Comment by majormajor
12 years ago
You agreed to it when you paid in order to watch it.
So yes, you didn't. But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. It's a simple deal, regardless of whether or not technology means you could.
Otherwise you can turn it around and ask "when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying" which is pretty similar to the case described here, just replace watching with using.
But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it.
Why?
when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying
If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?
I have a hard time seeing the argument that it should be unilateral. An agreement should be between multiple parties, so if you don't agree to what they're offering, you shouldn't take it. Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can." Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones? If you want to take it, you probably see some value in its creation.
Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can."
A free society implies that should be the default, with well justified exceptions. I don't see decent justifications for copyright.
Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones?
The fact that the latter are scarce and rivalrous. Private property is a mechanism to prevent/reduce conflicts. But I'm not opposed to suggestions for alternative mechanisms either.
1 reply →
> Why?
It's against the law.
> If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?
This argument makes no sense. You can play the music you bought for other people for free, just like giving a free car ride. You did in fact pay for the Toyota, just like you would to purchase an album.
It's against the law.
The courts in my jurisdiction disagree, but in any case, I wasn't making a legal argument, but an ethical one. Unless of course you consider that any illegal activity is necessarily unethical, in which case we have nothing to discuss.
You can play the music you bought for other people for free
Not freely, I can't, only under the very restrictive limits of fair use. But I grant you the analogy isn't good. In any case, the point stands: why should I get to decide who can do what with the works (in my case, software) I produce, after I sell them?
If it would be possible to keep driving the Toyota while lending it to three different friends at the same time - I'm sure Toyota would have a problem with that.
And fundies have a problem that I can watch porn. The question is, why should I care about their, Toyota's or copyright holders' problems? As a software developer, I ask as a copyright holder myself.