Comments on: Time to move beyond ‘sharing’ and ‘stealing’ in the debate over content http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/ The economics of digital content Sat, 25 May 2013 12:47:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Dennis McDonald http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/#comment-99414 Thu, 17 May 2012 00:03:48 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=204118#comment-99414 Maybe we need to start talking about “moral rights” again.

]]> By: sixty2nd http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/#comment-88887 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:37:16 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=204118#comment-88887 Pirate is a bullshit word created by individuals who saw a financial opportunity in creating a massive viewership hijacking other people’s work. Their is nothing mysterious, romantic or revolutionary about being a pirate. Jeez, and what a tepid article with no point of view.

]]> By: Guest http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/#comment-88658 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:56:05 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=204118#comment-88658 Intellectual property is a bullshit term invented by the so called pro-copyright partisans. Use neutral, accurate terminology like “copyright” or “patent”.

]]> By: Earnest Scrbbler http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/#comment-88616 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:14:59 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=204118#comment-88616 How about this, for a start: those who create intellectual property are entitled to be compensated for its use. Is that too radical for you?

]]> By: tetracycloide http://paidcontent.org/2012/04/03/timeto-move-beyond-sharing-and-stealing-in-the/#comment-88489 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:55:25 +0000 http://paidcontent.org/?p=204118#comment-88489 “Meanwhile, their critics will have to acknowledge that thugs like Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom”

Speaking of invoking loaded terms…

And why should critics or anyone for that matter accept that ‘some forms of intellectual property are acceptable’ if they’re not acceptable? Why must this be granted a priori without any examination of the costs and benefits to society as a whole? Why the tacit equating of concepts like trademark, patents, and copyrights that are in no way property with actual property by using yet more loaded terms like ‘intellectual property?’

]]>