# Do copyrights violate basic human rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217 "2005-02-28T01:00:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/101 "2005-03-10T05:16:47Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > My friend is probably breaking the contract he accepted by buying the ticket, but I’m still not obligated to pay anyone. But you are behaving in a way that many would find morally reprehensible. > [@](#): > > If he saw no value in it, he wouldn’t want to have it in the first place. 😉 That’s the rub—he found _value_ in it, he was simply too cheap (or perhaps even morally reprehensible) to be willing to pay for it. > [@](#): > > The time to make stipulations is _before_ performing the labor. And that’s how we have things now. The stipulation is copyright, and we have it. Take that stipulation away, so that everyone is working on spec, and few people will work on spec. It’s too chancy, especially since we already see that many people will opt for the free “workaround” (downloading and not buying). Film companies will probably not work on spec, since how do you get funding for something when a lot of people will be too cheap to want to pay for it? > [@](#): > > If I’m stopped at a red light, and someone comes up and starts washing my windshield, he’s performing labor and I’m receiving a benefit. But you were passively sitting there, asking for nothing, and he came along. You didn’t go out of your way to recieve the benefit, he foisted it upon you. That’s not even remotely like going out of your way to recieve the benefit for something (searching for it and downloading it) but still expecting to not have to pay for it (because, after all, you don’t _want_ to). But even so—if you didn’t want to have him wash your windshield, you could have told him to stop. If you don’t, and enjoy the benefit of his labors (that you _knew_ he’d expect compensation for), then are you not behaving in a reprehensible way (for willfully enjoying someone’s labor but being unwilling to compensate them for it)? Can’t you ask him how much he’d like to be paid, and then decide (before he does the work) whether or not you want to pay for it? > [@](#): > > If he then asks for money, it’s up to me whether I want to pay him or not. If I say no, he doesn’t get to spit and rub dirt on my windshield to take away the benefit–he took a gamble by performing that labor on spec, and he lost. If there was a way to magically take away the labor, (an “undo” button, so to speak) or the benefit of that labor (clean windshield), would you begrudge him taking it away from you since you didn’t want to pay for it? That’s how we’ve got it now. You don’t want to pay to recieve the benefit of someone’s labor, you don’t get it—at least not legally. You don’t get to say, “I like it, but I don’t want to pay for it” and expect it to be that simple. Something’s got to give. Something’s _always_ got to give—because people won’t work for nothing, and they also won’t tolerate others going out of their way to benefit from their labor while simultaniously insisting that they shouldn’t be expected to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![rkts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c4cdca/32.png) [@rkts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rkts)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/102 "2005-03-10T05:30:05Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > In some respects, the GPL would be unnecessary in a world without copyright, since you’d be able to disassemble, modify, and redistribute any software. It’d just be harder without the source code. While I hate to distract you from your rebuttals, could you be compelled to elaborate on this a little? With or without copyrights, non-GPL’ed software empowers people to use its code in a work whose source is not released, which, to some, is the core issue, as such software can theoretically do anything without the user’s knowledge or consent. You cannot remove spyware from an application without access to its source code. As to a modern substitute for copyright, I know of at least one [proposition](http://ronpenton.net/news/index.php?m=200410). The important part: > [@](#): > > I have a simple solution: Work by Public Contract. In such a system, I make a contract with the public at large: if you pay me a certain amount of money, I will release my service to the world, freely distributable by anyone to anyone. I don’t know how feasible this is. If the creator completes his work and the threshold is not reached, then we have a complete work existing, benefiting nobody. He could release it anyway, but that would break the system. If the threshold is reached before the creator finishes his work, then he has no obligation to make his remaining work of comparable quality. So either he risks the former by completing his work before receiving all the money; or the public risks the latter by reaching the threshold before he completes his work. By the way, **Lemur866** , that was an excellent post. I agree completely. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/103 "2005-03-10T07:02:11Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > Legalities aside, IMHO, this is just damn stupid. When you add up the expense and hassle of getting the walkie-talkie and the headset, making sure they work (for your average cheapo walkie-talkie, out of earshot = out of signal range), and smuggling it into the concert, it would be cheaper (when you add up both dollars and time spent) to just buy another ticket. Ah, but you see, my hypothetical friend in that example is a hiker and already owns a pair of [these](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00029U0W2), which claim a 10 mile range. 😉 The point was merely to set up a scenario where I’m listening to the concert without paying for it; cost effectiveness is beside the point. > [@](#): > > Piracy is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and those who practice it would probably be better off spending their time earning money to buy things legitimately. Better off in what sense? Do you think you’re a better judge of the value of time than the millions of people who download stuff illegally? > [@rkts](#): > > While I hate to distract you from your rebuttals, could you be compelled to elaborate on this a little? With or without copyrights, non-GPL’ed software empowers people to use its code in a work whose source is not released, which, to some, is the core issue, as such software can theoretically do anything without the user’s knowledge or consent. You cannot remove spyware from an application without access to its source code. You can decompile or disassemble an application into a human readable form, though, especially in this age of Java and Mono/.NET. If you’re concerned that a binary app you’re about to use might contain spyware, you can decompile it yourself and audit the code, or wait for someone else to do so (or just use an open source alternative). Then once you have that code, you can modify it and redistribute it however you like. It’s true that some aspects of the GPL depend on a copyright holder’s ability to dictate how others may use the copyrighted work, and eliminating copyright would affect the GPL as well as commercial licenses. For those people who care most about keeping their work out of closed-source applications, the change would be negative, but for someone who merely wants to work on (or use) open source software, it wouldn’t be. Replacing copyright law with a law that says derived works have to give credit to the original author would basically apply the BSD license to all software. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how feasible [Work by Public Contract] is. If the creator completes his work and the threshold is not reached, then we have a complete work existing, benefiting nobody. He could release it anyway, but that would break the system. If the threshold is reached before the creator finishes his work, then he has no obligation to make his remaining work of comparable quality. So either he risks the former by completing his work before receiving all the money; or the public risks the latter by reaching the threshold before he completes his work. I like this system. The problems you mention seem like exactly what escrow is designed to address - if the money doesn’t become his until the work is released, he can’t just take it and run. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/104 "2005-03-10T07:46:07Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > But [by listening to the concert remotely] you are behaving in a way that many would find morally reprehensible. I think reasonable people can disagree here. I also think those people you refer to are either exaggerating or have no sense of perspective. If listening to a concert without paying is “morally reprehensible”, then what do they call rape, murder, and torture? > [@](#): > > Take that stipulation away, so that everyone is working on spec, and few people will work on spec. Good. Leave risk up to banks, venture capitalists, and other financial professionals, not individual artists. > [@](#): > > Film companies will probably not work on spec, since how do you get funding for something when a lot of people will be too cheap to want to pay for it? Work by Public Contract is one possibility. See the money first, then perform the labor. > [@](#): > > But even so—if you didn’t want to have him wash your windshield, you could have told him to stop. If you don’t, and enjoy the benefit of his labors (that you knew he’d expect compensation for), then are you not behaving in a reprehensible way (for willfully enjoying someone’s labor but being unwilling to compensate them for it)? No, because I don’t find it reprehensible to enjoy someone’s labor without compensation, as long as there’s no fraud or coercion involved. He volunteered, not me. If he assumed I’d be willing to pay him, that’s his problem, not mine. > [@](#): > > Can’t you ask him how much he’d like to be paid, and then decide (before he does the work) whether or not you want to pay for it? Sure, I could. But if he starts working without asking, he eliminates that possibility. If he expects payment, it’s his responsibility to get my consent before he starts wasting his labor. > [@](#): > > If there was a way to magically take away the labor, (an “undo” button, so to speak) or the benefit of that labor (clean windshield), would you begrudge him taking it away from you since you didn’t want to pay for it? Yeah, I think I would. He’s messing with my car in either case (whether he has to physically touch it or not); he has no more right to make my windshield dirty than he did to make it clean in the first place. The only difference is I chose to tolerate it the first time. If I were some kind of dirt fanatic, I’d be angry when he cleaned it and happy when he made it dirty again, and I’d be equally justified. There’s an analog to this in the postal service. If someone sends you unsolicited merchandise, you get to keep it; they can’t bill you later or make you send it back. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/105 "2005-03-10T08:33:13Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > I also think those people you refer to are either exaggerating or have no sense of perspective. If listening to a concert without paying is “morally reprehensible”, then what do they call rape, murder, and torture? Who said that they are equally “morally reprehensible”? Just because one thing is wrong, doesn’t mean that calling something else wrong means I think it is is _equal_ in severity. Only that it’s also wrong. > [@](#): > > Leave risk up to banks, venture capitalists, and other financial professionals, not individual artists. Bad risk. Who wants to pay for something that may never get any money, because people would rather take it and not pay for it? Who wants to risk millions upon millions of dollars, only on spec, if downloading were legal and mainstream? Surely you jest. > [@](#): > > See the money first, then perform the labor. Sounds like it might have potential, as long as it _really_ would work, which I can’t see happening across the board. > [@](#): > > No, because I don’t find it reprehensible to enjoy someone’s labor without compensation, as long as there’s no fraud or coercion involved. He volunteered, not me. If he assumed I’d be willing to pay him, that’s his problem, not mine. Which doesn’t sound very nice—kind of leech-like, actually. Sure, he’s a sucker for volunteering, but you’re a leech for taking something, _knowing_ that he’s expecting compensation, and allowing him (sucker that he is) to continue, even though you have no intention of paying him. You want what he offers, you _know_ he hopes for compensation, but you’re not going to give it to him. You’re just going to take. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I think I would. He’s messing with my car in either case (whether he has to physically touch it or not); he has no more right to make my windshield dirty than he did to make it clean in the first place. This is absurd. He uses a magic “undo” button to leave the windshield in _exactly_ the same state that he found it—by pushing the “undo” button, he’s essentially done _nothing_—exactly _nothing_—to your windshield. How can you object to that? You didn’t mind the dirty windshield before he came along. His magic “undo” button only ondoes something that you never asked for, and didn’t deserve (because you didn’t want to pay for it). No harm, no foul. > [@](#): > > If I were some kind of dirt fanatic, I’d be angry when he cleaned it And the magic “undo” button would take care of that. You are not being harmed, either way. He offered something you didn’t ask for. When you won’t pay for the thing you didn’t ask for, he magically “undoes” everything and your car is left in exactly the same condition as before. I see nothing unacceptable about this. > [@](#): > > There’s an analog to this in the postal service. If someone sends you unsolicited merchandise, you get to keep it; they can’t bill you later or make you send it back. Actually, that’s not true, at least not according to the Post Office representative I talked to about a month ago. (I had a specific reason for asking, so I decided to go to the source.) The Postal Service representative told me that if you are sent an item that you didn’t ask for, you either have to send it back or pay for it. It’s possible that this person was mistaken, but they seemed pretty adamant. At this point I’d have to see some official Post Office cite indicating so. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/106 "2005-03-10T09:52:19Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Actually, that’s not true, at least not according to the Post Office representative I talked to about a month ago. (I had a specific reason for asking, so I decided to go to the source.) The Postal Service representative told me that if you are sent an item that you didn’t ask for, you either have to send it back or pay for it. It’s possible that this person was mistaken, but they seemed pretty adamant. At this point I’d have to see some official Post Office cite indicating so. He was wrong. [http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm](http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm) ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/107 "2005-03-10T10:33:48Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > He was wrong. > > [http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm](http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm) Interesting. Thanks for the link. I admit I was a little surprised when the P.O. guy told me that. So let’s look at it this way—if someone could send you something, unsolicited, and if you were unwilling to pay for it, why would it be a problem if they could somehow magically whisk it away, or “undo” its existence? I don’t see why it should be any problem at all. You didn’t ask for it, you didn’t think it was worth paying for, so you shouldn’t object if you are not able to keep it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/108 "2005-03-10T10:37:54Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Who wants to pay for something that may never get any money, because people would rather take it and not pay for it? Who wants to risk millions upon millions of dollars, only on spec, if downloading were legal and mainstream? Someone who was presented with a business plan that didn’t depend on receiving payment from everyone who enjoyed the work. Such as: “There’s a lot of demand for the work I’m planning (or others like it). I think you’ll be convinced that I can raise $X by releasing this as a work by public contract, but I only need $X-Y to produce it. You loan me that amount now, I’ll pay you back once the work is finished, and you can keep the difference $Y.” > [@](#): > > Which doesn’t sound very nice—kind of leech-like, actually. The law isn’t there to force people to be courteous or generous. > [@](#): > > Sure, he’s a sucker for volunteering, but you’re a leech for taking something, _knowing_ that he’s expecting compensation, and allowing him (sucker that he is) to continue, even though you have no intention of paying him. You want what he offers, you _know_ he hopes for compensation, but you’re not going to give it to him. You’re just going to take. He took a gamble when he started doing unsolicited work on my car, like a grocery store that sells milk below cost in order to bring in more business. They’re hoping I’ll buy enough other stuff to compensate for the loss they took on the milk, but if I go into the store and buy nothing but milk, that’s tough luck - I don’t owe them anything. They were betting that I was one of the people who’d buy more, and they bet wrong. Maybe you don’t think that sounds nice, but I’m not doing it to harm the store owners, I’m doing it to get a good deal on a product I want. > [@](#): > > This is absurd. He uses a magic “undo” button to leave the windshield in _exactly_ the same state that he found it—by pushing the “undo” button, he’s essentially done _nothing_—exactly _nothing_—to your windshield. How can you object to that? But he hasn’t done nothing. He gave me something and then took it away. If he performs an unrequested service, it becomes a gift, not something I’m obligated to repay or return. > [@](#): > > You are not being harmed, either way. He offered something you didn’t ask for. When you won’t pay for the thing you didn’t ask for, he magically “undoes” everything and your car is left in exactly the same condition as before. I see nothing unacceptable about this. When he gives me the gift of a clean windshield, intruding without my permission, it becomes mine. Foisting something upon me doesn’t create an obligation on my part. I could demand that he “take it back”, but if I decide I like it, then it’s mine to keep. When he takes it away without my permission, that’s no better than the first intrusion, even if he does it with a magic button instead of a squeegee. Two wrongs don’t make a right. > [@](#): > > Actually, that’s not true, at least not according to the Post Office representative I talked to about a month ago. (I had a specific reason for asking, so I decided to go to the source.) The Postal Service representative told me that if you are sent an item that you didn’t ask for, you either have to send it back or pay for it. It’s possible that this person was mistaken, but they seemed pretty adamant. At this point I’d have to see some official Post Office cite indicating so. Guess I should’ve included [this link](http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm) in my last post. It’s been true since 1970, apparently. > [@U.S. Postal Inspection Service](#): > > You, the consumer, may only legally be sent two types of merchandise through the mail without your consent or agreement [free samples, and gifts from charities that are asking for donations, and] in these two cases, you can consider the merchandise a gift if you wish. In all other situations, it is illegal to send merchandise to someone, unless that person has previously ordered or requested it. > > […] > > If you do not wish to pay for unsolicited merchandise or make a donation to a charity sending such an item, you may do one of three things (in each case, by law, you have no obligation to the sender): > > ``` > * If you have not opened the package, you may mark it "Return to Sender," and the Postal Service will return it with no additional postage charged to you. > > * If you open the package and don't like what you find, you may throw it away. > > * If you open the package and like what you find, you may keep it for free. In this instance, "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/109 "2005-03-10T10:38:42Z")
Oh, no!!! Another **yosemite** / **Mr 2001** copyright entanglement! You two remind me of Tracy and Hepburn, but in a kind of ‘non-visual’ way. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/110 "2005-03-10T10:51:45Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > So let’s look at it this way—if someone could send you something, unsolicited, and if you were unwilling to pay for it, why would it be a problem if they could somehow magically whisk it away, or “undo” its existence? I don’t see why it should be any problem at all. You didn’t ask for it, you didn’t think it was worth paying for, so you shouldn’t object if you are not able to keep it anyway. When they sent it to me, it became mine. That’s how mail works. I may not have requested it, I may not have felt it was worth whatever price they were asking, but I may have grown to like it. Doesn’t matter whether it used to be theirs; it’s mine now, and if they take it away, that’s theft. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/111 "2005-03-10T10:57:28Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > "There’s a lot of demand for the work I’m planning (or others like it). Except that there isn’t a lot of demand for the work. At least not a demand from people willing to _pay_, is there? There’s plenty of people who want it, for free, though. But that isn’t going to impress potential investors. > [@](#): > > The law isn’t there to force people to be courteous or generous. We’re not talking about laws, we’re talking about what is and is not “nice” or is not “leech-like.” Just because something’s legal, doesn’t make it nice. > [@](#): > > They’re hoping I’ll buy enough other stuff to compensate for the loss they took on the milk, but if I go into the store and buy nothing but milk, that’s tough luck - I don’t owe them anything. And this is where the whole analogy breaks down, because people who create intellectual property are not currently working on spec and _hoping_ people will buy something after they’ve acquired it—those are not currently the conditions in which people must work. Also, this work isn’t something that is foisted upon people who happen to stop at red lights. It’s something that people go to extraordinarly lengths to seek out, and to (illegally) acquire—without paying for it—because they _want_ it. They just don’t want to pay for it. > [@](#): > > But he hasn’t done nothing. He gave me something and then took it away. If he performs an unrequested service, it becomes a gift, not something I’m obligated to repay or return. And again this is where the analogy breaks down, because the people who create work never _gave_ you a damn thing, they never _consented_ to give you a damn thing, they never sought you out to foist something upon you that you didn’t ask for. You seek their work out, you specifically _desire_ the benefit of their work, and you take specific steps to find a way to acquire it without paying for it. You do all of this, _specifically_ against the wishes of those who toiled to make the thing possible in the first place, and you compare that to someone jumping out and thrusting some unsolicited “gift” upon you? Absurd. > [@](#): > > When he gives me the gift of a clean windshield, intruding without my permission, it becomes mine. But when he never gave you a damn thing, but instead you go to the trouble to seek out and enjoy something that nobody wanted you to have without compensation, it doesn’t mean it’s still yours. And if he can find a way to “undo” you keeping something that he in no way ever intended to “give” you, he should do it. **Starving Artist** : Yes, I know, I know. Sigh. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/112 "2005-03-10T14:22:28Z")
_sigh_ I really don’t want to get into this, because i tend to fall squarely in the middle as far as copyrights go. I see a lot of \*\*Mr2001’s \*\* point, as well as those made by the artists here. Thing is, can we agree that the system as it now stands is broken? I have basically two changes for the system. 1. copyright lasts the life of the artist, and can not be transferred. Let your kids go find their fortunes on their own. 2. corporations are not allowed to hold any sort of IP rights, simply because they don’t die. I respect the rights of artists to make money. However, the industry certainly doesn’t agree with me, given the levels of exploitation involved. And because of the way the industry is set up (at least with music), we are given wave after wave of pop glurge- we’re not defending the rights of the next Beethoven, we’re propping up a system where, because it’s not profitable, those geniuses are drowned out. -stonebow, who still thinks that everything (music, art, sports) was better before there was money in it ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/113 "2005-03-10T22:29:26Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > Except that there isn’t a lot of demand for the work. At least not a demand from people willing to _pay_, is there? Did you forget that bit about work by public contract? You poll a bunch of people, asking “Would you be willing to contribute $5 to the production of this work?”, maybe you start collecting those contributions before you go to investors, and presto - there’s your evidence that there’s demand for the work. > [@](#): > > There’s plenty of people who want it, for free, though. But that isn’t going to impress potential investors. I think you’re missing the point. The idea is to get away from the business model of (1) create work, (2) release work into market, (3) convince people to pay for what they could get for free. If you get the money first, it doesn’t matter whether anyone else wants it for free, because you’ve already been paid for your labor. And if you can convince an investor that others will be willing to pay you for your labor, then you can get paid _now_ instead of waiting for payment to trickle in as you complete the work. A public contract is just one way to convince an investor that you’ll be making money. Depending on the nature of your work, there will be others - merchandise sales for movies and children’s TV, ticket sales for a band, etc. But if you can’t convince an investor to front you the money to produce your work, all that means is you’ll have to fund the production by risking your own money, or by using contributions as they flow in (like [this guy](http://ronpenton.net/news/index.php?m=200410#19)). If you can’t convince _anyone_ that your work is worth paying for, well, then you should find another line of work. > [@](#): > > We’re not talking about laws, we’re talking about what is and is not “nice” or is not “leech-like.” Just because something’s legal, doesn’t make it nice. Sorry, not interested. Buying nothing but milk at a grocery store that’s selling it below cost is “leech-like”, but I’m not going to waste my time debating a philosophy that would condemn such an act as “not nice”. Business is business, and if you take a risk, you won’t always come out ahead. > [@](#): > > And this is where the whole analogy breaks down, because people who create intellectual property are not currently working on spec and _hoping_ people will buy something after they’ve acquired it—those are not currently the conditions in which people must work. Really? Let’s see… when a band records an album, have they already received payment from the fans who will buy copies of it, or are they _hoping_ it will sell? They get an advance from the studio, but AIUI that’s counted against their album sales. They’re also hoping that people won’t download their work without paying for it, but while that hope is rational for a physical product, it becomes less rational every day for something that can be copied infinitely, even when that hope is backed up by the law. No advertising campaign or string of lawsuits is going to convince the masses that copying bits is wrong, and no copy protection technology is going to prevent them from doing it without totally eliminating their ability to enjoy the work. A business model that depends on people _not_ taking advantage of technology isn’t going to last forever, no matter how you bribe the government to try to prop it up. > [@](#): > > And again this is where the analogy breaks down, because the people who create work never _gave_ you a damn thing, they never _consented_ to give you a damn thing, they never sought you out to foist something upon you that you didn’t ask for. Indeed. The point of that analogy (_looks back through thread_) was simply to illustrate that it’s fine to benefit from labor you haven’t paid for, and I think it’s done its job. > [@](#): > > But when he never gave you a damn thing, but instead you go to the trouble to seek out and enjoy something that nobody wanted you to have without compensation, it doesn’t mean it’s still yours. If we’re talking about intellectual works here, then they aren’t _anyone’s_, what with intangible things not needing owners and all. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/114 "2005-03-10T23:11:37Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Did you forget that bit about work by public contract? You poll a bunch of people, asking “Would you be willing to contribute $5 to the production of this work?”, maybe you start collecting those contributions before you go to investors, and presto - there’s your evidence that there’s demand for the work. That _might_ work with some sorts of projects, but I don’t see how it could work across the board. > [@](#): > > A public contract is just one way to convince an investor that you’ll be making money. Depending on the nature of your work, there will be others - merchandise sales for movies and children’s TV, ticket sales for a band, etc. Or, depending on the nature of the work, there might be no other forms of merchandise sales at all. Like I said, I don’t see it working across the board. > [@](#): > > Sorry, not interested. Oh, I don’t care whether or not you’re “interested.” I’m simply describing a certain attitude or behavior as “not nice,” or even “morally reprehensible.” If you don’t mind me describing such behavior as that, that’s fine. If you don’t mind me commenting that some of the behavior you advocate as “leech-like,” that’s fine too. If you _do_ mind, however, then, well . . . too bad. > [@](#): > > Really? Let’s see… when a band records an album, have they already received payment from the fans who will buy copies of it, or are they _hoping_ it will sell? They get an advance from the studio, but AIUI that’s counted against their album sales. But do the fans already possess the music? No, they do not. Does the studio allow the fans to possess the music before paying for it? No, they do not. Does the studio “throw out” the music, or foist it upon people passing by on the street, presenting it as a “gift” that they might not be able to reclaim if the recipient is unwilling to pay for it after all? No, they most emphatically do not. > [@](#): > > They’re also hoping that people won’t download their work without paying for it, You mean, they are hoping (and working hard to assure) that people won’t break the law, and break the stipulation (or understanding) that the work is only (morally at least) available for payment. It’s not a gift, it’s not free, and it’s not meant to be taken without payment. > [@](#): > > No advertising campaign or string of lawsuits is going to convince the masses that copying bits is wrong, You only speak for yourself in this. Some people do indeed feel it is wrong to benefit from someone else’s labor, seek it out and take it without the creator’s permission, without paying for it. Which is _exactly_ what people are doing when they copy these “bits.” And they know it. > [@](#): > > Indeed. The point of that analogy (_looks back through thread_) was simply to illustrate that it’s fine to benefit from labor you haven’t paid for, and I think it’s done its job. Oh no. I don’t think you illustrated that it’s _fine_ to benefit from the labors of someone who never intended to _give_ you a damn thing, who never foisted anything unsolicited upon you, and never wished—not in a million years—for you to seek out and take something that they created, and never wanted you to have without payment. They certainly aren’t behaving in any way to give you the impression that they are “giving” you the work—you must go to the trouble of finding it illicitly and take it against their wishes. > [@](#): > > If we’re talking about intellectual works here, then they aren’t _anyone’s_… So I assume that you (still) believe that the creator should not be able to prevent their works from being published, then? That no matter how vehemently they wish for something they created to never be released to the public, since it’s not really “theirs,” then they should have no say over that, right? No right to _not_ publish? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/115 "2005-03-11T01:54:14Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > When they sent it to me, it became mine. That’s how mail works. I may not have requested it, I may not have felt it was worth whatever price they were asking, but I may have grown to like it. Doesn’t matter whether it used to be theirs; it’s mine now, and if they take it away, that’s theft. But if it wasn’t theirs in the first place, how did they have the right to give it to you? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/116 "2005-03-11T02:34:21Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > That might work with some sorts of projects, but I don’t see how it could work across the board. If people are willing to pay for it after it’s created, they ought to be willing to pay for someone to create it in the first place. That’s how all other services work, right? > [@](#): > > Oh, I don’t care whether or not you’re “interested.” I’m simply describing a certain attitude or behavior as “not nice,” or even “morally reprehensible.” As long as you don’t try to claim that as the basis for making laws, you can call things nice or not nice however you please. I’ve been accused of much worse. 😉 > [@](#): > > Does the studio “throw out” the music, or foist it upon people passing by on the street, presenting it as a “gift” that they might not be able to reclaim if the recipient is unwilling to pay for it after all? If I hear a song on the radio, or on a TV commercial, then in a sense, it has been given to me without my permission. I might then proceed to record it and listen to it again and again at my leisure. > [@](#): > > You only speak for yourself in this. Heh, I didn’t realize I was single-handedly responsible for all that piracy that has the content industry so worried. If there really are no masses who see no problem with copying bits, then all those copy protection schemes and laws were made just for me! And here I thought _The Truman Show_ was fiction! > [@](#): > > Some people do indeed feel it is wrong to benefit from someone else’s labor, seek it out and take it without the creator’s permission, without paying for it. Which is exactly what people are doing when they copy these “bits.” And they know it. Of course they know what they’re doing, they just don’t agree that it’s wrong, and neither do I. The point is, those people are able to do what they do, and they’re going to continue to do so, and all the whining in the world isn’t going to change it. Unauthorized copying isn’t a fad, it’s a fundamental problem with the concept of “intellectual property” - intellectual works don’t have the same limitations as real property, and people in general are never going to act like they do. The only thing new about it is the fact that copies can be sent over the internet now, and good luck putting _that_ genie back in the bottle. If that’s OK with the people creating those works, then they can go on and keep their old business models. If, on the other hand, they’d like to maintain their income, then they’d be better off with a business model where they get paid for their labor, rather than doing the labor for free and expecting to get paid later. That is, thinking of themselves as providing a service, instead of providing an intangible product that sort of acts like a service, sort of acts like property, can’t be tracked or accounted for, and which anyone can replicate for free once they have a single copy. Their labor is scarce, something only they can provide; copies of the works they create are not, and that’s always going to be a problem, because not everyone is “nice” in the real world, and most other businesses don’t fall apart when people stop being “nice”. > [@](#): > > So I assume that you (still) believe that the creator should not be able to prevent their works from being published, then? That no matter how vehemently they wish for something they created to never be released to the public, since it’s not really “theirs,” then they should have no say over that, right? No right to not publish? Yes, yes, and I suppose yes. No one has the right to compel you to publish something you created, but you don’t have the right to compel other people not to publish the same thing either. There may be legitimate reasons to reward the creator of a work with payments from the people who use it, but not to give them veto power over who may use it or for what purpose. > [@pervert](#): > > But if it wasn’t theirs in the first place, how did they have the right to give it to you? I presume you’re talking about intellectual works now. (The comment you quoted was in response to a question about sending actual merchandise through the mail… or so I thought.) If it wasn’t theirs in the first place, they can’t transfer ownership to me, but they can’t tell me what to do with it, either. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/117 "2005-03-11T04:30:59Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > If it wasn’t theirs in the first place, they can’t transfer ownership to me, but they can’t tell me what to do with it, either. Perhaps, but the government sure can. Otherwise, I’d like to steal some stuff, send it to you and then perhaps buy some of it back at substantial discounts. Would that work under your formulations? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/118 "2005-03-11T04:37:03Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Their labor is scarce, something only they can provide; But this is not strictly true either. Vaudeville died precisely because new technology made it easier to enjoy world class performances (or rather copies of them) than to sit through second rate live ones. I assume you are OK with pirated copies of live performances? > [@](#): > > No one has the right to compel you to publish something you created, but you don’t have the right to compel other people not to publish the same thing either. I don’t understand this at all. You cannot be compeled to publish your own work, but you cannot stop someone from doing so? Really? Last time I watched you two go through this, your points made more sense. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/119 "2005-03-11T04:55:58Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > If people are willing to pay for it after it’s created But less people are willing to pay for it—that’s the whole point. Sure, they want to enjoy it, just not enough to pay for it. > [@](#): > > If I hear a song on the radio, or on a TV commercial, then in a sense, it has been given to me without my permission. I might then proceed to record it and listen to it again and again at my leisure. A snippet of a song on a commercial, a song with the DJ yammering over the beginning and the end—these are what are “released” to you. You’re rarely going to get a pristine, full version of the song. To get the pristine version, you’re supposed to pay. They don’t generally “foist” a pristine version upon you for nothing. > [@](#): > > If there really are no masses who see no problem with copying bits, then all those copy protection schemes and laws were made just for me! And here I thought Of course I realize that you are not the only person who advocates behaving in a selfish or reprehensible manner. > [@](#): > > Of course they know what they’re doing, they just don’t agree that it’s wrong, and neither do I. Sometimes, people act in a selfish manner, not because they don’t believe it’s _wrong_, but because they are selfish and simply don’t care either way. If they have a chance to not pay for something, they won’t. Not because they don’t think it’s not worth anything, but because they have a chance to get it (illicitly) for nothing. They’ll choose not paying over paying 100% of the time. > [@](#): > > intellectual works don’t have the same limitations as real property, and people in general are never going to act like they do. In other words, it’s easier to be selfish, so people will be selfish. > [@](#): > > Their labor is scarce, something only they can provide; copies of the works they create are not, and that’s always going to be a problem, because not everyone is “nice” in the real world, and most other businesses don’t fall apart when people stop being “nice”. And some businesses do fold, because they’re sick of the bullshit, and they decide that it’s not something they want to deal with anymore. And in preview, what **pervert** said. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes, and I suppose yes. No one has the right to compel you to publish something you created, but you don’t have the right to compel other people not to publish the same thing either. There may be legitimate reasons to reward the creator of a work with payments from the people who use it, but not to give them veto power over who may use it or for what purpose. Yes, of course. Still haven’t changed your stance one iota, I see. No one should have any say over what happens to copies of their own work. No say over their own travel photos, their school essays, or various creative projects that they’re tinkering on. The only thing they can do is try to physically keep others from seeing these things. But if they do anyway? All bets are off, baby. They person who created the works have no call to prevent anyone from sharing copies of all these things. Because they never really “belonged” to the person who created them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217/120 "2005-03-11T11:43:08Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Did you forget that bit about work by public contract? You poll a bunch of people, asking “Would you be willing to contribute $5 to the production of this work?”, maybe you start collecting those contributions before you go to investors, and presto - there’s your evidence that there’s demand for the work. There’s nothing preventing someone from funding his artistic work in this manner right now. The fact that absolutely no one does should be enough to convince you that it’s not a viable business model. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-copyrights-violate-basic-human-rights/292217.md?page=7)