>making a copy of something without paying the rightsholder

By your example, why is boxing considered OK?

>>52473859
Because boxing is fake, like most everything on TV, and is for entertainment purposes only. No one is really being harmed.

>>52473833
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.

>>52473929
>Muhammad Ali
>has parkinsons from boxing
>harms noone
fuck off

>>52474585
Why is that okay then, but "punch me in the face" means you can still sue someone for punching you in the face?

>>52475954
Because they are not the same thing and do not have the same ramifications.
Your metaphor is garbage, learn to literature

>>52473833
>steal
That false equivalence though

>>52476319
>copying something without paying
>illegal because it is harmful

>punching someone in the face
>illegal because it is harmful

>>52476369
>illegal because it is harmful
Prove it.
Hard mode: prove it without citing debunked riaa amd mpaa "studies"

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.

>>52476528
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.

>>52473833
shill pls.. nobody gives a shit about your shitty up because it sucks, get over it.

>>52476394
Why else would it be illegal?
Hard mode: answer without using >muh jews or >muh rich white hollywood execs paid Congress

>>52473929
kek nice bate

because different things are different

>>52477054
>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

>>52477054
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.

>>52473833
>>"I give you permission to punch me in the face"
>>it is still illegal and harmful
If you have consent and can prove it it isn't illegal