So posting a link to a publicly available news article on social media is "stealing" but sharing the password for a pay site (directly violating the site's TOS) is not stealing??
This is almost as weird as meth being legal but raw milk being outlawed.
It very much is like stealing. It's one thing to share a password for the people in your household, but to buy a personal sub as a business/government and share with almost a dozen coworkers is something else.
And I guarantee you this judge wouldn't have done this "WTF even is a 'password' anyways? What constitutes ‘distribution’ or ‘share’?" if this was Netflix or Disney suing you.
You cannot own information, thus it cannot be stolen. You can only attempt to control access on an agreement basis. But that basis has nothing to do with legality. And shouldn't because that's retarded
That’s a nice-sounding platitude, but at a certain level it runs into the same issues Communism does: if someone doesn’t have a right to make a living off their work, they can’t or won’t spend time doing that work.
The only theory of Property that allows something like IP to exist is one based on labor value. It doesn't "reach the same problem as communism" intellectual property IS communist legal theory. "My effort and labor should be rewarded" fuck off.
Property isn't about getting people to work. So frankly I don't give a single fucking shit if people "cant make a living" off using men with guns to force you to pretend you don't know something.
For Property to exist it must have Scarcity and Exclusivity. Intellectual property has neither.
Intellectual Property is about the stupidest legal doctrine after central banking.
Let's say I spend a bunch of time writing anything. A story, a history, a song, a news article, a scientific text, whatever. Hours and hours of research writing and such. When I spend my time on this, I don't have the use of that time to do a different job, so when I finish my product, I put it behind some sort of paywall because I need to make money somehow.
Now, I'm not saying "I did a thing for hours, people owe me money." If what I made is crap, it doesn't matter how long I spent doing it, no one will want to buy it. But, if some moron says "hey, this is great, everyone should have it for free!" and then circumvents my paywall, and I can't make any money off of it... it doesn't matter how nice and high-minded you tell yourself you're being, the bottom line is that I no longer have the ability to trade my time for something other than working a job that isn't creating that thing, so I'm not going to keep making it. Because it's true that no one is obligated to think my labor is worth paying for, but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to.
You are conflating two different things in a way that doesn't work. All I'm saying is that if no one pays for everything you're writing off as some ephemeral bullshit, people will stop making that stuff.
I love that your counterargument to "I don't fucking care if you can't make a living as an author" is to explain why you can't make a living as an author, and to fail at it anyway.
So I'll repeat.
I don't fucking care. Laws written "so that creative people can get paid for writing books" aren't legitimate legal theory.
I love this part:
"but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to." So fucking don't you retard.
Wonder how this'll effect Steam's recent announcement over transferring ownership of accounts. ToS already means fuck all legally speaking but it'll be funny if services like them have to go to court to try and defend them for the judge to go 'nah, customer keeps his stuff'
I wonder if streaming sites will simply refuse to serve Canadian IP addresses and take Canadian currency until the Government changes the law? I can't see them rolling over and allowing this to go unchallenged.
So posting a link to a publicly available news article on social media is "stealing" but sharing the password for a pay site (directly violating the site's TOS) is not stealing??
This is almost as weird as meth being legal but raw milk being outlawed.
Only when politicians got caught.
Posting a link to a news article isn't stealing. Neither is sharing the password for a pay site.
It very much is like stealing. It's one thing to share a password for the people in your household, but to buy a personal sub as a business/government and share with almost a dozen coworkers is something else.
And I guarantee you this judge wouldn't have done this "WTF even is a 'password' anyways? What constitutes ‘distribution’ or ‘share’?" if this was Netflix or Disney suing you.
You cannot own information, thus it cannot be stolen. You can only attempt to control access on an agreement basis. But that basis has nothing to do with legality. And shouldn't because that's retarded
That’s a nice-sounding platitude, but at a certain level it runs into the same issues Communism does: if someone doesn’t have a right to make a living off their work, they can’t or won’t spend time doing that work.
Wow what a fucking stupid response.
The only theory of Property that allows something like IP to exist is one based on labor value. It doesn't "reach the same problem as communism" intellectual property IS communist legal theory. "My effort and labor should be rewarded" fuck off.
Property isn't about getting people to work. So frankly I don't give a single fucking shit if people "cant make a living" off using men with guns to force you to pretend you don't know something.
For Property to exist it must have Scarcity and Exclusivity. Intellectual property has neither.
Intellectual Property is about the stupidest legal doctrine after central banking.
Let's say I spend a bunch of time writing anything. A story, a history, a song, a news article, a scientific text, whatever. Hours and hours of research writing and such. When I spend my time on this, I don't have the use of that time to do a different job, so when I finish my product, I put it behind some sort of paywall because I need to make money somehow.
Now, I'm not saying "I did a thing for hours, people owe me money." If what I made is crap, it doesn't matter how long I spent doing it, no one will want to buy it. But, if some moron says "hey, this is great, everyone should have it for free!" and then circumvents my paywall, and I can't make any money off of it... it doesn't matter how nice and high-minded you tell yourself you're being, the bottom line is that I no longer have the ability to trade my time for something other than working a job that isn't creating that thing, so I'm not going to keep making it. Because it's true that no one is obligated to think my labor is worth paying for, but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to.
You are conflating two different things in a way that doesn't work. All I'm saying is that if no one pays for everything you're writing off as some ephemeral bullshit, people will stop making that stuff.
I love that your counterargument to "I don't fucking care if you can't make a living as an author" is to explain why you can't make a living as an author, and to fail at it anyway.
So I'll repeat.
I don't fucking care. Laws written "so that creative people can get paid for writing books" aren't legitimate legal theory.
I love this part: "but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to." So fucking don't you retard.
Wonder how this'll effect Steam's recent announcement over transferring ownership of accounts. ToS already means fuck all legally speaking but it'll be funny if services like them have to go to court to try and defend them for the judge to go 'nah, customer keeps his stuff'
I foresee an increase in the cost of all Canadian digital subscriptions.
Can it now be taken from her, and shared?
I wonder if streaming sites will simply refuse to serve Canadian IP addresses and take Canadian currency until the Government changes the law? I can't see them rolling over and allowing this to go unchallenged.