Tried and failed.

Oh, I know, I know, that’s “trying to feign disinterest”, right?

Ah, so you’re scared now? 👻

No, I’m “scared”, forgot? WooooOOOOOoooooh

glances at article

So? I never said I agreed with Gibson on this. I just stated legal considerations and my opinion on the matter. While it seems from your reply in the other thread that you’re having a hard time with this, people other than you a capable of having original thoughts.

Don’t care.

Yeah, it’s become very clear you don’t care whether your replies actual have bearing on what you’re replying to. Instead you keep making up stuff I didn’t say and accuse me of things you continue to do yourself. It seems a lot like you prefer to live in your fantasy world where you’re the strong free-thinking alpha male who has figured the world out, while I’m a “delicate cupcake”, “whiny loser”, “hyperventilat[ing]”, part of the “finger-wagging morality police” who has no clue about politics (nevermind I never talked about the political implications of this at all).

In other words, you continue to not make any actual points, and this is getting boring.

Also, a portion of that $200 billion likely directly or indirectly is US debt.

Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward.

And yet you do it, too, because moral considerations are important. And I disagree about moral arguments being weak, btw. You can make strong moral arguments; and there is an entire branch of philosophy about it.

doesn’t make it an “invasion of privacy”.

Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.

But even if I did, ‘it’s not an invasion of privacy’ is not a counter to ‘it’s not right, even if foreseeable’ (paraphrasing here).

Clutch your pearls elsewhere.

You mean “comment on a discussion forum”? Because I certainly don’t see me being emotional here.

Oh my god! How dare someone comment on a discussion forum!!

Nah, it’s more about the capslock, bold font and insults.

You’ll note that I never said anything was right or wrong, in any of my comments.

I mean, you said in your previous comment in this chain that you “guess” it’s morally wrong. And beyond me quoting that I have not claimed you made a moral judgement on this situation.

But alas, I think that it is morally wrong whether or not it was foreseeable, and I do so regardless of what your moral judgement of the situation is (if any). Which, again, seems to really matter to you.

Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I’d also tell them to go fuck themselves.

Another thing we agree on. But you do realize that you telling them to go fuck themselves is based on a moral judgement as well?

And again, “[that’s] how the internet works” does not make it right.

You replied to a comment that said the reuploads are copyright infringement, calling it “Wrong”, citing the TOS.

And in one of your other comments quoting the TOS, you explicitly say that they state the streams are in public domain (a copyright term), when the TOS actually say they are public information.

Gosh, you seem to care about this a lot…

Which is weird, because we seem to be in agreement about a major part:

Is it morally wrong? Sure, I guess.

Was it predictable that it would be recorded and redistributed? Sure. But that still doesn’t make it right.

I’m not quoting anything. I’m saying the TOS say it’s public information, not that they are giving up their copyright (which would be public domain).

Redistributing copyrighted material without permission is not only illegal when it’s for profit. What you’re alluding to is Fair Use (which does not require to be not-for-profit). And given the four factors of Fair Use, I think you’re going to have a hard time arguing in court that uploading the full stream without adding anything constitutes Fair Use.

And I did not say it was not in public. But it was made public intended for one-time, live viewing; and not respecting that is immoral.

Public information is not the same as public domain. They still hold the copyright on the streams, making reuploads illegal.

Also, aside from legality, it’s simply morally wrong. They consented to be watched once live (or, if they enabled recordings, until they delete the VOD), not for it to be shared around on third party sites forever - regardless what Chaturbate put in their TOS to cover their asses.

Public information is not the same as public domain. They still hold the copyright on the streams, making reuploads illegal.

Also, aside from legality, it’s simply morally wrong. They consented to be watched once live (or, if they enabled recordings, until they delete the VOD), not for it to be shared around on third party sites forever - regardless what Chaturbate put in their TOS to cover their asses.

Public information is not the same as public domain.