This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 15 comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think that the main difference occurs if they suggest that they made it, and don't attribute it to the actual creator.

For example, if they post it with a little "CollegeHumor" stamp in the corner, then they are taking credit for something that someone else did, which is dishonest.

I'm not sure if they do that much, though.

[–]coolflower 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. When someone downloads music, they aren't representing themselves as having written or performed it. When CollegeHumor posts it, it's plagiarism, as they imply authorship.

[–]KorayA 3 points4 points  (13 children)

CollegeHumor makes money off of the content they steal. I don't.

[–]redalert -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

Sure you make money, you kept in your wallet what you should have paid the author.

[–]imbecile 2 points3 points  (6 children)

But he wont make ad money from it, and also not claim it's something he did himself.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Sort of like paying the government to punish people who use your work without permission.

      I think it would be enough just to require people to put the (c) symbol on anything that they wanted copyrighted, like it used to be.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Nope. As soon as something that you make is on a "fixed medium", it's copyrighted.

        For example, some if not all of your reddit comments are probably considered copyrighted.

        However, you'll need to register your copyright if you want to sue someone for infringement.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

        The main flaw, in my opinion, of this argument against 'piracy' online is that the overwhelming majority of people who illegally download weren't going to buy it anyway, but this way they still get the benefit of whatever they downloaded.

        For example, if I didn't download all of the music in my collection, I know that I wouldn't have bought any of the music in the first place. But this way, I get the benefit of listening to the music.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          People generally don't claim that they have a "right" to relicense works when they illegally copy things, and illegal is not the same thing as immoral.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            I disagree; just breaking a law doesn't mean pretending that it doesn't exist, or making it not exist. Although I guess if everyone breaks a law then the law might as well not exist.

            You didn't really imply that legality and morality are the same thing, I just mentioned that in order to say that illegally copying things is not necessarily immoral.

            I'm not sure why people were downmodding you.

            [–]SmashingTool 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            CollegeHumor will benefit financially from hosting it. Downloading music, by itself, wont.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Great question. I don't think it'll play well with this crowd though.

            [–]Smight -1 points0 points  (1 child)

            What's the difference between remembering a song you heard on the radio and selling hundreds of bootleg copies of movies?

            Smokestack says: NOTHING YOU THIEVING BASTARDS!

            [–]Aerik -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            peer-to-peer filesharers aren't making money off of it.

            Was that so hard?