…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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
Here is the bit where you make the decision to wave away the legal part of the discussion:
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:
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.
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.
You clearly have said that you think it’s 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.
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.
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).
Which is also a perfectly morally legitimate action.
So what’s your point?
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.
And who gets to decide what is fair?
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.
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?
So it was a total red herring. That means I can ignore 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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
In exactly the same way that Henry Ford harmed buggy whip makers, yes.
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.
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.
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.