a variety of legal means. You don't have to steal from them.
|
I find it tasteless to eat while leaning the elbows on a table. I find it tasteless (and that's the most pleasant word I can find for it) to smoke. I find it tasteless to attribute something to your own which is not your own. But the fact that I find it tasteless doesn't mean that I'm going to sue someone for leaning the elbows in a table while eating, even if I can actually measure my distaste for it. Nor even for smoking, as much as I hate it. I hope my point is clear.
About the "copyright", I did not point that I had "copyright" or that I intended to milk off my works to make money: if they make money it's good, and if it's me who makes it with them it's better, but I'm not going out of my way for that. I pointed that if such a plagiarism comes, I had proof that I wrote it first. If I exercised "copyright", I'd be asking for compensation. On the contrary, I have said I'd not be asking for compensation, but just show proof that the plagiarist has used me as a ghost writer, and thus is a... well, plagiarist. It would shame the writer's reputation in the exact same manner, if you think about it.
I have no moral obligations save to enjoy my life while harming noone's property (bodies, material possesions, etc). As I said before, thwarting someone's
prospects of income is not harming their actual
property, thus I wouldn't say it's "stealing".
And about my duties, it is me and the ones around me who sets them, not the State. I won't obey any law which goes against my personal beliefs if I can get away with it. And I work so more and more people can get away with it, for it is noone's duty to obey a State, but to pursue happiness.
I remind you, when an official, State-approved market is dysfunctional, or when it simply is banned, a black market appears. The black market actually improves the outcomes in welfare for the people who take part in it. I would consider this the very same idea: if the State-approved, official marketplaces are rigged in favor of special interests, it's only logical that people find ingenious ways to circumvent the limits of those markets. Curiously, even if they go against their "duty" of obeying the law, and even if they hold the utmost respect of the rest of said law.
Which brings me a last question: which law should I obey? The Spanish law, which allows paid-for works to be distributed as long as the distributer doesn't win money with them? The German law, which doesn't? The US Law, which will allow eternal copyright with time? The Vanuatuan law?