A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread

[Guynemer]

The first one.

So it's not theft, despite being illegal?

I think it ought not be illegal.

My point - which you illustrate well - is that you think taking my TV is theft regardless of the law. Inexplicably, though, piracy stops being "theft" the moment Congress decides it's no longer illegal. Why the difference, Guy?

I don't know why there is a legal distinction between one day and the next. I'm sure there's some legalese reason. But without the copyright existing at all, without making piracy theft, why would anyone produce works in the first place?

If someone wants to take her book seventy years and a day after she dies, without paying for it, be my ****ing guest. We'll be long past the point of giving a ****.

[Kuciwalker]

The first one.

So it's not theft, despite being illegal?

And Congress could repeal the law that keeps me from coming over to your house and taking your TV, too. Your point?

My point - which you illustrate well - is that you think taking my TV is theft regardless of the law. Inexplicably, though, piracy stops being "theft" the moment Congress decides it's no longer illegal. Why the difference, Guy?

[Guynemer]

As in you think the law ought to be changed to permit 5, or you don't believe the law actually prohibits 5?

The first one.

Why does the book "belong" to me after the copyright expires? Why did this notion of "belonging" change in duration when Congress extended the term of copyright? If Congress repealed its copyright laws, would it no longer be theft?

And Congress could repeal the law that keeps me from coming over to your house and taking your TV, too. Your point?

[Kuciwalker]

If 5 violates copyright law, I'm not sure I agree with that.

As in you think the law ought to be changed to permit 5, or you don't believe the law actually prohibits 5?

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It isn't being lent to you, or given as a gift to you. That is ****ing theft, and if you can't see that, you're a spoiled ****ing brat like the rest of this ****ing country, wanting everything, paying for nothing.

Why does the book "belong" to me after the copyright expires? Why did this notion of "belonging" change in duration when Congress extended the term of copyright? If Congress repealed its copyright laws, would it no longer be theft?

[Guynemer]

If 5 violates copyright law, I'm not sure I agree with that.




You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It isn't being lent to you, or given as a gift to you. That is ****ing theft, and if you can't see that, you're a spoiled ****ing brat like the rest of this ****ing country, wanting everything, paying for nothing.

[Aeson]

Technically it is theft in those jurisdictions which define it as such.

[Kuciwalker]

Care to explain your answers? The fact that you gave different answers to 5 and 6 doesn't give you pause? What if I let you know that copyright law prohibits both 5 and 6? Would that change your answer to any of the questions?

[Guynemer]

1) A day after the copyright expires, is it theft if I "take" a copy without paying for it?

2) If I have no money, and so could not pay her, is it theft if I "take" a copy without paying for it?

3) If I borrow a copy of the book from the library, is it theft?

4) If my friend gives me his physical copy of the book after reading it, is it theft?

5) If my friend gives me his digital copy of the book (deleting the copy on his hard drive) after reading it, is it theft?

6) If my friend gives me his digital copy of the book after reading it, doesn't delete the copy on his hard drive, but also never reads it again, is it theft?

No yes no no no yes


Same would apply to music, games, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Your entire notion of "belonging" here is just a scheme to produce benefits for consumers, not to recognize supposed inherent moral rights of authors.

[Kuciwalker]

You are taking something that does not belong to you, and you are not paying for it. You can dress it up in all the fancy economic verbiage you'd like, but you haven't an ethical leg to stand on. Piracy is theft. When someone downloads a pirated copy of Galnemer's novel, they are stealing it. There is a perpetrator, there is a victim.

1) A day after the copyright expires, is it theft if I "take" a copy without paying for it?

2) If I have no money, and so could not pay her, is it theft if I "take" a copy without paying for it?

3) If I borrow a copy of the book from the library, is it theft?

4) If my friend gives me his physical copy of the book after reading it, is it theft?

5) If my friend gives me his digital copy of the book (deleting the copy on his hard drive) after reading it, is it theft?

6) If my friend gives me his digital copy of the book after reading it, doesn't delete the copy on his hard drive, but also never reads it again, is it theft?

[Guynemer]

You are taking something that does not belong to you, and you are not paying for it. You can dress it up in all the fancy economic verbiage you'd like, but you haven't an ethical leg to stand on. Piracy is theft. When someone downloads a pirated copy of Galnemer's novel, they are stealing it. There is a perpetrator, there is a victim.

[Kuciwalker]

Property solves the tragedy of the commons. Intellectual "property" solves the free rider problem.

[Kuciwalker]

You mean, apart from the fact that the restaurant expended scarce resources (food and labor) on your behalf?

[Guynemer]

You don't think that's central to the issue?

"Intellectual property" conflates two entirely distinct market failures.

So it would be okay to walk into a restaurant, order some food, eat it, and leave, because you were just trying it to see if it was worthwhile, or because you would eat it for free but wouldn't pay for it? I'm really not seeing any ethical distinction at all.

[Docfeelgood]

I just watch it, not download it.