The ethics of violating "abandoned" copyrights

[Starving_Artist]

@Mr2001

In my experience, most freeway drivers exceed the speed limit, and it’s the ones who drive slower who annoy other drivers and put lives at risk. Staying within the speed limit is certainly not a “tenet accepted and held” on I-90 between here and Seattle, or on I-90, US 395, I-205, I-5, I-80, I-880, etc. between here and San Jose.

I think I get your point, though.

Such delicious irony! You, among others, have essentially told me that my position is wrong because it goes against “tenets accepted and held around the world” - i.e. what everyone else believes. If everyone else jumps off the copyright cliff, I should too?

Indeed you should! And here’s why:

Because in this case, what everyone else believes is the law!

(And we’re not the ones jumping off the copyright cliff…you are, my friend.)

Nice try, though!

@Mr2001

Do you see the problem with your matchmaking yet, Starving Artist? She has such a persecution complex that all she can do is make patronizing attacks like the above, which are totally unrelated to anything I’ve actually said in this thread. Communication is key to a relationship, but this “I! Shall! Respond! With! The! Same! Staccato! Outrage! No! Matter! What! You! Say!” attitude just wouldn’t cut it, and there’s no way I’d let her bring that cross to bed.

But that’s not the worst part. The worst part would be her sneaking into the living room every night to delete everything from my TiVo that I’d seen before. “It’s not for copying, it’s for time shifting! You already saw South Park last night. If you want to see it again, buy the DVD! Don’t you care about Matt and Trey’s feelings? They’re not running a candy shop, you leech!”

A most dangerous (and likely) scenario, indeed! You are wise to proceed with caution.

[Ms2001]

@yosemite

I’d like to see some cites proving this.

Then go read copyright threads on Slashdot. What I posted was the perception I got from reading that site over the past few years, and sorry, I’m not going to go slog through their archives for you. If you don’t want to take my word about what people post over there, then don’t.

In addition, why don’t you offer up a poll in IMHO asking the “Information must be free!” crowd if they want it to extend that far.

Since you’re the one so interested in polling, I’ll put you in charge of that.

And what’s this about a “persecution complex,” oh you, who try to claim that anyone who doesn’t want to publish their work is “hoarding” it, and that their unwillingness to fork over anything they’ve done on demaind is the death of the public domain? Puuhleeze.

If that’s what you call persecution claims, I’d hate to think what you call the wailing I quoted in my last post. I almost shed a tear when I heard that mean ol’ Mr2001 was denying that you had emotions, motivations, or dignity; then, of course, I realized it was completely made-up.

Earlier, you wrote “no doubt there will be plenty of people telling me that I should just suck it up and not complain when people use my work in any way I see fit, or tell me to get a real job, or tell me that I owe them my work.”

But, like any good martyr, you had the courage to stand tall and take a daring pro-copyright stance, even though you knew what a thrashing you’d get from those leeches, commies, and thieves who hate artists and want to steal all your work. They just don’t understand how it feels to be you! Why, oh WHY must they torment you so?

Why don’t we revist the thing that apparently is a big whoooooooosh to you: how artists feel about their work, and also, how they’d react if your grand scheme were to become reality. I see no evidence that you really understand the consequences of this. It is as if you see artists as some sort of unlimited supply of goodies, forever cranking out more stuff, no matter how intrusive and opressive you make it for them.

One part “You don’t understand how I feel”, one part “You think I’m just here to serve you”, one part “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!”; stir, post, repeat ad nauseum.

Or, would you like to put forth a compelling and well-thought out explanation of how you’d convince artists that they should keep on working, even though they couldn’t even set their own prices,

How many artists would miss being able to price their work at $800 billion? Can you name one painting that has ever sold for $800 billion? (Sorry, it’s a trick question: If you could, $800 billion would therefore be a reasonable price for such paintings by my definition.)

As Lamia put it in that recent thread you started (that you’ve let sink like a stone, after everyone disagreed with your premise), copying someone’s unpublished works without their permission is “creepy.” How do you propose to compensate for this decidedly “creepy” factor, and also (as Lamia wisely put it) the borderline “sociopathy” of such a mindset?

First, I propose to post the actual quotes:

@Lamia (another thread)

I can understand enjoying a work of art so much that you want the whole world to get to enjoy it too, but if you have that much respect for the art I’d think you’d have at least enough respect for the artist to care about their wishes. To do otherwise strikes me as more than a little creepy.

@Lamia (another thread)

Hurting people’s feelings causes them pain. To ignore this when considering questions of ethics would be…illogical. Worse than that, I think it would border on sociopathy.

IOW, not caring about the artist’s wishes is “creepy” and ignoring the fact that hurting people’s feelings causes them pain “borders on sociopathy”. I am doing neither of those; I’m weighing the artist’s wishes and feelings against what I perceive as a more important cause. One person’s loss is regrettable, but it doesn’t automatically outweigh a thousand others’ gain.

And finally… thanks for reminding me about that thread. Between this one, my own message board, working on a couple new freeware projects, researching programming language design and interactive fiction for those projects (whee, coroutines), choosing a printer, buying furniture, meeting deadlines at work, celebrating my brother and stepmother’s birthdays, and unpredicted turns in my personal life, I’ve somehow let three days go by without posting to a thread I started! I shall remedy that situation soon.

@Starving Artist

Indeed you should! And here’s why:

Because in this case, what everyone else believes is the law!

I thought we were still discussing ethics. You’re right to caution me that distributing copyrighted works without permission is illegal, and as a matter of fact, I can’t even think of the last time I did it, but you can’t use the existence of a law as proof that something is unethical.

If the popularity of the belief that speeding is OK doesn’t make it right, then the popularity of the belief that copyright is legitimate doesn’t make that right either; if you’re suggesting that having the law on their side somehow affects the ethics of their position, you’ll have to explain a bit further.

(And we’re not the ones jumping off the copyright cliff…you are, my friend.)

So you’re saying I should jump off the cliff that no one else is jumping off of? Are you sure you know how that metaphor works?

[yosemite]

@Mr2001

Then go read copyright threads on Slashdot. What I posted was the perception I got from reading that site over the past few years, and sorry, I’m not going to go slog through their archives for you. If you don’t want to take my word about what people post over there, then don’t.

Since you’re the one so interested in polling, I’ll put you in charge of that.

So basically you’re blowing smoke. You won’t show a cite. You won’t start a poll. I daresay because you know what the outcome will be. And you also know that your “impression” probably won’t pan out. But hey—an “impression” can substitute for a cite I suppose. :rolleyes:

In other words, you provide a non-answer. Just an “impression.”

That will not suffice in GD, my dear. You want us to believe that droves of people support the notion of anyone wandering through a person’s house can publish their works against their will, you need to really back it up a little better than that.

If that’s what you call persecution claims, I’d hate to think what you call the wailing I quoted in my last post. I almost shed a tear when I heard that mean ol’ Mr2001 was denying that you had emotions, motivations, or dignity; then, of course, I realized it was completely made-up.

Nope. Pretty much that sums it up. Once again, whooooosh. You still do not provide me with a solution for the “creepy” factor of an artist having their work published against their will. How do you propose to encourage artists to still create and still show anyone else their work under the conditions that you propose?

You’ve conveniently ignored that question.

One part “You don’t understand how I feel”, one part “You think I’m just here to serve you”, one part “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!”; stir, post, repeat ad nauseum.

Wow. You did a whole lot of research, digging up those quotes.

All I’m doing is simplifying what has been said, time and again, on these kinds of threads. With a dash of heavy sarcasm and irritation, of course. And all you’ve done here is reinforce that my simplification is pretty spot-on.

But do I feel “oppressed” at this time? Nope. Because, my dear oppressed fellow, it ain’t ever going to happen. Your dreams of utopia are never going to come to pass. Sorry. No free candy for you. We’ll all get to keep “hoarding” our work; keep a “monopoly” on it, and that ain’t gonna change.

How many artists would miss being able to price their work at $800 billion? Can you name one painting that has ever sold for $800 billion? (Sorry, it’s a trick question: If you could, $800 billion would therefore be a reasonable price for such paintings by my definition.)

We aren’t just talking about $800 billion, you were saying “market value” or somesuch. You are talking about price controls, as a way of not permitting an artist to opt out of selling something that they feel should remain unpublished. Pretty oppressive.

First, I propose to post the actual quotes:
IOW, not caring about the artist’s wishes is “creepy” and ignoring the fact that hurting people’s feelings causes them pain “borders on sociopathy”. I am doing neither of those; I’m weighing the artist’s wishes and feelings against what I perceive as a more important cause. One person’s loss is regrettable, but it doesn’t automatically outweigh a thousand others’ gain.

You give the most feeblest of rebuttals to Lamia. Like, “maybe” the enjoyment people get from creepily-swiped work from an unhappy artist would be enough to outweigh the unhappiness. Lamia tore it to shreds and you’ve not provided a response (that I’ve seen).

And finally… thanks for reminding me about that thread. Between this one, my own message board, working on a couple new freeware projects, researching programming language design and interactive fiction for those blah blah blah blah blah . . .

My, your life is an open book, isn’t it?

[Ms2001]

@yosemite

You want us to believe that droves of people support the notion of anyone wandering through a person’s house can publish their works against their will, you need to really back it up a little better than that.

“Droves”, huh? Your word, not mine. Look back and you’ll see I wasn’t so general.

As you might have guessed, the question of copying works in someone’s house hasn’t actually come up on Slashdot, AFAIK. It’s a tech news driven site, and there isn’t much of what you’re looking for in the news. However, it’s not hard at all to find people who are opposed to copyright, and infer that they don’t make an exception allowing copyright for certain works in certain places; in a necessarily brief skim of two threads (they’re frickin’ huge and it’s almost 4 AM), I found these quotes:

It’s the public’s “IP”, we, through the US government, have granted the artists and producers a time limited monopoly on the production and initial distribution of the works in question. It’s not taking something other than stepping on the monopoly they were given.

The law does not grant protection to those who create “original” works in the strict sense if not the legal, because there are no original works. Every work is in some way derivative. Instead, the law grants temporary copy privileges to novel expressions, which is certainly tenuous ground no matter how you look at it. If you think there is ‘genius’ creativity, or are ‘original’ works out there, then you may be right to some small extent–but as the Framers correctly understood, the far larger influence is public culture that freely available.

The digital revolution doesn’t change the philosophy behind “intellectual property”. Information can be independently discovered–thus it exists outside of time. That was true during the printing press and its true with the internet. And “intellectual property” law was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

When you can make an “infinite” number of copies for “free” (or close to it), there is no need to invent property (formalized exclusive possession) to solve a natural conflict. There is no natural conflict; giving copies to everyone makes the pie bigger.

It always seems that most arguments over IP tends to resolve around the issue of compensation. Yet both sides seem to be missing two fundamental assumptions they are both making in the economics of intellectual work.

1. Creators of intellectual work have a right to compensation, and
2. Compensation occurs after the work has been completed.

I think we all need to challenge both of those axioms.
[…]
So why are we so eager to assume without question that artists and authors are always due compensation on what they have already done, rather than as encouragement for what we want them to do. I’m sure it must have something to do with intrinsic differences in the supply/demand models and the opportunity v. incremental costs between physical and intellectual works. Also the concept of inventory of intellectual “property” seems to make little sense. The “intellectual” industry seems to have the same effect on traditional economic laws, as black holes have on physics. We can’t keep using the traditional models to argue the IP world.

If you want a better idea of the discussions that go on there, check it out for yourself. You can certainly find pro-copyright viewpoints there as well. Keep in mind that there are several new stories posted every day, comments are posted in response to stories and other comments, and getting an accurate picture of the views on the site means following it for a while; it’s not like the SDMB where threads stay active and stay on the front page as long as there are new replies.

If you’re going to demand more cites or demand an answer to your specific question about a 7 month old thread, sorry. I’m not concerned with whether or not you believe I’m the only person who thinks this way.

How do you propose to encourage artists to still create and still show anyone else their work under the conditions that you propose?

You’ve conveniently ignored that question.

Apparently, you’ve conveniently ignored my answer: The incentive to create is getting paid for your work. Showing your work to someone else does not affect your right to compensation.

We aren’t just talking about $800 billion, you were saying “market value” or somesuch. You are talking about price controls, as a way of not permitting an artist to opt out of selling something that they feel should remain unpublished. Pretty oppressive.

The only choice that would be eliminated is the choice to sit on one’s work, to prevent other people from sharing information and art. If you think taking away that choice is “oppression”, you need to open a history book or a newspaper and see what real oppression is.

You give the most feeblest of rebuttals to Lamia. Like, “maybe” the enjoyment people get from creepily-swiped work from an unhappy artist would be enough to outweigh the unhappiness. Lamia tore it to shreds and you’ve not provided a response (that I’ve seen).

Forgive me for not taking seriously your ratings of my posts or of others’ responses to them - this repetition, misrepresentation, and asking of questions that have already been answered makes it hard to believe that you even read my posts.

I’m not going to debate another poster through you; she can speak for herself, and I will reply to that thread when time permits. Good night.

[Starving_Artist]

@Mr2001

I thought we were still discussing ethics. You’re right to caution me that distributing copyrighted works without permission is illegal, and as a matter of fact, I can’t even think of the last time I did it, but you can’t use the existence of a law as proof that something is unethical.

If the popularity of the belief that speeding is OK doesn’t make it right, then the popularity of the belief that copyright is legitimate doesn’t make that right either; if you’re suggesting that having the law on their side somehow affects the ethics of their position, you’ll have to explain a bit further.

This is comparing apples and oranges, my friend. The belief that speeding is okay is believing that breaking the law is okay, at least in that regard; the belief that copyright protection as it currently exists is okay is a belief that is in accordance with the law. You are saying that if one believes it’s wrong to break one type of law, it’s also wrong to adhere to another. You are clearly a most intelligent adversary ;), but it is these odd leaps of logic that you are so vigorously prone to that frustrate your opponents on this board. Such things are why you appear to “not get it,” and/or appear to be playing the devil’s advocate and are just “having us on,” as I believe it would be said in England. (Not that I’m from there, it just seemed an appropriate turn of phrase.

@Mr2001

So you’re saying I should jump off the cliff that no one else is jumping off of?

Au, contraire! You stated earlier that your point of view is quite common on some of the other boards you frequent. I had in mind your merry group of like-minded anarchists when I wrote that. It appeared you were saying (and still does, in fact) that I was making it look like you were the only one who felt the way you do, when there were many others on some of the other boards you frequent that held the same beliefs you do regarding copyright protection.

Having said that, you are most intelligent (even if that intelligence is misdirected), and I’m sure someone as bright as you doesn’t require all that much time to compose and type his arguments, but I’m wondering, given the prolific nature of your arguments here and the amount of time it must take out of your days: are you on the job while you’re posting to this board? If so, I would say you’re in breach of another code of ethics; and if not, you need to get a life! (And I say that in a *good * way! ) Okay, so yosemite might be too dangerous for you to get involved with, but aren’t there plenty of brainiac groupies around that you could pursue instead of spending so much time here driving everyone crazy?

Just saying, is all…

Regards.

[yosemite]

@Mr2001

“Droves”, huh? Your word, not mine. Look back and you’ll see I wasn’t so general.

As you might have guessed, the question of copying works in someone’s house hasn’t actually come up on Slashdot, AFAIK. It’s a tech news driven site, and there isn’t much of what you’re looking for in the news. However, it’s not hard at all to find people who are opposed to copyright,

I wasn’t asking for a cite showing that some people are opposed to copyright, I was asking for a cite showing that some people would think it’s okay to wander into someone else’s house, find something unpublished there, and publish it against the owner’s wishes.

Could you provide me with some cites indicating that? Specifically that?

Apparently, you’ve conveniently ignored my answer: The incentive to create is getting paid for your work. Showing your work to someone else does not affect your right to compensation.

That incentive exists today, and yet still—many artists choose not to publish certain works and will never willingly publish these certain works. Or, they will only consent to publishing these works under certain controlled conditions. Many artists would not want their work used by an organization or in a setting that they found offensive (religious, non-religious, pornography, republican, democrat, non-vegetarian, etc.). These artists, if faced with the knowledge that anyone, even a group espousing a message that they abhor, could use their artwork, would withhold it altogether.

Yet you want to take this choice away from artists, and claim that the “incentive” will be there because they’ll get paid. But that doesn’t hack it. Many artists will withhold a lot of their works unless they can have some say over how they are used. They always have in the past, and your changing the rules on them isn’t going to change that for them.

How do you propose to compensate for their unhappiness, and how do you propose to convince them to continue to create works that could be used by anyone (even a group that they despise)? Because if you cannot convince artists to keep creating such works, then you’ll have a lot less artwork out there, and wouldn’t that be completely counterproductive?

The only choice that would be eliminated is the choice to sit on one’s work, to prevent other people from sharing information and art.

(Bolding mine.)

And that, m’dear, is the most chilling statement ever. They’re not allowed to “sit” on their own work? It’s their work, dammit, and they can damn well “sit” on anything that they created, especially if it’s in their own damned house, if that’s what they want to do. They put the effort into creating it, and if they want to, they can use it for toilet paper, and there’s not one damn thing that you or anyone else should be able to do about it. My gosh. The arrogance of that statement.

I cannot believe you are serious. Surely, you know that most people would consider it a grave assault on their privacy to have something of theirs published against their will, no matter what the subject of the work was. It’s one of those obvious things, like not crapping on the carpet or not wearing a jacket that is soaked with cat piss. Most people know that you just don’t do that. But here you are, proposing that it’s somehow okay to do it anyway, and you think that there won’t be a serious backlash?

And yes, I know, you won’t acknowledge this, or you’ll just gloss over it with nothing substantive to offer as a rebuttal. Either you know that this backlash will occur and don’t care, or you truly don’t understand how outraged people will be. (Not unlike the kid who wants all candy to be free without realizing that all candy stores would close down as a consequence.)

That’s why I’d like to see some specific cites, indicating that many of your Slashdot brethren also believe this—that people should not have the choice to not keep their unpublished works unpublished, and that even if their works never leave their own home, it will not protect them from being published against their will.

If you think taking away that choice is “oppression”, you need to open a history book or a newspaper and see what real oppression is.

:rolleyes: What next? You gonna bring up the Nazis? I expect that to be next.

So what you’re saying is that because it’s not high on your list of grave oppressions, that we have nothing to complain about, and we should just accept it? Because it’s not bad enough? Is that the best you can do?

Forgive me for not taking seriously your ratings of my posts or of others’ responses to them - this repetition, misrepresentation, and asking of questions that have already been answered makes it hard to believe that you even read my posts.

No, they haven’t been answered. You give these half-answers and bob and weave and say, “I didn’t mean that!” and “I already answered that!” when you did a very feeble job of it.

I’m not going to debate another poster through you; she can speak for herself, and I will reply to that thread when time permits. Good night.

Yeah. When is that? You seem to be avoiding it. Sorry that you are not getting any agreements on your arguments there, though . . .

[Ms2001]

@Starving Artist

This is comparing apples and oranges, my friend. The belief that speeding is okay is believing that breaking the law is okay, at least in that regard; the belief that copyright protection as it currently exists is okay is a belief that is in accordance with the law.

Yes, that’s correct. I don’t see how it affects the ethics of either speeding or copyright, though. Are you suggesting that having the law on your side makes your position more ethical?

You are saying that if one believes it’s wrong to break one type of law, it’s also wrong to adhere to another.

No, not at all. I’m saying that the “but everyone is doing it” defense doesn’t apply to a position that agrees with the law any more than it applies to one that contradicts the law. “It” is either ethical or unethical, regardless of how many people believe “it” is okay, and regardless of whether “it” is legal or illegal. Ethicality != popularity != legality.

Having said that, you are most intelligent (even if that intelligence is misdirected), and I’m sure someone as bright as you doesn’t require all that much time to compose and type his arguments,

Heh, you’d be surprised. Writing in English doesn’t come nearly as easily for me as writing in Delphi, C#, etc.

but I’m wondering, given the prolific nature of your arguments here and the amount of time it must take out of your days: are you on the job while you’re posting to this board?

I’m hardly the only person on the SDMB who uses the board from work.

Programming isn’t like moving boxes or working a cash register, where you just sit there and do it until it’s done. Much like writing a book or creating some other form of art (I presume), there are separate phases of coming up with ideas–data structures, algorithms, designs to tie two separate processes together–and actually writing them down in concrete form. Staring at the screen concentrating isn’t as fruitful for coming up with ideas as taking a break and tossing things around in the back of your mind, whether that means going out for lunch, using the restroom, or browsing the web.

Okay, so yosemite might be too dangerous for you to get involved with, but aren’t there plenty of brainiac groupies around that you could pursue instead of spending so much time here driving everyone crazy?

Don’t worry, my personal life is going just fine. Besides, I’m not posting any more than the people who disagree with me.

[Ms2001]

@yosemite

I wasn’t asking for a cite showing that some people are opposed to copyright, I was asking for a cite showing that some people would think it’s okay to wander into someone else’s house, find something unpublished there, and publish it against the owner’s wishes.

Could you provide me with some cites indicating that? Specifically that?

The answer to that question is in my previous post to you. Did you read it?

Many artists will withhold a lot of their works unless they can have some say over how they are used. They always have in the past, and your changing the rules on them isn’t going to change that for them.

How do you propose to compensate for their unhappiness, and how do you propose to convince them to continue to create works that could be used by anyone (even a group that they despise)?

I don’t. If they’re unwilling to let people use their works, I’m unwilling to grant them any protection. This isn’t a one-way street.

Because if you cannot convince artists to keep creating such works, then you’ll have a lot less artwork out there, and wouldn’t that be completely counterproductive?

No. I’m not interested in having more works out there that people aren’t allowed to use. There are enough of those already.

Surely, you know that most people would consider it a grave assault on their privacy to have something of theirs published against their will, no matter what the subject of the work was.

And, of course, because it would upset those artists, it must be wrong! We’ve been there before.

Either you know that this backlash will occur and don’t care, or you truly don’t understand how outraged people will be.

The former.

That’s why I’d like to see some specific cites, indicating that many of your Slashdot brethren also believe this—that people should not have the choice to not keep their unpublished works unpublished,

If you’re unwilling to go to the site yourself, then I can’t help you. I am not going to spoon feed you quotes from another web site; I simply don’t care enough about whether you personally believe this to wade through thousands of comments, looking for one that’ll shut you up. You’re a big girl, yes? You can work your own web browser? Then do it.

and that even if their works never leave their own home, it will not protect them from being published against their will.

FTR, as I posted in the other thread:

@Mr2001

Because you’re so intent on using that 7 month old thread as a distraction, I’ll amend my proposal. Permission from the creator is now required for anyone who wants to copy a work on his property (unless it was set up for public display, e.g. on the lawn), or a work that was illegally removed from his property.

@yosemite

Yeah. When is that? You seem to be avoiding it.

One person tells me I’m posting too much, the other chastises me 90 minutes later for letting a few more hours go by without a post. Go figure.

[scotandrsn]

@Mr2001

Generally, I take it as an axiom that if I can use something without depriving you of the ability to use it as you see fit, then I have the right to do so. If you disagree, all I can really do is point to others like Thomas Jefferson who believed essentially the same thing.

The phrase “rights to the labor of others” is misleading; if I make a copy of a picture or song you created, you haven’t lost the fruits of your labor, nor do you have to expend any more effort as a result.

Not an axiom in and of itself but a corollary of “If I can not figure out how my actions work against your interests, I can do as I please”, which I shall refer to as the TSA (Teenage Shoplifter’s Assertion).

Musician A records an album in October. Believing it to be perfect summer driving music, he and the label decide to withhold it from circulation while the marketing materials are produced in time for all the college kids to get home from school looking for new tunes.

Recording Engineer B, an unscrupulous sort, takes a digital copy of the album home from the studio “for safekeeping in case the studio burns down”, uses his computer to convert each track to MP3 compression format, and uploads the files to whatever that week’s version of Napster/Kazaa/etc. is, making it freely available to the many unfortunates who have heard the album is in production, and worry that their skin will fall off if they don’t hear it RIGHT NOW. I mean, with the uncertainties of the record industry, who knows if the label will change their minds about releasing the album at all, and hey, you don’t want people’s skin to fall off.

A’s “biggest fans” C, D, E, F, G, etc. download the songs, and when the album actually gets advertised the next summer, they finally have the cover artwork from the ad to complete the package for the CD that they burned for themselves or bough from that guy on the street a few months earlier. Many of them decide it’s not worth their money to get the “real” copy.

However, A had seen fit to use the album to make money from the purchase of it by C, D, E, F, G, etc. which is now more or less impossible. Far from being relieved at the lack of effort he had to expend to get his music out to the fans, he’s highly pissed.

He’d like to know exactly when Jefferson said it was OK and conducive to progress to behave in this fashion. Quotes?

@Mr2001

Authors will have the same incentive to create as they do today, and they’ll also be able to build on the work of others who might prevent them from doing so today.

Your system is instantly corruptible, which sill stifle the incentive to publicize creative output, and there is nothing to prevent someone today from building on someone else’s work right now, excpet the need to get their permission and compensate them for its use. A net negative, I’m afraid.

[yosemite]

@Mr2001

The answer to that question is in my previous post to you. Did you read it?

I didn’t see anything about copying works from someone’s home.

I don’t. If they’re unwilling to let people use their works, I’m unwilling to grant them any protection. This isn’t a one-way street.

So, less art for everyone, then. Even from people that many would enjoy. Fine. I see where you’re coming from now. It’s sort of a dog in the manger thing. “If I can’t enjoy it on my terms, then no one else should be able to enjoy it on any terms!” So, even though there would be plenty of people who would rather have more art—more good art—even with some restrictions, since you don’t like that, phooey. Less art, less stuff being created. It’s all so clear now.

And, of course, because it would upset those artists, it must be wrong! We’ve been there before.

Non-answer. We are not merely talking about the “hurt feelings” of artists, we’re talking about basic decency in regards to privacy.

And, no, you just cannot “retract” your statement about copying stuff from people’s homes. You repeated your convictions about that on this thread, so it isn’t a manner of it being 7 months old. Trying to cop out and take it out of the mix now ain’t going to hack it.

Unless, of course, you now have had a complete change of heart about the issue (copying unpublished works in someone’s home) and now find the concept abhorrent. Which, I seriously doubt. You’ve clung to it, you’ve repeated your belief in it, we had a whole other thread about it (where you thought the idea of someone’s home being their own “personal copyright zone” where nothing could be published was unacceptable), so no. Not after all of that can you simply wave it away.

[Ms2001]

@scotandrsn

Not an axiom in and of itself but a corollary of “If I can not figure out how my actions work against your interests, I can do as I please”, which I shall refer to as the TSA (Teenage Shoplifter’s Assertion).

Nonsense. I’m not a teenager or a shoplifter, I don’t agree with that statement, and your implied connection with shoplifting is laughable - shoplifting deprives the store owner of the ability to use the item as he sees fit.

As I said, I take “if I can use something without depriving you of the ability to use it as you see fit, then I have the right to do so” as an axiom; it does not come as an inferred conclusion from something else.

Musician A records an album in October. Believing it to be perfect summer driving music, he and the label decide to withhold it from circulation while the marketing materials are produced in time for all the college kids to get home from school looking for new tunes.

That’s a concrete plan to release the work. It’s not abandoned and others are not allowed to make copies without permission.

Your system is instantly corruptible,

How?

which sill stifle the incentive to publicize creative output, and there is nothing to prevent someone today from building on someone else’s work right now, excpet the need to get their permission and compensate them for its use.

Are you suggesting that the need to get permission doesn’t prevent people from building on their work? I believe it does, and that’s exactly why I want to eliminate that need.

yosemite - Since you’re apparently stuck in a time warp, only interested in what I said 7 months ago, I have nothing more to say to you. It’s been swell.

[yosemite]

@Mr2001

yosemite - Since you’re apparently stuck in a time warp, only interested in what I said 7 months ago, I have nothing more to say to you. It’s been swell.

You still do believe that it’s okay to copy stuff out of people’s houses, right? I mean, that’s what you debated with such fervor about not all that long ago. And you certainly had plenty of time to say, “Never mind that. I’ve changed my mind. It’s not a good idea to copy stuff out of people’s houses, from the photo lab, etc. and I realize now that I was all wrong about that before.” But you didn’t do that. All this time, on this thread and the other thread you started, you would not do that.

So, either you never believed it, 7 months ago (in which case you were just doing a “devil’s advocate” thing for effect—trolling, in other words), or, you just want it out of this discussion because it’s a hard stance to defend and be taken seriously.

Either way, it’s not behavior that I cannot believe will be winning you any points in this debate.

[yosemite]

Argh. That should be:

“Either way, it’s behavior that I cannot believe will be winning you any points in this debate.”

[Ms2001]

@yosemite

You still do believe that it’s okay to copy stuff out of people’s houses, right?

My idealism is not on trial. I offered a compromise solution in this thread, and it is now free of your biggest objection. If you still choose to ignore it, in favor of some futile attempt to convince me through repetition and outrage that what I’ve believed for years is wrong, you will only confirm the predictability of your hysterical carping.

[yosemite]

Sorry, but it smacks of gutless to me. And yes, I suspect that your ideals are directly tied to this discussion. I think it’s too late for that to change.

And you are not also removing the part about publishing someone’s unpublished works, are you? Like something someone shows a friend (or perhaps gives them a copy to review). Is that still in this discussion? What about the photos processed at photo labs or paintings framed at framing shops? Are they still open season for unauthorized publication? 'Cause they were not in someone’s home, after all.

@Mr2001

If you still choose to ignore it, in favor of some futile attempt to convince me through repetition and outrage that what I’ve believed for years is wrong, you will only confirm the predictability of your hysterical carping.

I suppose it’s futile to try to convince you that copying people’s stuff in their home is wrong, but I don’t have any problem of letting everyone else know where you really stand, and how far you really wish for this whole thing to go.

Since this belief of yours is on the record and clearly not something you are ashamed of, I see no harm in bringing it up. It certainly cannot be an embarassment to you, or anything.

[Ms2001]

Everything I have to say to that has already been said. I am done wasting my time on you. Thanks for the vision of you worrying that someone here on the SDMB might not know how far I “really wish for this whole thing to go”, though… that’s priceless.