>making a copy of something without paying the rightsholder is illegal and harmful
>"I give you permission to steal from me"
>it is no longer illegal and harmful
>punching someone in the face is illagle and harmful
>"I give you permission to punch me in the face"
>it is still illegal and harmful
Why is CC considered okay by the US?
I know is b8 , but I will reply anyway.
Copyright law gives you the right to share your work in any way you want.
That includes allowing redistribution , reutilization and sharing it for free.
CC is still a copyright license.
Making a copy of anything harms no-one and copyright is nothing to do with the rights of someone who produced information, but is everything to do with removing rights from others.
Also copyright infringement is not stealing. "Intellectual property" is a very different construct to property.
You shouldn't even use the phrase "intellectual property"
It isn't a legally codified concept, and is the epitome of oxymoron; "Ownership of a thought" and all that.
Be explicit in your terminology: copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret.
That way, statist maximalists can't beat you with false equivalence word play.
>why is it illegal?
>because it's harmful
>why is it harmful?
>clearly because it's illegal
topkek ebin b8
This shit works on /b/, you're passed that now, you've crossed the 12 year old redditors and crossed into the realm of 40 year old NEET's, you've made a big mistake
Why is it illegal?
Because at the founding of the country, we decided that it seemed more economically productive to reward creator's and inventors with temporary monopolies on the means of reproducing their creations.
About 200 years later it became physically possible to trivially reproduce musical recordings in vast quantities. So we made doing that an ability afforded to only the rights holder for a limited time.
About 70 years later, the means of reproducing musical recordings became common place. We had a large legal suit regarding that where it was determined that an individual could legally record/reproduce anything they purchased or subscribed to via private or public money.
And 10 years later the recording industries convinced congress to retroactively change the terms of copyright so that personal recordings were illegal if they circumvented any technological means of restriction.
Why is pornography of consenting adults that resemble minors illegal? It is objectively not harmful to the "actors" and its banning increased national incidence of pedophilic infractions.