I missed some stuff. Please disregard that last one.:smack:
We seem to get lost in examples and illustrations.
OK, then, Perhaps we are simply disagreeing on what constitutes a work?
I contend that the ideas themselves, the Intellectual Property, fall under this category.
For clarity let’s go back to what you said earlier. (I leave in the first half for context)
Intellectual Property does not “amount to a person’s ability to monopolise”.
Intellectual Property is the result of intellectual labor.
Man has the right to profit from his labor (its the pursuit of happiness part).
Therefore, man has a right to profit from his intellectual property.
You’re right. It is “pretty basic really”. :eek:
OK, but that doesn’t really solve the problem. If I agree “Yes, artists deserve a degree of control over their works, which we’ll call ownership of intellectual property; intellectual property owners have certain rights, and it’s immoral to violate those rights,” then it doesn’t necessarily follow that I think it’s immoral to violate whatever the politicians of the day decide to call “copyright”.
Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. I wasn’t trying to suggest that no laws can be moral. A law that bans something immoral is immoral to violate; a law that bans something moral is moral to violate. It may be moral to violate copyright law in some ways, and immoral to violate it in other ways, depending on what exactly the law defines “copyright” to be.
If we assume that anything is moral unless shown to be immoral, then why precisely would it not be moral?
[ol]
[li]If an author doesn’t want you to enjoy his work, it’s immoral for you to do so.[/li][li]Enjoying other people’s copies of the author’s work is OK, but if the author doesn’t want you to have your own copy of his work, it’s immoral for you to have one.[/li][li]Enjoying the author’s work and possessing it against his wishes is OK, but if an author doesn’t want you to give away copies of his work, it’s immoral for you to do so.[/li][li]If a person is trying to sell something, it’s immoral for you to give it away for free.[/li][li]If a person is trying to sell something, it’s immoral for you to make other people not want to buy it.[/li][/ol]
I hope we can agree that statements 1, 4, and 5 are false. Statements 2 and 3 seem potentially reasonable, but I haven’t seen a convincing argument for either of them (though I’m willing to be convinced).
Now I can agree with this viewpoint. I certainly was not trying to suggest that just because it was codified it was therefore moral.
As this relates to the OP it may mean that you cannot download any song you want. It depends on what rights you think an artist is entitled to. What rights do you think an artist should have?
I might be able to agree with you on this, if we can clear up a couple things.
-
What exactly do you mean “enjoy”? If you simply mean listen to a legitimate copy, then I agree. (that is disagree with your statement
) If you mean that I should be able to steal the work and listen to it then I have to disagree with you. -
I assume that you meant that it is immoral to give away another equivilant thing. That is, if I am selling a lemon you did not mean to imply that that it would be ok for you to give away my lemon. In which case, I might be able to agree with you. But we might have to tangle a little over what Intellectual Property is.
In this case, the “lemon” is not simply 1 copy of a CD. It is the intellectual labor which went into creating the original. So, while it is certainly moral for you to write and record your own song and give it away, it is not moral for you to give away an exact copy of mine. -
I assume you meant “convince” or “ask” rather than “make”. Or more correctly, I assume you did not mean “force”. In which case I agree. (that is again, I disagree with the statement).
That’s correct.
I think that yet again you are conflating rights with ability but this time failing to consider privilege as well.
EMI has no right to allow or deny others to use what they create. Or at least no one has shown where such a right might be derived from, which is the same thing unless you wish to invoke your argument form ignorance position again. That does not mean that they have no ability to do such a thing. I have no right to own $10 million dollars. That is not the same as saying that I have no ability to own such a sum. It just means that owning such a sum is a privilege that must be earned if one has the ability.
I know this can be confusing because in modern America people seem to believe that a right should equate to an ability, or at least that is how the word is used. However that is not a correct use of the word. I have a right to bear arms. That does not give me an ability to bare arms. EMI may have no right to attempt to allow or deny others to use what they create. That does not recind their ability to allow or deny others to use. They can still do that if they are able.
I will agree for the sake of argument.
Again there is no argument here.
I actually thought that we had already settled this. I know that I stated quite clearly that “If they wish to exploit that work for financial gain then they have the right to do so to the extent that the market will stand”. That seems clear enough.
It seems that yet again you conflate right and ability. A man has a right to profit from his labour. That does not automatically grant him the ability to do so. If circumstances prevent him form doing so that is unfortunate, but he retains the right.
The opposite of ‘a right’ is not ‘inability’ nor is the absence of ‘a right’ the absence of ‘an ability’. A man can have a right to do something and absolutely no ability to do so without creating any paradox or internal contradiction. A man can lack a right to do something but still be able to do so as a privilege with no inherent contradiction.
I don’t think we are confused on the use of ability, right, or privilege. I think I can agree with your assertions regarding them.
If we insert EMI into my assertions then we have:
Intellectual Property is the result of intellectual labor.
EMI has the right to profit from its labor.
Therefore, EMI has a right to profit from its intellectual property.
However, we also have your assertion that:
But we also said that property rights include the right of exclusive use. That is the right to exclude others from using the property.
Just a couple questions to help me understand
Does this relate to the OP this way?
You believe that EMI might not have the ability to profit from its creations because you can easily copy its work and distribute them freely?
Surely you are not arguing that you have a right to copy because you can?
Unless its that argument from ignorance thing again
Are you saying that you can (as in have the physical ability) to download copyrighted files. And that therefore (absent any proof to the contrary) you have a right to do so?
There is a interesting and effective counterargument that states that downloading is merely an external factor that influences the size of a potential market.
External factors for any album includes such things as independent reviews, availability of songs on the album through radios and similar channels, available retail channels, and so forth. It just happens that music downloading is one of these factors.
Not everybody who is interested in a CD will eventually buy one. The claims of RIAA and similar organisations that downloading are fallacious because the alleged lost sales were not sales to begin with. How could you lose something you don’t own?
These external factors are things that companies must learn to deal with, or they will perish. This is the nature of a free market.
Is theft an “external factor”? It provides exposure to a product to people who might not have bought it.
No, you assumed that that. We never said any such thing. Yet again you misrepresent me. I will ask you once again pervert, when you post statements about what I have agreed to, what I have said, what I believe etc. will you please sick to quoting what I have actually posted. That way you will not invoke strawmen such as this. I have asked you to do this before, and yet you still horribly misrepresent my stated position. If you continue to do so then I will have little choice but to conclude that you are deliberately constructing straw men.
I fail to see how it can relate to the Op at all, whether his way or another way. The OP never mentions the word right. The reason I posted that statement was in an attempt to point out what appeared to be a misunderstanding on your part of the difference between a right, a privilege and an ability. There is no relevance to the OP until such time as you make it relevant. It’s your line of reasoning this is based on, not the OP.
Of course I believe that. It is patently true. Are you saying that you believe that the RIAA and several posters in this thread have been lying when they claim that the recording industry has a reduced ability to profit from its creations because downloaders can easily copy their work and distribute them freely? If yo don’t believe that then why ask whether I believe it? I rather thought that such a situation was taken to be axiomatic in this tread. If that isn’t the case then we will need to spend some time defining all axioms before we can continue.
We are now right back to page one, and your argument from ignorance position from this page to boot. I have a right to copy because I have a right to do anything until that right may be restricted by an overriding moral principle. No one has yet shown such an overriding moral principle. You avoided answering my questions above, but you have now come so blatantly full circle that I am afraid that we may not progress until you do answer my question and clarify your position.
I‘ll accept that I can fail to demonstrate something simply because I am thick. Under those circumstances obviously the fact that I cannot demonstrate immorality does not imply morality. The trouble I’m having is that there is no practical difference between being unable to demonstrate something, and that something not existing. That then becomes an argument from ignorance doesn’t it? Can you explain why it is not? You certainly seem to be saying that you will believe something is immoral without any evidence whatsoever just because it can’t be proved to be moral.
The trouble with arguments from ignorance is that nothing can ever be established. I could cover every possible circumstance and argument you produce and prove it moral in all those circumstances you will still be able to say that there exists a chance that there is a circumstance or clause hiding somewhere that we haven’t covered, and in that case the act might still be immoral.
Beyond that how exactly do you judge whether ” choices are either moral or immoral” if you believe that an act is not moral simply because it is not immoral? You believe that immorality is not a privative. So how do you delineate morality without referring to it being not immoral. What is an example of a moral act, and why?
Unless you can address those questions we will need to accept that your position is an argument form ignorance and hence logically invalid. That being the case I have a right to engage in moral activity sans overriding moral principles, and moral activities for all practical purposes are those that cannot be demonstrated as immoral.
I think maybe, I see some of our problem.
Morality is a system of values. So, deciding whether a choice is moral or not is a matter of placing it within this system. And, an example of a moral act is any which allows you to achieve or maintain a value without costing you a higher rated value.
That isn’t an exmaple of a moral act. It’s a defintion. It’s a defintion I can work with mind you, but it’s not an example. An example would be ‘euthansing my ill granny would be a moral act’ or ‘brushing my teeth woul be moral act’.
But let’s go with this defintion. It’s almost identical to mine. I say an act is moral until it is shown to be immoral, you say an act is moral until it can be shown to eliminate a more highly rated moral principle. For practical purposes the definitions are identical. By this defintion music downloading is a moral act because it does not cost you a higher rated value.
Now would yo care to have a shot at the rest of my question’s pervert?
I’m trying to separate kunilou’s scenario into three distinct actions: enjoying the music, possessing a copy of it, and distributing a copy of it.
Enjoying the music is simply listening to it. You enjoy music when you play a CD or MP3, or when you hear it on the radio or on TV. If it’s moral to enjoy a song, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s moral to obtain your own copy.
Possessing a copy is having the ability to enjoy the music on demand, at your own leisure, not subject to any outside restrictions. You possess a copy of a song when you have a CD or MP3, or a movie with the song on the soundtrack, or a cassette you made from the radio. You also possess a copy if you have access to a file server with the MP3 on it. If it’s moral to possess a copy, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s moral to give copies to others.
Distributing a copy is any action that causes someone else to possess a copy. It could mean giving away a CD, sending an MP3 over the internet, or allowing someone else to access your file server.
So… if you don’t believe it’s immoral to listen to a copy of a song that was obtained morally (on the radio, or a movie, or a friend’s CD), even if the artist doesn’t want you to listen to it, then we agree statement 1 is false. Statements 2 and 3 are about possessing and distributing copies, respectively.
There’s a fourth action that I think is also important: Profiting from the song. This means any use of the song for financial gain - selling a copy of the CD or MP3, charging for access to a file server, or using the song in an advertisement. If it’s moral to distribute a copy, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s moral to make a profit from it.
Yes, I meant an equivalent thing - the question is whether it’s moral for me to give away free lemons if you’re trying to sell lemons, or for me to give away free copies of a CD if you’re trying to sell copies of the same CD. Note that “you” could be Sam Goody or Amazon, not necessarily the artist whose intellectual work is on the CD.
If we agree, for the sake of argument, that it’s immoral for me to give away copies of a CD that you (as an artist) put your intellectual effort into making, then it must be because it’s immoral for me to distribute copies of your work, not because it’s immoral for me to give away for free what you (as a businessman) are trying to sell.
Sure, those words work too. I was referring to anything I could do to convince another person not to buy a copy of your CD from you - giving away copies of the same CD for free, writing a bad review of it in the New York Times, or playing your CD’s worst song on the radio every 30 minutes. If any of those actions are immoral, they’re immoral for other reasons, not because they convince someone not to buy the CD from you.
That leaves these two remaining statements (or perhaps some others I haven’t thought of):
I don’t agree with either of these statements, which I see as varying degrees of an “exclusive use” right for the intellectual property owner. Statement 1 about enjoying the music was also about an exclusive use right, to a lesser degree.
It doesn’t make sense to me that an IP owner should have exclusive use of his intellectual property, because exclusive use is a throwback to physical property. Physical property can only be used by one person at a time; the owner has a right to use it whenever he chooses, but he can’t use it if someone else is using it; so the owner has a right to decide who can use it. The same isn’t true of intellectual property, so I don’t see why the owner needs to have exclusive use.
Not at all. I contend that Intellectual Property is a much higher value than a copy of the latest metallica song. Both to me and to the artists. Therefore, by this definition, downloading IS immoral.
I think we are still having some difficulty with our use of “Intellectual Property” and “works”. So, let me assert a few things.
If I labor to write a book, the primary value I have expended is not the effort of typing, writing (with a pen), or photocopying, but the intellectual labor necessary to create a set of ideas and express them in the form of a book.
The Intellectual Property, then, is not this first copy of the book, but the concepts and ideas embodied by the book.
This Intellectual Property belongs to me. I have certain rights to it. Among these is the right to circulate or limit circulation of my book. There are others, of course, but this one is sifficient for the OP.
You see, this is the moral justification for copyright principles. I have a right to limit your use of my intellectual property, not because I am able to, but because I own it. And when I say this, I don’t mean I own the original copy, but because I own the “concepts and ideas” embodied in my work.
I realize you disagree with me, Blake, but I think you get caught up in proving your knowledge of fallacies to the point that you can not concentrate on the issue at hand. ( I know it makes it difficult for me which may be your purpose 
) If you will edit your questions which pertain to the OP so that I can see them concisely I may be able to answer them. But you ask so many questions which are barely disguised stawmen, as you put it, that I tend to ignore these.
BTW. I must congratulate you on beign so incredibly obtuse. It is a rare talent.
(really, I mean that in a good way)
I think I can agree with almost everything you said. When I mentioned earlier that an artist has “exclusive use” of his IP, I meant just what you suggest. Namely that he can sell it or not, and that he has a right to expect you not to distribute copies of it.
He cannot, however, say that you aren’t allowed to listen to the CD in your car as opposed to your home, for instance. This is related to the concept of “fair use”. This is another of the principles which have been trampled on by the recent copyright legislation.
I might modify your definition of distribution slightly. I think it is immoral to make copies of IP without the permision of the owner and distribute them. It is, however, quite permisible to buy a copy of a CD and then give, or sell it to a third party.
My point about this was that if you own your own lemons, then it is perfectly acceptable for you to give them away. But If the IP represented by a copy of a CD belongs to me, then it is not acceptable for you to create copies and give them away. If, however, you are able to obtain copies of the CD without violating the artists IP then it shold be OK for you to give them away.
For instance, if you get a box full of the latest Metalica CDs (buy buying them, or having them donated by someone who owns enough of the IP to do so) and give them out on the street that’s just fine.
Blake, let me see if I understand re my example of my son.
Someone creates a work and invites people to have a copy of that work. What he asks for in return is that those people pay a certain sum (maybe just enough to pay for the materials, maybe enough to make a profit.
One of the persons who agrees to pay the sum, then chooses to distribute copies of the work, without asking the permission of the person who created the original work.
Other people realize that they can either pay the original creator of the work, as he requested, or they can obtain a free copy of the work, without the permission of the orginal creator. Obviously, they choose the latter.
If I understand your argument, the person who distributes the copies of the original work has violated an implied contract with the creator, and is therefore acting immorally. However, the persons who accepted those copies have no implied contract with the creator and therefore are doing nothing morally wrong by obtaining a copy.
And this is how capitalism works, so any burden or hardship falls on the creator of the original work.
Would you make the same argument if we cut out the middleman? Suppose my son uploads a copy onto the net and Posts a message that says “you can listen for free. If you choose to download, please pay me a dollar.” Would someone who then downloaded but didn’t pay be acting immorally?
The essential premise is this. I offer something – a product, a service, an “intellectual property” – to the general public, and ask for payment. Someone who understands that I asked to be paid, obtains what I am offering but does not pay.
Please explain to me the moral issues to me.
Well, you just don’t always get what you want.
Lets say I paint the front of my house pretty spectacularly. And then I decide that I want to charge everyone five dollars to look at it. However, people just keep driving by and glancing at it!
If I were the record companies, I’d go to congress with a few million dollars and have them pass some abusrd regulations about what speed people can drive by my house at, that people have to buy glasses with blinders on them so they don’t accidently glimpse it and no non-blinder glasses can be developed, and that nobody can use the colors that I have used on my house on their own house.
What I am suggesting is that congress has no obligation (or right) to legislate the hell out of a very important part of public life to protect one entities ability to continue to profit without changing their business plan. Just because you want to profit a certain way don’t mean you get to. If I owned the painted house, I’d look into building a fence, making my house better than all the othre painted house imitators and maybe ask for donations from casual spectators, I could paint houses for people who want new paint jobs and charge for that. I could stage events at my house and charge admission to participate- I dunno. But I certainly wouldn’t be able to walk out with handcuffs and arrest everyone that looks my direction. Just because I really really want to profit from this painted house doesn’t mean I get to.
-
Filesharing is not illegal. At least, not here. Cite
-
It is not at all clear that decreases in record sales are due to filesharing as opposed to, say, growing perception of cd prices being substantially higher than the value of the music on them. Why shouldn’t we just conclude that labels are attempting to charge more than the market will bear and getting burned for it? There’s no evidence that links filesharing to lower record sales in a causal fashion. Indeed, to the contrary:
-
Most people I know who have downloaded a lot of music have in fact purchased more cd’s because of it, rather than fewer. There are some exceptions to this rule, but not all that many. The increase is due simply to increased exposure to a broader range of music. Since radio is playing such short playlists these days, there’s precious little music that’s getting serious advertising at that level, and what little does get exposure tends to get overexposure. Filesharing results in people finding more music, and typically finding music that they like that they would have never otherwise discovered, and there is some chance that they’ll go out and get that cd. These found sales may well outweigh the lost sales; we have no idea.
-
If the big labels had any common sense, they’d adjust their business model to accomodate reality rather than trying to adjust reality to accomodate their business model. It would be much easier, cheaper, more profitable, and would make them far fewer enemies. The answer is obvious. Glaringly obvious. High quality recordings downloadable for a low price per song. Heck, throw in liner notes in .pdf or something as a bonus. Distribution costs would plummet, volume would soar, so the price could be low indeed. This would kill music retailers, but these things happen as technology changes. Buggy whip manufacturers are all out of business too. Sucks to be them.
-
In my opinion, the morality of downloading music depends on what exactly you’re doing. If you download a song to check it out, listen to it a few times, decide you don’t much care for it - moral. Or even do care for it, but not so much you’d be inclined to purchase the cd at a reasonable price - still moral. But if you set out to download every song on an album to burn onto a cd because you must have the album, but you don’t want to pay for it, then you’ve crossed into immoral. Basically, if your downloading is roughly analogous to listening to the radio or borrowing an album from a library, you’re staying on the right side of the line. Only if your downloading is of the sort where it’s replacing a purchase have you gone over the line.
And personally, I think kunilou’s son should want people to fileshare his cd. It’s free advertising. How will he do better? Selling an album to 10% of people who hear his music, where that group consists solely of the small set of folk who hear him live at the local bar? Or selling an album to only 1% of people who hear his music, where that group consists of the vast audience available through Kazaa?
But you don’t “own” the concepts and ideas, you simply control the right to limit their expression.
It seems to me that much of the difficulty with the term “Intellectual Property” is due to the fact that it gives poor insight into the concepts it purports to represent. By inviting comparison to traditional property, it encourages us to gloss over the differences between the two (as Blake has shown in his analysis of the analogies presented earlier). It invites the use of loaded terms such as “own” to describe the control of rights to creative works. Perhaps most fundamentally, it obscures the completely different societal purposes for the two types of “property”: efficient allocation of scarce resources vs. promotion of arts and science.
Your argument above seems to boil down to:
The developer of a creative work has the inherent moral right to limit the ongoing distribution of that work (what you’re calling “ownership”).
The act of downloading contravenes that right.
Therefore, the act of downloading is immoral.
If this is an accurate restatement, please provide a justification for the first premise.
By the way, kudos to the participants in this thread; it’s by far the best copyright-related debate I’ve yet read on the SDMB.