[mbrock]

Torrenting should be legal because criminalizing decentralized network technology fucks up the internet and requires the government to spy on all traffic.

This kind of argument is quite similar to why drugs should be legal even if their effects are bad -- the effects of prohibition are simply worse, and immoral.

"Information wants to be free" is not a crazy hippie idea, it's just the fact that it's extremely difficult (or basically tyrannical) to stop information from flowing once you have internet.

Should content creators be paid? They should be paid whatever they convince someone to pay them. Indeed it's not my job to figure it out. Maybe selling consumer download access to digital audio is not a viable business model in the presence of hard-to-stop piracy; well then, sell something else.

[anigbrowl]

'torrenting should be legal but content creators should work in the free market, eh?

I sincerely hope someone invents a protocol that will allow me to torrent a few cents out of your bank account every day. OK, that will be inconvenient for you but hey, that's not my problem. Money is just a social construct anyway so it's not like your loss actually matters in the overall scheme of things.

[mbrock]

If money worked like MP3 files, being infinitely copyable in a non-zero sum way, it would indeed be hard to stop people from copying "my" money. Since that's not how it works, banks already successfully protect our accounts. These problems are qualitatively very different.

[anigbrowl]

Surely you are aware that money is not grounded in physical objects but in notional promises and contractual relations. I certainly support the use of any software that enriches me at your expense, since you seem willing to do the same to me.

The flaw in your argument is that you think because mp3 files are copyable that technical reality obviates any moral right of content creator in deciding who they sell to and under what conditions. Since you don't think that content creators should be able to contractually or legally bind people from making copies, why should I care about your equally notional property interest? If you feel somehow diminished by my helping myself to your property, well just make more and sell it or something. It's not my problem.

[cr0sh]

Thought experiment:

I leave $100 on a table, with a sign that says "do not take this money, it belongs to me", and I walk away - maybe to go to the bathroom or something.

You come along and say to yourself "wow, I'd love a hundred dollars, but I can't take that money - it's not mine. However..." - and out of your back pocket you whip out your handy-dandy molecular duplication machine...

...which you then point at the money, press a button, and it spits out an identical duplicate of the money on the table. Satisfied, you walk away.

I come back to the table, see the money undisturbed, pick it up, and go on my way.

Have I somehow lost something or been diminished in some fashion?

Let's say the same thing could be applied to goods - like someone makes a complete copy of your car, at no cost to them. Have you lost something by them now having a copy of your car?

Let's say you build something, perhaps something unique. You create a video of it, and post some pictures of it on Ebay, Youtube, Craigslist, etc - because you want to sell it. Someone studies the design (the videos and images) and recreates it perfectly (this can be done, btw); have you now lost something because they have a copy of the item?

[s73ver]

No. This is not a valid comparison. For one, you are completely forgetting the effort involved in creating the work in the first place.

[ionised]

That effort doesn't suddenly become meaningless because a copy is made.

[mbrock]

I think that content creators simply are not able to prevent copying. If I have a folder of mp3s on my computer and my friend asks for a copy, it's so easy for me to say yes and just copy the files, instead of saying "sorry, this material is copyrighted, and I must concede the moral rights of the content creator and deny your wish." If a content creator wishes to stop this kind of heinous immoral piracy, how will they go about? Well, putting spyware and rootkits onto music CDs is a good start, right? Then move on to combating the open internet.

[s73ver]

If it's not your job to figure it out, why do you feel entitled to their content without paying?

[cr0sh]

One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"?

Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating.

I much prefer this kind of reciprocal exchange, than what is currently the default case. Certainly, there are going to be those who take the gift, and never give back.

But they likely would have done that anyhow, regardless of the system in place, as we see today (outside of draconian DRM schemes and whatnot - for the majority of that, I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?)

[s73ver]

"One could also ask "why do you feel entitled to their money for the content"?"

No, you absolutely could not. The content is the result of their hard work. You could no more say that than I could say that I'm entitled to having you paint my house without paying you.

"Honestly, some of the best content I have ever gotten was (in essence) "gifted" to me by the creator; whether as a free download, or perhaps directly given to me in some fashion. I enjoyed it so much so, that I felt compelled to gift them a monetary amount back, along with some kind words of thanks and encouragement for them to continue creating."

That is the creator's choice to do that. But not every creator wants to do that. In those cases, you should not take their hard work without paying for it.

"I've just simply not purchased those items, even though I do want them - are they somehow still entitled to my money?"

No, but no one is saying that. In fact, people are saying that is the proper way to go. Yet, many here are saying that they are still entitled to the work despite not paying for it. I find it extremely disingenuous that you would try to say that, though.

[mbrock]

That's an interesting question to ask the vast hordes of people around the world who partake in torrents -- applied ethics research.

When I used to torrent stuff, it was mostly because I was a kid with no money to spend. I'm glad my family wasn't sued for a hundred thousand dollars or whatever!