# What alternatives to IP laws have been proposed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881 "2012-03-06T01:45:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/21 "2012-03-06T10:30:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Since I have explicitly said that this is \*not \*a legal argument, I am baffled how the hell you came to this conclusion. 😕 …so I take this as a concession that taking intellectual property without permission in most jurisdictions is legally theft? It would make it easier if we got that out of the way now instead of spending the next three pages debating the definition of a word. > [@](#): > > Why would a legal definition be more constructive in an argument that is entirely and solely concerned with \*morality \*and in which all parties agree that morality exists completely \*independently \*of law? > > I really would like to hear your explanation of this. I’m a photographer: and under the current legal framework I have protections that ensure I at least have a chance of getting paid. I have little interest discussing theoretical morality issues: what I am interested in is if you are in favour of changing the law to make it easier for people to take my work without paying me. Is that what you are in favour of? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/22 "2012-03-06T10:40:28Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …so I take this as a concession that taking intellectual property without permission in most jurisdictions is legally theft? Since I was solely discussing morality when you barged into the conversation and mischaracterised me, there is nothing to concede. I am discussing morality, and all parties in the conversation that you hijacked agree that morality exists independently of law. I have no idea and what it is _legally_, and I don’t give a fuck. > [@](#): > > It would make it easier if we got that out of the way now instead of spending the next three pages debating the definition of a word. Since you are the one who introduced the topic, and you are the only one who gives a shit about it, there’s nothing to actually get out of the way. When you find someone who wants to discuss this, then perhaps you can get it out of the way with them if that will make you happier. I am discussing morality, and all parties in the conversation that you hijacked agree that morality exists independently of law. I have no idea and what it is _legally_, and I don’t give a fuck. > [@](#): > > I’m a photographer: and under the current legal framework I have protections that ensure I at least have a chance of getting paid. I have little interest discussing theoretical morality issues And you show that you have no interest in discussing theoretical morality issues by barging into the middle of a discussion solely about theoretical morality issues. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > what I am interested in is if you are in favour of changing the law to make it easier for people to take my work without paying me. If that is what you are interested in, don’t hijack conversations where I am specifically discussing discussing theoretical morality issues, quote me and then make some bullshit claims that I am referring to legality. ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/23 "2012-03-06T10:52:46Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > If you want to hinge the debate on the definition of the word “theft”, I think it would be more constructive to look at how the taking of intellectual property is actually defined by law, as opposed to googling random dictionaries on the net? It’s not defined as theft. Copyright violation and theft are very much separate sections in the criminal code. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/24 "2012-03-06T11:03:47Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > > …so I take this as a concession that taking intellectual property without permission in most jurisdictions is legally theft? > > > > I have no idea and I don’t much care. > > > > Since you are the one who introduced the topic, and you are the only one who gives a shit about it, there’s nothing to actually get out of the way. When you find someone who wants to discuss this, then perhaps you can get it out of the way with them if that will make you happier. > > > > And you show that you have no interest in discussing theoretical morality issues by barging into the middle of a discussion solely about theoretical morality issues. :rolleyes: > > > > If that is what you are interested in, don’t hijack conversations where I am specifically discussing discussing theoretical morality issues, quote me and then make some bullshit claims that I am referring to legality. > > …heh heh, your funny. You don’t own the debate: and Oakminster was discussing legal issues. Here is what he said in full: > > [QUOTE=Oakminster] > Bullshit. You are acting illegally and immorally by knowingly, willfully, and deliberately receiving stolen property. Morality exists independently of an EULA. You have zero right to the content unless you lawfully acquire it. You’re rationalizing theft. Here is the bit where you make the decision to wave away the legal part of the discussion: [QUOTE=Blake] The only “property” involved is the nebulous “intellectual property” which is of course not property at all, **except in a purely legal context** , and you tell us that morality exists independently of law. Downloading information is no more stealing than listening to someone hum a sung. [/QUOTE] That is where you begin to twist Oakminster’s arguement to make it only about morality: you simply wave away the legal distinction. POOF! It no longer exists. It is also the bit where you conceede legally speaking taking intellectual property is theft. You do it again here: [QUOTE=Blake] What’s that based on, aside from law, which you have just told us exists independent of morality? [/QUOTE] POOF! You made the legal arguement disappear again: into thin air. I’m not hijacking the discussion at all: you have simply chosen not to talk about the legal issues that Oakminster bought up. So instead of trying to debate your version of what people are saying, why don’t you simply debate what they said? But anyway, morally: taking intellectual property is theft. Do I have your permission to debate you now? I haven’t seen any suggested changes to IP laws that help me out as a content provider and will ensure that I at least make the same amount of money now and not less. The current system works as well as it can to protect my rights as an artist as well as protect consumers: I have yet to see an argument made that there needs to be a change in the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/25 "2012-03-06T11:04:55Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > It’s not defined as theft. Copyright violation and theft are very much separate sections in the criminal code. …its not my contention, its Blakes! But anyway, what country are you talking about, and cite? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/26 "2012-03-06T11:10:14Z")
[QUOTE=Banquet Bear] But anyway, morally: taking intellectual property is theft. [/quote] [Monty Python]An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s not just saying “Yes it is”.[/Monty Python] > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …its not my contention, its Blakes! SO I state repeatedly that I am specifically discussing discussing theoretical morality issues. And it’s my contention that it’s legally theft.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/27 "2012-03-06T11:11:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Indeed it does. And under no morality that I subscribe to is it stealing to make an image of information in a way that neither removes **nor diminishes the original**. > [@Blake](#): > > Utter nonsense. the results are completely different, the most obvious being that nobody is deprived of anything that objectively exists. The product isn’t worthless because of my actions, the product is precisely as useful as it was before my actions. > > The market value may have declined because of my actions, but the market value of buggy whips declined because of the actions of Henry Ford. Do you therefore conclude that Henry Ford was stealing buggy whips? After all, the semantics may be different but the final result is the same and that is all that matters according to you. The publisher doesn’t care that they own a copy of the movie that is identical after it’s copied, what they care about is that the market value has declined because of your actions. You aren’t decreasing the value by making a superior product (a perfectly legitimate action), you’re doing it because you wanted the product but didn’t want to pay the creators. You are materially harming the copyright owner and even though a single action may be making a unmeasurably small impact the sum total of millions of such actions can cause great harm. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. I have never made such an argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth so you can construct strawmen. You clearly have said that you think it’s morally neutral: > [@](#): > > Quite frankly the best way these big players can discourage me from piracy is not to act like arseholes. As you say, the actual morality of the act is so minor as to be morally neutral. But fair enough, you never said anything about the distinction between piracy and lost income. That’s just a common argument used to back up similar positions. > [@](#): > > OK, let’s accept that for the sake of argument. So what? Are you now saying that anybody who “freeloads” is immoral? That you are immoral because you are not a paid member of these broads, and are thus freeloading? Of course freeloading is immoral, you’re getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce and without their consent. Just because they produce something more easily duplicated than a physical widget doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get fair compensation for their work. Whether or not I’m freeloading on the forum is immaterial, but since it is set up specifically to allow for the participation of non-paying members I pretty sure I’m not. And even if I were freeloading it still wouldn’t change my opinion on the morality of the issue. I can admit that something is morally wrong and still do it. > [@](#): > > OK, let’s accept that for the sake of argument. So what? Are you contending that being cheap is immoral? I never said being cheap was immoral. My point was that for all of the high minded arguments people present about evil corporations, freedom of information and ‘copying is not theft’ what it actually comes down to is that people want to get something without paying for it. I agree with many of your statements about current copyright law, it has been extended to a ridiculous degree and in many cases no longer serves the public interest. I don’t think there is anything that can really be done about piracy either, it’s here to stay and will only get easier in the future. But that doesn’t make piracy morally right or a victimless crime (as I believe you are arguing). ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/28 "2012-03-06T11:18:11Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > [Monty Python]An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s not just saying “Yes it is”.[/Monty Python] …so is that a yes I am allowed to participate in the debate now? > [@](#): > > SO I state repeatedly that I am specifically discussing discussing theoretical morality issues. > > And it’s my contention that it’s legally theft.:rolleyes: I’m glad you agree. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/29 "2012-03-06T11:27:35Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > You aren’t decreasing the value by making a superior product (a perfectly legitimate action), you’re doing it because you wanted the product but didn’t want to pay the creators. Which is also a perfectly morally legitimate action. So what’s your point? > [@](#): > > Of course freeloading is immoral, you’re getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce and without their consent. And that makes it immoral how exactly? Let me put it this way: Of course freeloading is moral, you’re getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce and without their consent. See, I can post pointless _non sequiturs_ too. They don’t actually advance the argument in any way at all. > [@](#): > > Just because they produce something more easily duplicated than a physical widget doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get fair compensation for their work. And who gets to decide what is fair? > [@](#): > > Whether or not I’m freeloading on the forum is immaterial, but since it is set up specifically to allow for the participation of non-paying members I pretty sure I’m not. So define freeloader, since it apparently doesn’t include people like you who are getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce. > [@](#): > > And even if I were freeloading it still wouldn’t change my opinion on the morality of the issue. I can admit that something is morally wrong and still do it. Yes, but you are trying to prove that it is wrong. Asserting that it is wrong despite the fact that every single person on Earth does it isn’t actually an argument and it isn’t even logical. If the Dalai llama, Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela are all freeloaders, then by what standard is it morally wrong? > [@](#): > > I never said being cheap was immoral. So it was a total red herring. That means I can ignore it. > [@](#): > > My point was that for all of the high minded arguments people present about evil corporations, freedom of information and ‘copying is not theft’ what it actually comes down to is that people want to get something without paying for it. Let’s assume that’s true. So what? If freeloading isn’t immoral, what is this, aside from a blatant attempt to poison the well? > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t make piracy morally right or a victimless crime (as I believe you are arguing). The problem is that you haven’t in any way demonstrated that it is morally _wrong_. You just keep asserting that it is wrong without presenting any evidence or argument to that end. The standard philosophical stance is that all acts are moral until they can be established to be immoral. Since you are unable to show that the act is in any way immoral, it is moral by default. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/30 "2012-03-06T11:31:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The problem is that you haven’t in any way demonstrated that it is morally _wrong_. You just keep asserting that it is wrong without presenting any evidence or argument to that end. > > The standard philosophical stance is that all acts are moral until they can be established to be immoral. Since you are unable to show that the act is in any way immoral, it is moral by default. …if you buy one of my photos, I get to pay the rent, or I get to pay for dinner. If you download that photo without paying me, I can’t pay my rent. You wouldn’t consider that immoral? ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/31 "2012-03-06T11:40:53Z")
Right so I have to prove something is immoral do I? :rolleyes: I was foolishly under the impression that people shared a common understanding of basic morality, but clearly you are an exception. > [@Blake](#): > > So define freeloader, since it apparently doesn’t include people like you who are getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce. Lets say you write a book. It takes you a year and you hope that the proceeds will cover the cost of the year spent writing. Turns out it’s a great book, millions of people want to read it, and normally this would make you fairly wealthy. Unfortunately someone gets a copy of the book, posts it online and nobody buys the book though millions of people download, read and enjoy it. Do you agree that these people have harmed the author by downloading a book (against his permission) that they otherwise would have bought? And if so can you agree that causing harm to another person is immoral? And therefor that these people have committed an immoral action? Though to be honest I don’t know why I’m bothering. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/32 "2012-03-06T11:53:07Z")
Apologies for the incorrect quote above, this was the quote I intended to use: > [@Blake](#): > > And that makes it immoral how exactly? > > Let me put it this way: Of course freeloading is moral, you’re getting for free something that many people worked hard to produce and without their consent. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/33 "2012-03-06T12:01:44Z")
Blake your views are old hat, shallow, show little understanding of either what copyright is or what rights it gives, and have been shot to pieces any number of times in threads on the subject. But in this thread they are a hijack. And by posting your diatribe as the first response you have doomed this thread to turn into yet another rehashing of this nonsense instead of it being what the OP intended it to be. Thanks. Well done. If you really must re-do this self serving, blame the victim dance again why not start your own thread on precisely that topic? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/34 "2012-03-06T12:05:12Z")
I think the question of whether it’s theft or not is a red herring. The question is whether it’s wrong or not. The argument I’ve seen in the thread that copying works without permission isn’t _wrong_ is: If I didn’t enter into an agreement not to copy the work, then there’s nothing wrong with me copying the work. But that doesn’t follow. There are many things that I have not entered into agreements about, which are nevertheless wrong for me to do. (Killing people, for example.) Sometimes, things are wrong, not because of agreements entered into, but because if everyone did them, it would be impossible for anyone to do them. (If everyone murdered, no one would be left to murder. If everyone stole, “property” would not have meaning so theft would be impossible. Etc.) Copying works seems to me to be wrong in this sense. If everyone copied works as soon as they were created, (without paying…), then authors would not create the works, and so there’d be nothing to copy. It could be objected that authors might create works anyway given the passion that goes behind art etc. But only a small percentage of works can probably best be ascribed to “passion.” Perhaps those should be freely copyable? (Seems perverse!) The more mundane works, though, shouldn’t be copied because if everyone copied them no one would create them. Is the way it seems to me right now. But “If everyone copied them, no one would create them” probably rests on certain assumptions taken from the way the intellectual economy currently works. What are those assumptions, and what workable alternatives are there known to be? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/35 "2012-03-06T12:15:26Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > . If everyone copied works as soon as they were created, (without paying…), then authors would not create the works, and so there’d be nothing to copy. So in the days before copyright laws, nobody created anything. There was no painting, no sculpture, no architecture, no music. Because everyone on those days could copy works as soon as they were created, therefore nobody created any works of art. I’m not buying that for a second. There are multiple ways to make money out of an artwork without selling copies of it. Plenty of musical acts, for example, make good money actually playing music and selling tickets. Nobody pays $200 a ticket for a cover band, so that’s probably enough reason for Metallica to keep recording. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/36 "2012-03-06T12:18:16Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …if you buy one of my photos, I get to pay the rent, or I get to pay for dinner. If you download that photo without paying me, I can’t pay my rent. You wouldn’t consider that immoral? Why would I? If you don’t cite one of my articles in your works, I lose money. Do you also consider it immoral that you don’t cite my articles? Of course you don’t. There’s no sin of omission here. There’s nothing wrong with \*not \*doing such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/37 "2012-03-06T12:19:29Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If you really must re-do this self serving, blame the victim dance again why not start your own thread on precisely that topic? Well, since you asked int he patronising manner that you did, with the introduction of arguments against my position.. no. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/38 "2012-03-06T12:25:07Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So in the days before copyright laws, nobody created anything. There was no painting, no sculpture, no architecture, no music. Because everyone on those days could copy works as soon as they were created, therefore nobody created any works of art. Could they? Did they? I don’t think they did or could, but am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/39 "2012-03-06T12:28:28Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Do you agree that these people have harmed the author by downloading a book In exactly the same way that Henry Ford harmed buggy whip makers, yes. > [@](#): > > And if so can you agree that causing harm to another person is immoral? Of course I can’t agree to that. We all do things that harm other people all the time. Posting to this thread right now is harming _somebody_. Lets say you make a shed full of buggy whips. It takes you a year and you hope that the proceeds will cover the cost of the year spent making buggy whips. Turns out they’re great whips, millions of people want to buy them, and normally this would make you fairly wealthy. Unfortunately someone dumps millions of motor cars in the market and nobody buys the whips. Clearly you are harmed by what this person has done. Can you agree that causing harm to another person is immoral, and that Henry Ford is therefore the most immoral man who ever lived? I certainly hope that you don’t agree with that. > [@](#): > > Though to be honest I don’t know why I’m bothering. Nor do I. The idea that it is immoral to harm someone else as an incidental and unintended side effect of your actions is simply ludicrous. If that were the case then all actions would be immoral since all actions inevitably though unintentionally harm _someone_. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881/40 "2012-03-06T12:30:22Z")
One sensible way to approach copyright would be to require makers of copying technologies to pay royalties in advance on a per-device basis and pass those royalties on to consumers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-alternatives-to-ip-laws-have-been-proposed/614881.md?page=3)