Do copyrights violate basic human rights?

Great Debates
101

But you are behaving in a way that many would find morally reprehensible.

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.

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?

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 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.

102

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. The important part:

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.

103

Ah, but you see, my hypothetical friend in that example is a hiker and already owns a pair of these, which claim a 10 mile range. :wink: 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.

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?

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 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.

104

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?

Good. Leave risk up to banks, venture capitalists, and other financial professionals, not individual artists.

Work by Public Contract is one possibility. See the money first, then perform the labor.

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.

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.

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.

105

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.

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.

Sounds like it might have potential, as long as it really would work, which I can’t see happening across the board.

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.

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.

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.

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.

106

He was wrong.

http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/merch.htm

107

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.

108

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.”

The law isn’t there to force people to be courteous or generous.

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.

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.

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.

Guess I should’ve included this link in my last post. It’s been true since 1970, apparently.

109

Oh, no!!! Another yosemite/Mr 2001 copyright entanglement!

You two remind me of Tracy and Hepburn, but in a kind of ‘non-visual’ way. :stuck_out_tongue:

110

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.

111

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

112

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

113

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.

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). If you can’t convince anyone that your work is worth paying for, well, then you should find another line of work.

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.

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.

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.

If we’re talking about intellectual works here, then they aren’t anyone’s, what with intangible things not needing owners and all. :wink:

114

That might work with some sorts of projects, but I don’t see how it could work across the board.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

115

But if it wasn’t theirs in the first place, how did they have the right to give it to you?

116

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?

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. :wink:

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.

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!

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”.

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.

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.

117

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?

118

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?

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.

119

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.

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.

Of course I realize that you are not the only person who advocates behaving in a selfish or reprehensible manner.

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.

In other words, it’s easier to be selfish, so people will be selfish.

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, 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.

120

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.