Piracy is not stealing. I don't know why everyone on HN suddenly turned into a copyright hawk, only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime, like Disney and their lobbying for increasing its length.
Piracy is not stealing. I don't know why everyone on HN suddenly turned into a copyright hawk, only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime, like Disney and their lobbying for increasing its length.
> only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime
You’ve never authored, created, or published something? Never worked for a company that sells something protected by copyright?
All my works are open source or in the public domain. I don't like copyright for a reason.
"open source" and "in the public domain" aren't like separate things from "copyright", they describe specific sub-sets of stuff underneath "copyright", which is a top-level category that establishes a meaningful definition of stuff like "your work(s)" in the first place
i.e. "copyright" describes a legal concept, "copyleft" describes a licensing concept
> Never worked for a company that sells something protected by copyright?
I.e. never created software in exchange of money.
It isn't black and white, you can be against some aspects of copyright and be for some others.
It’s shifts like that, going from a copyleft to a copyright crowd, that make me increasingly suspicious the HN is authentic as it was years ago. Another weird one is the socialism lean instead of more libertarian ideals by many commentators. I think it might be generational issues and being 50+ years old makes me an old timer!
I'm guessing it's because every year, younger people join HN. I've been on this site for at least a decade and a half with various accounts and it's interesting to see the shift.
It’s very funny when people declare “piracy isn’t stealing”, as if the metaphor of piracy is all about singing and drinking.
Copying and distributing works isn’t identical to theft (deliberately depriving someone of their property), but you’re enjoying someone’s work without compensating them, so it isn’t totally unlike depriving them of something.
I guess it depends how you feel about refusing to pay a window washer. Or indeed you not being paid by your employer. It isn’t theft, but someone is clearly stiffing someone else.
As for only big companies benefitting from the copyright regime… seems like an ideological assumption. I know plenty of authors and they are quite happy having legal protections around their work which means they can earn from their labour.
> you’re enjoying someone’s work without compensating them
Which is foreseen in societal decision: libraries (again and again).
> refusing to pay a window washer
The window washer is providing a service for a price, that service is not equivalent to knowledge production, and nobody has decided that that service (cleaning windows) should be done for free.
Libraries are great and authors get paid when you borrow the book. But we’re talking about piracy.
As for window washing vs knowledge production, not sure what you mean. Books have a price. Nobody’s decided they should be free either.
> authors get paid
In the standard system for libraries, the book is paid once.
That is "libraries" as in "we have societally decided to make published knowledge freely available".
> window washing vs knowledge production
Societies have not decided that window washing should be freely available - on the other side, they have decided that published knowledge be freely available (that is the meaning of the establishment of libraries).
It must differ by geography. In my country, authors are paid library revenue according to the number of times their books are borrowed. Perhaps as well as an upfront purchase.
Re: what “society has decided”, are you arguing that because libraries exist, no one may sell books for a price?
Seems extreme, not widely agreed by the population or the relevant parties, and likely to cause immense problems with the economics of knowledge production, but it’s certainly one point of view!
Similarly I argue that because open source code exists, software engineers must all work for free, and that because public parks exist, everyone’s home gardens are open to all.
> are you arguing that because libraries exist
No, no, no. In general, contextually to the topic of which the submission in part, I am showing that libraries were established through a societal decision that published knowledge shall be freely available. That means, if you want to consult a text, you are enabled to just go to a library and do it - the cost will be societal and contained.
Contextually to your post, and the expression «enjoying someone’s work without compensating them», I showed that the Principle establishing libraries implies you are not required to directly compensate authors to access their work.
And I told you that there is no similar principle regulating access to all other goods or services, such as "mowing your lawn" - society has not decided to bear the cost of the operation. It has, for the realm of accessing knowledge.
Do not misread.
Edit: maybe this will further help you to understand:
some societies have decided that health care services shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs. Most societies have decided that published knowledge shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs. Few societies have decided that having private lawns mowed shall be easy to access, with collectively borne costs.