Journal God! Awful's Journal: Rationalizing Theft 59
There is a principle of psychology that people do not make decisions by logical reasoning. Instead, we use our intuition to decide and we only employ logic to help rationalize the decision later. Ironically, smarter people tend to be better at rationalization than not-so-smart ones, which is why there is a hell of a lot of rationalizing on Slashdot.
The most popular arena for rationalization is, of course, music piracy (or "sharing" as it is more commonly known). The logical explanation for piracy is simply that consumers love a free lunch and will gladly steal when they can't get caught (and especially when they are stealing from big faceless corporations). Hell, I can't claim that I never copied a few tapes or games in my youth. And the kids today are mostly honest enough to admit why they do it.
But you'd never get that from reading Slashdot. No. The Slashdot crowd are pro-sharing but anti-theft. And as we all know, sharing is not theft because 1) the labels rip off the artists, 2) "sharing" increases sales, 3) bands can still make money performing live, 4) you're not depriving anyone of property, 5) information wants to be free, 6) we have fair use rights, or some such nonsense.
1) the labels rip off the artists
Give a man a soapbox and he thinks he's Abby Hoffman. Here is an example of the expression "two wrongs don't make a right". No one seems interested in the fact that the Internet will allow artists to cut out the middleman and sell their music online. Instead, it's just GimmeFreeStuff.
2) "sharing" increases sales
Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it only works for lesser-known artists. But that doesn't give the consumers the right to decide how music is marketed. If you remember, Lars Ulrich's famous complaint about Napster was simply that no one ever asked him if he wanted to participate.
3) you can make money performing live
These last two go together. Music should be free because there are alternate business models available: the good old loss leader and the bait and switch. Funny how Slashdot readers feel they have the right to give business advice to the music industry. (Cuz we all know what a great job they've done with the software industry.)
4) you're not depriving anyone of property
No, not specifically. Of course you also wouldn't be depriving them of property if you snuck into one of their concerts, or even if you hired them for a private concert and then refused to pay. The fact is, you're not paying them for the time and money they spent recording the CD. That cost has to be amortized over the price of each album that is sold. But who cares, rigth, as long as you're stealing from a big faceless corporation.
Anyone literate in math would understand that zero is an arbitrary basis point. By the same logic, if you learned that Ferarris cost $9000 to manufacture, you could steal one from the dealer and leave them $9000 in return. You aren't depriving them of property because they can go buy another Ferarri with the $9000.
Another variant is "I'd buy CDs if they only cost $2-$3." Again, the geniuses who helped flush a billion dollars worth of investment capital down the drain think they know how to set price points.
5) information wants to be free
Hey, so do murderers.
6) we have fair use rights
Fair use rights govern what you do with the information once you get it. Anyone who believes that file sharing services exist primarily to facilitate fair use is guilty of willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance, vapid aphorisms, arbitrary distinctions, non-existent choices and flat out rationalization. These are all examples of the rationalizations that are used to justify theft.
-a
steal (Score:1)
You're irrationally assuming ownership rights for intellectual "property". What's the provisio for this?
I, and many with me, dream of the world where information flows freely. Where you have the right to make copies of CDs you buy. Instead of the weird "sorta renting/half-assed buying" we have today.
Re:steal (Score:1)
Other than that, I must admit that tend to see most of the point in the journal entry as truthful
I have, however, treated MP3s as an alternative to radio -- get an mp3, hear it a few times, and if I like it, go buy the CD (or whatever form the album takes). If I don't like it, I don't buy it, and chuck the song as a waste of space. While I understand that I'm not the typical theif, I can assure you that both labels and artists as a whole have profitted far more from my ability to hear before I buy than if I'd never listened to any mp3s at all.
The part that is missing from the logic versus rationalization argument is the emotional factor. Not only do folks want a free lunch, but folks tend to hate mega-corps enough to try (and fail) to hurt them whenever possible. Even Abby Hoffman felt that it was wrong to steal from a mom & pop store, but perfectly reasonably to steal from a dehumanizing chain entity that had no interest in you or your community except in how much cash it could take from your pockets.
The reaction that the Media giants have had to file sharing has been so very hostile and unfriendly to the average, basically honest user that they may as well have plastered a "kick me" signs to their rumps. Rather than addressing the problem of people who are truly ripping them off, they've made it illegal or impossible to do some basic operations that do no direct harm (like playing CDs on your PC, or DVDs on your Linux box). I am one of the folks that sees these anti-copying protections as draconian and evil.
Lastly, who was the first person to point out that there is NO net sales loss when broke kids steal files? Wish I could properly attribute that. It is so very true.... and if the recod companies only knew how slavishly I sought out albums on CD after exposure to a 'stolen' song from a HS mix tape, they'd THANK the kids who let me 'steal' (or 'lease' or 'layaway', maybe? -- they got paid more when I did buy than the items cost when I fisrt heard them).
Re:steal (Score:2)
I have, however, treated MP3s as an alternative to radio -- get an mp3, hear it a few times, and if I like it, go buy the CD.
The labels never worried about small-scale music theft before the Internet became popular. They knew it was too petty to worry about and it would probably benefit them in the long run. I don't think they consider people like you a danger (if you really are being honest about your buying habits).
But surely you can understand why the Internet freaks them out. Before, there were two factors holding piracy in check: ethics and inconvenience. Nowadays, ethics seem to be on the decline as more and more people rationalize piracy. The convenience isn't all that great from what I've heard (I never actually used any of Napster/GnuTella/etc.), but there's no reason why it won't improve. It's already hard enough to make money on the web, what with fake registrations, browsers that supress ads, scripts that pretend to click on ads, etc. I don't see what reason the RIAA has to believe that consumers are basically honest, as you claim.
The part that is missing from the logic versus rationalization argument is the emotional factor. Not only do folks want a free lunch, but folks tend to hate mega-corps enough to try (and fail) to hurt them whenever possible
I don't understand why you say I didn't address that. I did say that people feel less guilty about stealing from big faceless corporations, and I brought up the parallel with Abby Hoffman. However, I disagree with you when you say that most/many people hate mega-corps enough to deliberately try to hurt them (except in the issue of
I had an interesting experience many moons ago while working for a big faceless corporation. It was interesting to see how my coworkers rationalized the theft of office supplies... from a gung-ho "I'm going to abuse this as much as possible" attitude (e.g. using boxes of pencils as firewood) to "I don't steal, but as long as you don't tell me where the stuff came from, I won't ask." I'm not totally immune to this sort of temptation either. Not being a wasteful person, I only took what I thought I could use (albeit not for work-related uses).
Lastly, who was the first person to point out that there is NO net sales loss when broke kids steal files?
I disagree with this one. These broke kids still have parents. I know a lot of people who, like me, accumulated a huge portion of their CD collection while they were in high school and university. For sure, I bought many of them used; I know some of the record companies are against that, but it's legal. I also bought a whole bunch of them during the annual boxing day (Dec 26) sales that we have in Canada. My parents would give me a gift certificate every year for christmas and I would go out and buy somewhere around 10 CDs. I know most students don't have a lot of spare cash, but when they use their $2,000 computer to post from their $5,000/yr dorm room to complain that their $10,000/yr education leaves them no money to buy a $20 CD, you'll excuse me when I say they lack a sense of proportion.
-a
Re:steal (Score:1)
You did. I should have given more credit. I interpreted your description more as a lack of concern for faceless corps than an active dislike of them.
and I brought up the parallel with Abby Hoffman.
Ummm...you mentioned his name, but not any of his stances. I've met more than one person whose only knowledge of Hoffman was that he wrote "Steal this Book", and therefore equated him as nothing but another dirty, thieving hippy. I want folks to realize that did have Hoffman ethics -- even if they weren't the same as yours.
These broke kids still have parents. I know a lot of people who, like me, accumulated a huge portion of their CD collection while they were in high school and university.
I do not disagree that many people fling around the term 'broke' when not accurate. I mean when it _is_ accurate.
Re:steal (Score:2)
You did. I should have given more credit. I interpreted your description more as a lack of concern for faceless corps than an active dislike of them.
But as I said, I think most people do have a lack of concern rather than an active dislike of them.
On Slashdot, it may be different. I hear a lot of people say "if company X won't let us share/steal, then let's get them"
Ummm...you mentioned his name, but not any of his stances. I've met more than one person whose only knowledge of Hoffman was that he wrote "Steal this Book", and therefore equated him as nothing but another dirty, thieving hippy. I want folks to realize that did have Hoffman ethics -- even if they weren't the same as yours.
I was interested enough in Abby Hoffman to buy Steal this Book and watch Steal this Movie. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, but I respect his ethics. I just want people to realize that stealing is not automatically civil disobediance.
I do not disagree that many people fling around the term 'broke' when not accurate. I mean when it _is_ accurate.
Well sure, but we're still talking about people who at minimum can afford a computer and an ISP.
-a
Re:steal (Score:1)
This is not true. Don't you remember? "Home taping is killing music," that kind of stuff.
Re:steal (Score:2)
THe definition of "theft" is quite broad. It does not require the removal of tangible goods. There are examples of free riding (which is probably a more precise/correct term) being reffered to as theft (for example, theft of service)
You're irrationally assuming ownership rights for intellectual "property".
One needn't assume such rights to use the word "theft".
I, and many with me, dream of the world where information flows freely. Where you have the right to make copies of CDs you buy.
And chocolate milk comes from the taps, and it rains strawberries, etc etc. Not going to happen, keep dreaming (-; The "information" you "dream" about has to be created somehow, and someone needs to supply resources for that creation. Rewarding free riders into the picture is not going to maximise the net utility of public information.
Moreover, regardless of what you may "dream" off, there is a good moral argument for allowing the "flow" of "information" to be restricted. NDAs are an example of this. Basically, people should be able to enter into binding contractual agreements. It might be nice if they released the information, but they shouldn't have to, and for a modern society to function, contracts made by informed consenting parties should be enforceable.
I'm lost as to where you get the notion that you're renting CDs. Last I checked, you only had to pay a one time fee to acquire a CD.
Re:steal (Score:1)
Theft does require the removal of property, according to my dictionary, which brings us back to the discussion of property rights.
"There are examples of free riding (which is probably a more precise/correct term) being reffered to as theft (for example, theft of service)"
And I argue as against people calling free riding "theft" as well.
There are many similarities between free riding and copyright infringement.
"I'm lost as to where you get the notion that you're renting CDs. Last I checked, you only had to pay a one time fee to acquire a CD."
The idea is that if you do pay a one time fee, "acquire" a CD in the store -- you're still not going to own it. You're given limited rights to listen to the music.
Re:steal (Score:1)
The "information" you "dream" about has to be created somehow, and someone needs to supply resources for that creation.
Ummm.. didn't you read that part about making copies of CDs that he PURCHASED. He already paid them to have the music, he just wants to secure his investment by having a backup. There is nothing wrong with this, and it should be legal (and currently is in the US).
Re:steal (Score:2)
Ummm.. didn't you read that part about making copies of CDs that he PURCHASED. He already paid them to have the music, he just wants to secure his investment by having a backup.
I highly doubt that. I think he wants to make copies for his friends or post them on Gnutella. I hardly think he would be posting in this discussion if all he wanted to do is make a backup.
-a
Re:Sharing vs. sales (Score:2)
You didn't address this one. A recent study showed that file sharing increased awareness about lesser known artists (the ones that aren't played 24/7 on MTV), as well as existing ones. File sharing might give them free popularity.
So amended:
Perhaps it does, perhaps only for lesser-known artists. But that doesn't give the consumers the right to decide how music is marketed. If you remember, Lars Ulrich's famous complaint about Napster was that no one ever asked him if he wanted to participate.
-a
So? (Score:2)
The fact is, you're not paying them for the time and money they spent recording the CD.
You're not paying me for the time and money I spent writing this post. Does that make you a thief?
Re:So? (Score:2)
You're not paying me for the time and money I spent writing this post. Does that make you a thief?
Well, I'm sure that one-liner didn't really cost you any time and money to print. However, according to the small print:
By posting to Slashdot you gave them the right to publish your comment royalty free in perpetuity. You retain the copyright to your post, which means that I can't reprint it elsewhere without your permission. I have included it above for context, in accordance with my fair use rights (academic discussion). Slashdot retains the copyright to the look & feel of the website, which means that you can republish the text of your message elsewhere, but not the layout.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure that one-liner didn't really cost you any time and money to print.
Right, I did it instantly and without expending any energy.
However, according to the small print: All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
I thought we were talking about morality, not the law. Yes, I'll concede that copyright infringement is illegal. But we were talking about whether or not it is theft.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I thought we were talking about morality, not the law. Yes, I'll concede that copyright infringement is illegal. But we were talking about whether or not it is theft.
Okay, two issues:
1. Do you believe that leeching off others is immoral?
2. What is so fundamentally different about stealing property versus stealing information?
Here's a hypothetical: Let's say you go to the Ferarri dealer and check out the brand new models. Your favorite car costs $100,000 but you know the wholesale price is only $50,000. Later that night you go back to the dealership and take the car, leaving $50,000 in cash behind. You deprived the dealer of property, but he can always buy another one. You figure you didn't deprive him of a sale either since you weren't going to buy the car for $100,000. Did you do anything immoral?
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Do you believe that leeching off others is immoral?
Not if you don't harm that other person.
What is so fundamentally different about stealing property versus stealing information?
When you steal property, the person from whom you've stolen it no longer has it.
Here's a hypothetical: Let's say you go to the Ferarri dealer and check out the brand new models. Your favorite car costs $100,000 but you know the wholesale price is only $50,000. Later that night you go back to the dealership and take the car, leaving $50,000 in cash behind. You deprived the dealer of property, but he can always buy another one. You figure you didn't deprive him of a sale either since you weren't going to buy the car for $100,000. Did you do anything immoral?
If the dealer can obtain another car which is identical for $50,000, and no one else was going to use the car during the time it takes for him to obtain the new one, then no, it's not immoral.
Re:So? (Score:2)
In the car example, you stole property but rationalized it. The car dealer can go get another car but you have inconvenienced him. You wasted a portion of his time. Your theft of the Ferarri also had a few other minor effects. You slightly devalued the prestige of owning a Ferarri by making it somewhat less rare. You also removed one more potential buyer from the pool. (You said you weren't going to buy the car for $100,000 but how can you really be sure? You might have won the lottery or had a midlife crisis.) Like the previous example, this is not a stable strategy for human behaviour. If everyone follows what you do, the dealer will be bankrupt, Ferarri will be bankrupt, and Ferarris will have no value as a status symbol.
Stealing music is a bit like the above, but less personal. A band records a CD, figuring to sell 50,000 copies. You make an illegal copy of the CD. You say you probably weren't going to buy the CD so they have lost nothing, but in fact you were deceiving yourself. Maybe there was a 10% chance that you would have bought the CD if you hadn't pirated it -- not a big chance, but a finite one. So in actual fact, you have deprived them of an average of 1/500,000th of their time and money. From your perspective, that is nothing, but from theirs it is statistically significant when 100,000 potential consumers all across the country start thinking the same way you do.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
The car dealer can go get another car but you have inconvenienced him. You wasted a portion of his time.
I assumed that the $50,000 covered that. If not, then it was immoral.
Your theft of the Ferarri also had a few other minor effects. You slightly devalued the prestige of owning a Ferarri by making it somewhat less rare.
I don't buy that argument.
You also removed one more potential buyer from the pool. (You said you weren't going to buy the car for $100,000 but how can you really be sure? You might have won the lottery or had a midlife crisis.)
Actually I think it's irrelevant whether or not you would have bought the car for $100,000. If it can be obtained for $50,000, then you have every right to obtain it for $50,000. The car dealer has no right to have a monopoly market on that car.
Like the previous example, this is not a stable strategy for human behaviour. If everyone follows what you do, the dealer will be bankrupt, Ferarri will be bankrupt, and Ferarris will have no value as a status symbol.
I can see why Ferarris would have no value as a status symbol. I don't see that as a bad thing. Perhaps the dealer would be bankrupt, since no one would need his middleman services. But Ferarri would be bankrupt? Why?
Stealing music is a bit like the above, but less personal.
I completely disagree.
A band records a CD, figuring to sell 50,000 copies. You make an illegal copy of the CD.
What if I make a legal copy of the CD under the Audio Home Recording Act?
You say you probably weren't going to buy the CD so they have lost nothing, but in fact you were deceiving yourself.
It's completely irrelevant whether or not I would have paid for the CD. The author has no right to charge me for it if I made the copy myself.
Maybe there was a 10% chance that you would have bought the CD if you hadn't pirated it -- not a big chance, but a finite one. So in actual fact, you have deprived them of an average of 1/500,000th of their time and money.
No, they deprived themselves of their time and money. I never forced them to make the CD.
From your perspective, that is nothing, but from theirs it is statistically significant when 100,000 potential consumers all across the country start thinking the same way you do.
At which point artists will find a better way to make their money.
Actually, I regularly buy CDs of independent artists. But that's really a donation in their tip jar. I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily donate my money to someone who supports the RIAA.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I assumed that the $50,000 covered [his time]. If not, then it was immoral.
How can you put a value on his time? I mean, he has loads of time. He sits around the dealership 8 hours a day, people come in and look at/test drive the cars, and maybe a couple of times a month someone actually buys one. The once in a blue moon occurance of someone buying a car is what pays for his time, his rent, his staff, hist advertising, etc.
Perhaps the dealer would be bankrupt, since no one would need his middleman services. But Ferarri would be bankrupt? Why?
Ferarri goes bankrupt because dealers don't want to stock their cars any more. Ferarri might try to sell the cars directly to consumers, but that fails when customers steal directly from the Ferarri factory and leave behind $30,000 (the hypothetical manufacturer's cost) instead of $50,000.
If it can be obtained for $50,000, then you have every right to obtain it for $50,000. The car dealer has no right to have a monopoly market on that car.
The car manufacturers give a discount to people who buy in bulk (i.e. dealers). I suppose you think volume discounts are immoral?
What if I make a legal copy of the CD under the Audio Home Recording Act?
Red herring. I already stated in my example that it was an illegal copy. Anyway, if you were making a legal copy, you would have had to purchase the original CD legally, so the copyright owners still get paid.
It's completely irrelevant whether or not I would have paid for the CD. The author has no right to charge me for it if I made the copy myself.
Legally, they do. The fact that you disagree with the law is not evidence to support your opinion.
No, they deprived themselves of their time and money. I never forced them to make the CD.
It used to be that there were two reasons to create things: fame and fortune. Why is it that anti-copyright people are so obsessed with fame and so opposed to fortune? (There is a third reason to create something -- pride -- but that is not a reason to distribute it.)
At which point artists will find a better way to make their money.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be legitimate jobs? It seems you are opposed to things like retail and any kind of creative arts. What jobs would most of the people be doing in your ideal world? Manual labour? Collective farms?
I'm also interested in what other kinds of theft are not immoral? What if you sneak into a concert or a movie theatre? When you go to a bar, do you sneak in your own beer, avoid playing cover, use a slug to get free pool? If I refuse to pay rent, am I stealing from my landlord? (there are vacancies in my building if it makes a difference)
Another thing... since you run the world's first copylefted news site, I imagine you are a fan of the GPL. Can you rationalize supporting the GPL but opposing copyright?
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
How can you put a value on his time?
He can mitigate those damages by hiring someone else to do the work.
Ferarri goes bankrupt because dealers don't want to stock their cars any more. Ferarri might try to sell the cars directly to consumers, but that fails when customers steal directly from the Ferarri factory and leave behind $30,000 (the hypothetical manufacturer's cost) instead of $50,000.
Why does that fail? They aren't losing money.
The car manufacturers give a discount to people who buy in bulk (i.e. dealers). I suppose you think volume discounts are immoral?
If those discounts don't reflect actual differences in costs, then they're not only immoral, they're illegal [ftc.gov].
Red herring. I already stated in my example that it was an illegal copy. Anyway, if you were making a legal copy, you would have had to purchase the original CD legally, so the copyright owners still get paid.
No, I could borrow the original CD from a friend.
It's completely irrelevant whether or not I would have paid for the CD. The author has no right to charge me for it if I made the copy myself.
Legally, they do. The fact that you disagree with the law is not evidence to support your opinion.
We're not talking about legality, we're talking about morality.
It used to be that there were two reasons to create things: fame and fortune. Why is it that anti-copyright people are so obsessed with fame and so opposed to fortune? (There is a third reason to create something -- pride -- but that is not a reason to distribute it.)
I'm not obsessed with fame, and I'm not opposed to fortune. It used to be that people who supported copyright law did so for one reason: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Not for moral purposes, as though the artist somehow "deserves" royalties.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be legitimate jobs?
I think that's irrelevant to the discussion, since you're the one who came up with the term "legitimate jobs". I never said that an artist didn't have a "legitimate job". I only said that they shouldn't be permitted to collect royalties from copies of "their work" which they have not made.
What if you sneak into a concert or a movie theatre?
As long as there are enough seats, it's not immoral.
When you go to a bar, do you sneak in your own beer, avoid playing cover, use a slug to get free pool?
No, but as long as you aren't hurting anyone else, it's not immoral (though that's kind of difficult because you increase the liability of the place with your drunk ass, and someone else probably wants to play pool, plus someone has to separate your slug out from the rest of the coins, basically, you're going to hurt someone else in the process).
If I refuse to pay rent, am I stealing from my landlord? (there are vacancies in my building if it makes a difference)
No, you're breeching your contract with your landlord, which is immoral in this case.
Another thing... since you run the world's first copylefted news site, I imagine you are a fan of the GPL. Can you rationalize supporting the GPL but opposing copyright?
I don't support the GPL except as a lesser of evils. The copyleft (a term which was invented by RMS but does not at all imply GPL) is the QingPL [slashdotsucks.com], which I invented precisely because I do not support the GPL.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Why does that fail? They aren't losing money.
A business that doesn't make a profit is failing. They could do better by liquidating their assets and putting their money in the bank.
No, I could borrow the original CD from a friend.
We're going around in circles here. If you borrow the CD from your friend, it wouldn't be a legal copy.
If those discounts don't reflect actual differences in costs, then they're not only immoral, they're illegal [ftc.gov].
I somehow doubt that the FTC considers wholesaling to be illegal. That law is there to ensure that you can't have one price for white people and a different price for black people, or that kind of thing.
It used to be that people who supported copyright law did so for one reason: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Yeah fine, 300 years ago, under different circumstances, the framers of the US constitution made some arbitrary decision, and we all know they are never mistaken.
I never said that an artist didn't have a "legitimate job".
It's not a job if you can make money from it. By denying them the opportunity to make a living, you are effectively declaring that their job is illegitimate.
As long as there are enough seats, [sneaking into a theatre] not immoral.
Why does the fact that there are empty seats have anything to do with it? In light of your twisted system, why should people who pay get priority over others?
I'm also wondering whether you think sneaking into a movie theatre without paying should be legal or not? Do you make a distinction between what is moral and what should be legal? Should you be arrested if you are caught? Should the theatres be forced to let you in if there are empty seats?
No, [squatting is not] breeching your contract with your landlord, which is immoral in this case.
But say I don't have a contract with my landlord. What if I'm just a squatter?
And what if I own a house. Should I be required to leave my doors open whenever I'm not there, in case someone wants to come in?
The copyleft (a term which was invented by RMS but does not at all imply GPL) is the QingPL [slashdotsucks.com], which I invented precisely because I do not support the GPL.
To tell you the truth, I can't really tell the difference between your license and the GPL (except that yours is much shorter). I notice you still have the viral clause in there, which is odd, since that means the QingPL still relies on copyright to be enforceable. Since you aren't opposed to leeching, wouldn't it be okay for me to mirror your site, change a few things, and then accept the credit/blame?
I really don't understand how you can advocate an ethic that would bring society to its knees if everyone adopted it. That's why I'm wondering if you actally think that all the acts of theft that you don't consider immoral should be explicitly legalized or if you just think it's okay to do them if you can do them without getting caught.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
The problem is that this results in "free rider" problems. BTW, I would say it's immoral based on Kant's categorical imperative (that I wouldn't wish everyone else to emulate that behaviour, because then I couldn't enjoy the cinema) That is, you have a sort of prisoners dilemma where rational people will sneak into cinemas. Obviously, the end result is that the cinemas go out of business, because it's no longer profitable.
For Similar reasons, we have copyright laws-- it avoids creating prisoners dilemma scenarios which reward free riders. The slashdot crowd have a vocal faction of freeriders and their sympathisers, which is why they advocate systems that favor such people. But systems that favor free riders do not well serve the interests of society.
No, you're breeching your contract with your landlord, which is immoral in this case
How is breeching a contract substantially different from violating a copyright ? Is it moral to breech a contract by violating an NDA ? If so, how is it moral to violate similar legal obligations towards the author of a creative work ?
Re:So? (Score:2)
We're going around in circles here. If you borrow the CD from your friend, it wouldn't be a legal copy.
Do you even know what the Audio Home Recording Act [virtualrecordings.com] is? If I make a copy of my friend's CD onto a tape or audio CD-R, it is perfectly legal.
I somehow doubt that the FTC considers wholesaling to be illegal.
Because wholesaling always reflects actual differences in costs.
That law is there to ensure that you can't have one price for white people and a different price for black people, or that kind of thing.
No it's not. Price discrimination is about anti-trust, not about race. You're not allowed to charge different people different prices for the same good, for any reason, unless there is a difference in your own actual costs.
Yeah fine, 300 years ago, under different circumstances, the framers of the US constitution made some arbitrary decision, and we all know they are never mistaken.
Rewrite the economic theories of capitalism and get back to me on that one. Oh yeah, rewrite the moral systems that have been around for thousands of years before capitalism too.
It's not a job if you can make money from it. By denying them the opportunity to make a living, you are effectively declaring that their job is illegitimate.
I don't think I am denying anyone the opportunity to make a living.
Why does the fact that there are empty seats have anything to do with it? In light of your twisted system, why should people who pay get priority over others?
It matters because if there are empty seats you're not taking anything from anyone else. People who pay should get priority over others because that's the purpose of money, to distribute fairly that which cannot be distributed to everyone equally.
I'm also wondering whether you think sneaking into a movie theatre without paying should be legal or not?
Well, like I said before, there are liability issues, but outside of that, yes, I think it should be legal. If you aren't hurting anyone else (or any living thing), then what you're doing should be legal.
Do you make a distinction between what is moral and what should be legal?
Yes. For instance smoking cigarettes is generally immoral, but it should not be illegal. Suicide is immoral, but shouldn't be illegal. Basically things should only be illegal if they harm others, things should be immoral if you merely harm yourself.
Should the theatres be forced to let you in if there are empty seats?
No.
If I refuse to pay rent, am I stealing from my landlord? (there are vacancies in my building if it makes a difference)
But say I don't have a contract with my landlord. What if I'm just a squatter?
Well, I don't know. I find it hard that you can live in a building without causing any harm to the landlord. I mean, what if the landlord wants to show the building to someone and your homeless ass is sitting there in a completely empty room with no running water and no electricity. I just don't see how you can do it without hurting the landlord. Maybe if it's a completely empty building that the landlord has abandoned. Then it's moral.
And what if I own a house. Should I be required to leave my doors open whenever I'm not there, in case someone wants to come in?
No. I draw a big distinction between helping yourself without hurting others, and forcing others to help you.
To tell you the truth, I can't really tell the difference between your license and the GPL (except that yours is much shorter).
The difference is that my license doesn't force anyone to do anything. For instance, if you make a derivative and distribute it, you don't have to distribute the source code. Basically the only way you can use my license is as defense (or countersuit) to a copyright infringement lawsuit.
I notice you still have the viral clause in there, which is odd, since that means the QingPL still relies on copyright to be enforceable.
No, because in the absense of copyright law you already have all the rights given to you by the QingPL.
Since you aren't opposed to leeching, wouldn't it be okay for me to mirror your site, change a few things, and then accept the credit/blame?
Well, no, that's plagiarism, which is illegal under common law and separate from copyright law. It's also immoral. But as long as you didn't claim that you wrote it, and you don't sue anyone over any derivative works, then it's perfectly legal.
I really don't understand how you can advocate an ethic that would bring society to its knees if everyone adopted it.
I don't feel elimination of copyright law would bring society to its knees.
That's why I'm wondering if you actally think that all the acts of theft that you don't consider immoral should be explicitly legalized or if you just think it's okay to do them if you can do them without getting caught.
In the case of copyright I think it should be eliminated. Certainly personal copyright should be eliminated. Perhaps actually selling the works of others could be made illegal under civil law. But civil law can pretty much do anything to people engaging in commerce, as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to use the monetary system, then you have to play by the rules of the monetary system.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Obviously, the end result is that the cinemas go out of business, because it's no longer profitable.
Since cinemas usually make their money off of concessions, and not off ticket prices, that's certainly not the case. Besides, I didn't say that the theatre owners shouldn't try to stop people from sneaking in, and I didn't even say people should try to sneak in. I simply said that if you do happen to sneak in, and you don't harm anyone else in the process, then you have done anything immoral.
Maybe we're splitting hairs here, so I'd rather get back to the point I'm actually trying to make - that copyright infringement isn't theft - and my subpoint that copyright infringement isn't immoral. I have no problem with everyone ignoring copyright law. Yes, there would be certain negatives, such as no more blockbuster movies, but there would be certain positives, such as the virtual elimination of advertising on the internet. In the end I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
For Similar reasons, we have copyright laws-- it avoids creating prisoners dilemma scenarios which reward free riders. The slashdot crowd have a vocal faction of freeriders and their sympathisers, which is why they advocate systems that favor such people. But systems that favor free riders do not well serve the interests of society.
I have to disagree. Free riders are what makes this world great. If everyone behaved like I do, in that they gave their already created works freely for everyone to use and took already created works freely without respect to copyright law, I believe this world would be a better place.
How is breeching a contract substantially different from violating a copyright?
Breeching a contract is lying. Violating a copyright is not.
Is it moral to breech a contract by violating an NDA?
As with anything else I believe it depends on the specific circumstances - if violating the NDA results in discovering the cure for cancer and saving your mother's life, I think it's moral. But in general, I think it's immoral to breech a contract by violating an NDA.
If so, how is it moral to violate similar legal obligations towards the author of a creative work?
Because I never agreed not to violate those legal obligations towards the author. Just because you've violated a law doesn't mean you've done an immoral act. Breaking your promises cause harm, both to others and to yourself. Downloading an mp3 doesn't cause harm (other than to the uploader and the ISPs, all of whom have agreed to receive that harm). Actually, if your contract with your ISP says that you won't download mp3s, I guess you are committing an immoral act.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I have to disagree. Free riders are what makes this world great. If everyone behaved like I do, in that they gave their already created works freely for everyone to use and took already created works freely without respect to copyright law, I believe this world would be a better place.
The problem is that most free riders don't pass this moral test, because most of them do not contribute anything. Another problem is that in a system where everyone had the option of being a free rider, you would end up with a prisoners dilemma scenario-- a rational person would consume as much as possible and produce as little as possible (since there is no financial reward tied to production)
Because I never agreed not to violate those legal obligations towards the author.
The material is made available to you on a set of terms and conditions that does not permit you to copy and redistribute it. No one is forcing you to obtain the material-- if you don't agree with those terms and conditions, you need not obtain it. If you don't agree to those terms and conditions, you shouldn't have obtained the material in the first place (-;
Re:So? (Score:2)
The problem is that most free riders don't pass this moral test, because most of them do not contribute anything.
Well I think that's irrelevant. The question here is whether or not copyright infringement, in and of itself, is immoral. I don't think it is. Living off the goodwill of others and not contributing anything to society. That, on the other hand, I believe is immmoral.
I guess in that sense I guess I think leeching is immoral. But I don't feel that committing copyright infringement is necessarily leeching. It depends what you do with the rest of your life. I also feel in certain cases I am compelled to pay the author for something I use. See, I feel it is immoral to support the RIAA. But I don't feel it is immoral to support an independent artist who has created a CD, and as such I have paid for CDs from independent artists.
Also, I don't see morality as black and white. It's pretty much impossible to come up with an action which is necessarily immoral. In everything we do we have to weigh the positives and the negatives.
Another problem is that in a system where everyone had the option of being a free rider, you would end up with a prisoners dilemma scenario-- a rational person would consume as much as possible and produce as little as possible (since there is no financial reward tied to production)
Now that's the legal side of the coin, and I certainly agree with you that it is a completely different argument from a legal standpoint. See, law is black and white. But I still don't buy the freerider argument for copyright. See, freerider problems are generally solved by government funding. The educational system, for instance, is a system which benefits society in general. When someone is well educated, they tend to contribute more to society, commit fewer violent crimes, etc. We solve the freerider problem by paying for schools and teachers with government funds. Likewise with firefighters. If my building is on fire, there is danger that that fire will spread. Someone needs to put out that fire, and then the rest of the community will be free riders off that action. The solution: we hire firefighters with government funds (or in many cases we merely rely on volunteers).
Personally I think the volunteer method is sufficient for the creation of most artistic works. The only work that I really don't see occurring in free market capitalism is that of fiction books. There are several potential ways to fix that sistuation, ones which I don't feel like getting into yet again today.
The material is made available to you on a set of terms and conditions that does not permit you to copy and redistribute it.
If I had bought the material directly from the author, then that would be accurate. But if instead I borrowed the CD from a friend, or downloaded the CD off the internet, I never agreed, even implicitly, that I would not copy and redistribute it.
No one is forcing you to obtain the material-- if you don't agree with those terms and conditions, you need not obtain it. If you don't agree to those terms and conditions, you shouldn't have obtained the material in the first place (-;
I don't buy that the creator of a product has the right to set terms and conditions on the use of that product without agreement by the end-user of that product. If I buy a used car, the original manufacturer can't tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with that car. I have never agreed to that, in fact, I haven't entered into any agreement with the original manufacturer whatsoever.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Do you even know what the Audio Home Recording Act [virtualrecordings.com] is? If I make a copy of my friend's CD onto a tape or audio CD-R, it is perfectly legal.
Maybe you had better point out a specific paragraph, since I didn't see anything in there to justify your claim.
The difference is that my license doesn't force anyone to do anything. For instance, if you make a derivative and distribute it, you don't have to distribute the source code.
You force people to distribute their derivative work under the QPing. That's just as big an imposition as including the source code.
No, because in the absense of copyright law you already have all the rights given to you by the QingPL.
In the absence of copyright law, those "rights" have no legal basis.
I could distribute my work under a license that gives you permission to murder, but that wouldn't be enforceable either.
Well, no, that's plagiarism, which is illegal under common law and separate from copyright law.
I'm not sure why plagiarism is any worse than copyright infringement. You already told me that you are not motivated by fame.
Your system seems to rely on heavily on enforceability. The movie theatre doesn't have to let you leech if they can effectively keep you out. But you also reverse this position when it suits you. I, for one, believe that enforceability is much too arbitrary an attribute on which to base a system of copyright ethics.
But civil law can pretty much do anything to people engaging in commerce, as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to use the monetary system, then you have to play by the rules of the monetary system.
Again, you state that you are not opposed to fortune, and yet if anyone does try to make a buck, you treat them like lepers and force them to play by a special set of rules.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Living off the goodwill of others and not contributing anything to society. That, on the other hand, I believe is immmoral.
Well this is a reversal of position because earlier you told me that leeching was not immoral.
What about all those other examples I mentioned earlier? Sneaking into movies and concerts and bars? Aren't those examples of leeching and not contributing anything? It occurs to me that the distinction might be the intention of the creator. If someone gives you something for free and you leech, that's immoral. But if someone tries to sell you something and you leech, it's not. Am I right?
But I don't feel that committing copyright infringement is necessarily leeching. It depends what you do with the rest of your life.
That's the problem. The world is full of wannabe musicians and artists, but most of them don't create anything that consumers really want. When those people leech off the really talented people, it's not a fair trade.
See, law is black and white.
I don't believe that the law is black and white. There are lots of grey areas.
See, freerider problems are generally solved by government funding
After your over-simplistic economic theories turn us into a third-world nation, there may not be much government funding available.
The only work that I really don't see occurring in free market capitalism is that of fiction books.
And you already mentioned blockbuster movies.
But if instead I borrowed the CD from a friend, or downloaded the CD off the internet, I never agreed, even implicitly, that I would not copy and redistribute it
But the person who originally bought it did. So I guess in your system, receiving stolen property is not a crime.
If I buy a used car, the original manufacturer can't tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with that car.
That's the genius behind viral licensing, which you yourself use.
The only work that I really don't see occurring in free market capitalism is that of fiction books
Do you honestly consider your system to be free market capitalism? It's funny to me how extreme libertarian views are supposed to be right-wing, but on
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Do you even know what the Audio Home Recording Act is? If I make a copy of my friend's CD onto a tape or audio CD-R, it is perfectly legal.
Maybe you had better point out a specific paragraph, since I didn't see anything in there to justify your claim.
You force people to distribute their derivative work under the QPing. That's just as big an imposition as including the source code.
I disagree. In absense of copyright law, everyone has to distribute their derivative works under the QingPL. In absense of copyright law, everyone doesn't have to distribute their source code.
No, because in the absense of copyright law you already have all the rights given to you by the QingPL.
In the absence of copyright law, those "rights" have no legal basis.
I don't understand what you're getting at.
I could distribute my work under a license that gives you permission to murder, but that wouldn't be enforceable either.
Again, what does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
The QingPL says do whatever you want with my work, just allow others to do whatever they want with the derivative. In the absense of copyright law, you can do whatever you want with my work, and have to let others do whatever they want with any derivative works.
I'm not sure why plagiarism is any worse than copyright infringement. You already told me that you are not motivated by fame.
I don't think I did tell you that, but whatever. Plagiarism is immoral because it is lying.
Your system seems to rely on heavily on enforceability.
Something which all good systems do.
The movie theatre doesn't have to let you leech if they can effectively keep you out. But you also reverse this position when it suits you.
How so?
Re:So? (Score:2)
Well this is a reversal of position because earlier you told me that leeching was not immoral.
It's not a reversal of opinion. My opinion is the same, it's my realization of the definition of leeching that has changed.
What about all those other examples I mentioned earlier? Sneaking into movies and concerts and bars? Aren't those examples of leeching and not contributing anything?
They may be, they may not be. Depends on whether or not you are a person who contributes to society or not.
It occurs to me that the distinction might be the intention of the creator. If someone gives you something for free and you leech, that's immoral. But if someone tries to sell you something and you leech, it's not. Am I right?
No, the intention of the creator is irrelevant.
That's the problem. The world is full of wannabe musicians and artists, but most of them don't create anything that consumers really want. When those people leech off the really talented people, it's not a fair trade.
I have to disagree there. Someone with more talent is no more moral than something with less talent.
And you already mentioned blockbuster movies.
I don't consider that a work separate from movies.
But the person who originally bought it did. So I guess in your system, receiving stolen property is not a crime.
Correct.
Do you honestly consider your system to be free market capitalism?
Yep.
It's funny to me how extreme libertarian views are supposed to be right-wing, but on /. they always end up sounding like communism.
I'm not libertarian. Not even close.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I put it in the same category as a breach of contract. In fact, I believe that it would be possible to replace copyright with a purely contractual system, though I don't think anyone would benefit from that.
See, freerider problems are generally solved by government funding.
I don't think most people in the US are comfortable with the government deciding what music they should listen to, and they're also not very comfortable with paying increased taxes.
I don't think it's necessary or desirable to make the government the provider of anything that suffers from the free rider problem, and there are a lot of problems with making the government a provider. A better alternative to the government doing everything is to have a set of laws that facilitate agreements and exchanges between consenting parties.
In the case of schools, it is true that there is a public infrastructure, but the point of this is to provide a sort of baseline acces to education. There are public schools, but there are also private schools. The government model exists, but not to the exclusion of competing models (religious/non religious private schools, charter schools)
If I had bought the material directly from the author, then that would be accurate. But if instead I borrowed the CD from a friend, or downloaded the CD off the internet, I never agreed, even implicitly, that I would not copy and redistribute it.
Somewhere along the line, someone acquired it from the original source, with those terms and conditions attached. To the extent that they made it available, they are not authorized to change the terms and conditions of use. The terms and conditions of use are transitive.
I don't buy that the creator of a product has the right to set terms and conditions on the use of that product without agreement by the end-user of that product.
I don't buy that you should be able to get access to the product without agreeing to those terms and conditions. It's analogous to an NDA-- the fact that your friend violates the NDA and shares the document with you does not give you the right to post it on the internet. The other party would almost certainly succeed in getting an injunction that required you to shut down the website.
If I buy a used car, the original manufacturer can't tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with that car. I have never agreed to that, in fact, I haven't entered into any agreement with the original manufacturer whatsoever.
The person who sells you the car can impose terms and conditions on the sale. Their terms and conditions of ownership/use might require them to make the car available to you under similar terms and conditions to those which they acquired it.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I put [copyright] in the same category as a breach of contract. In fact, I believe that it would be possible to replace copyright with a purely contractual system, though I don't think anyone would benefit from that.
Everyone would benefit from that, because we would have copyright only on things which both the sending and receiving party agree warrant copyright protection. People certainly shouldn't be required to explicitly put something in the public domain in order for it to be legally copied. That's ludicrous.
My feeling on all the issues you bring up is the same. A contractual agreement should only affect those agreeing to the contract. If one person buys a CD, and another person buys that CD from him, then that person should not be under contract with the original seller. Same thing for an NDA, same thing for a car. The terms and conditions are not, and should not be, transitive.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I don't think everyone would. It would be likely to hurt "the little guy" because they don't have copyright by default. As it stands, the little guy gets copyright to begin with. They can transfer that, but at least they have it to begin with.
I think a lot of benefits users currently enjoy would be lost under a contractual model. For example, the home recording act would probably be inconsistent with a workable contractual system. Fair use would probably also be inconsistent. Public libraries would not be able to honor these contracts. Copyright does serve the public quite well.
A contractual agreement should only affect those agreeing to the contract. If one person buys a CD, and another person buys that CD from him, then that person should not be under contract with the original seller.
The point you're missing is that with a contractual agreement, it's not clear that you'd be able to transfer your rights under the contract. Most contracts do not allow either party to transfer the benefits and responsibilities of the agreement to another party, (examples: NDAs, my gym membership, employment agreements) In fact service contracts (gym membership, consulting contracts, airline/train tickets) typically are not transferable. That's yet another thing you lose under a contractual system-- when you treat music as a contract and not as a good, it's not at all clear that the user has a right to second sale.
But to sum this up, you obviously can not have non-transitive terms and conditions, and the right to resell. No sensible agreement would allow the primary benefits to be transferred without the responsibilities!!!!! In the case of an NDA, you simply can't transfer or resell the NDA. Other parties need to go to that party and get their own NDA.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I don't think everyone would. It would be likely to hurt "the little guy" because they don't have copyright by default.
I don't see how. The little guy can still enter into contractual agreements with others.
I think a lot of benefits users currently enjoy would be lost under a contractual model.
Whatever. If you agree to it, that's your problem.
The point you're missing is that with a contractual agreement, it's not clear that you'd be able to transfer your rights under the contract. [....] That's yet another thing you lose under a contractual system-- when you treat music as a contract and not as a good, it's not at all clear that the user has a right to second sale.
I'm not talking about treating music as a contract or a good. Music is information, the CD is a good, and the contract is what stops the person from legally copying, distributing, etc.
But to sum this up, you obviously can not have non-transitive terms and conditions, and the right to resell.
I'm not the one who said "it would be possible to replace copyright with a purely contractual system," you are. So, I guess you have to explain what exactly you meant by that. If you meant contracts that bind third parties which are not part of the agreement, then I contend that that is not a valid contract.
Re:So? (Score:2)
The little guy does not have a lawyer. This is less of a problem with copyright, because some sort of by-default protection is provided. With a purely contractual model, they would probably need a lawyer just to sort out the contract, and advise them on releasing the material.
Whatever. If you agree to it, that's your problem.
I'd agree to it, because I prefer inconvenient access to music over no access to music. Of course, the best alternative is the convenience and the rights that users enjoy under the copyright system.
I'm not talking about treating music as a contract or a good. Music is information, the CD is a good, and the contract is what stops the person from legally copying, distributing, etc.
This is a gross misuse/distortion of the word "information", and you are engaging in the same sort of demagoguery as those who use the term "theft" (it's also a correct, but somewhat misleading and unconventional usage)
To get back to your point, the second sale doctrine would not exist without copyright.
I'm not the one who said "it would be possible to replace copyright with a purely contractual system," you are. So, I guess you have to explain what exactly you meant by that.
The crux of my point is that "information" does not "want to be free". You can restrict the "flow of information" by legally binding contracts. Any party who receives this information is either bound by the contract, or they have illegitimately received it via some form of unauthorized distribution, analogous to receiving stolen goods.
I think that abolition of copyright would not necessarily make "information" "free". That's my point. The copyright system is a two way street- society gains a lot from it. Material is available in public libraries, and volunteer radio has free access to music. There is a right of second sale.
If you meant contracts that bind third parties which are not part of the agreement, then I contend that that is not a valid contract.
In that case, there can be no right to redistribute under a contractual model.
Re:So? (Score:2)
No action may be brought under this title... based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
It doesn't say it's allowed. It just says that you can't use this act to prosecute consumers. It's an applicability statement.
The QingPL says do whatever you want with my work, just allow others to do whatever they want with the derivative. In the absense of copyright law, you can do whatever you want with my work, and have to let others do whatever they want with any derivative works.
Okay, I suppose that's true.
All good systems rely heavily on enforceability.
Enforceability is not the only criterion. If we relied solely on enforceablity for legality, we would have anarchy.
I don't think I did tell you that, but whatever. Plagiarism is immoral because it is lying.
Why is lying immoral? It's not enforceable.
"The movie theatre doesn't have to let you leech if they can effectively keep you out. But you also reverse this position when it suits you."
How so?
You seem to be opposed to leeching only when it supports you position. You later explained this away on the basis that you have revised your understanding of what is meant by leeching. So what is the distinction exactly?
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
It doesn't say it's allowed. It just says that you can't use this act to prosecute consumers. It's an applicability statement.
That's ridiculous. If you can't legally prosecute me, then it's not illegal.
Enforceability is not the only criterion. If we relied solely on enforceablity for legality, we would have anarchy.
I certainly agree. But a system which ignores enforcebability is anarchy as well. The law should rely heavily on enforcibility, not on intimidation and guilt. A law which is ignored by the majority of people is a bad law.
Why is lying immoral? It's not enforceable.
Legality should be based on enforceability. Morality doesn't need to be.
You seem to be opposed to leeching only when it supports you position. You later explained this away on the basis that you have revised your understanding of what is meant by leeching. So what is the distinction exactly?
At first I thought you defined leeching as benefitting from the work of another without paying them. Then later leeching was redefined as "living off the goodwill of others and not contributing anything to society." That, I believe, except in a case where someone is unable to contribute to society due to disability, is immoral. If you want me to talk about leeching any more, you need to define the term.
Re:So? (Score:2)
You've missed my point. Of course we could move to such a model, but it would be bad for the users, which is why it isn't done for the most part. Even where it is partly embraced (software licensing), the users still enjoy benefits that they would not have under a purely contractual model. In other words, it's already possible to use such a model now, but it wouldn't be good for the users.
Receiving stolen goods is only illegal if there's mens rea [xrefer.com]. If there's no "knowledge that [the goods] were stolen," there's no crime.
Analogous but not identical. There are many ways this problem could be addressed. There is already a well-established legal practice of using NDAs, so the fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck argument probably wouldn't hold up for this contractual model either. Of course, one could place the onus upon the recipient to verify the source of the material before redistributing.
Re:So? (Score:2)
That's ridiculous. If you can't legally prosecute me, then it's not illegal.
The link you posted only said you can't prosecute consumers under that act. I imagine you can still charge them with petty theft.
I certainly agree. But a system which ignores enforcebability is anarchy as well. The law should rely heavily on enforcibility, not on intimidation and guilt. A law which is ignored by the majority of people is a bad law.
Some laws are not self-enforcing, but that doesn't mean they are unenforceable. Piracy could be drastically reduced simply by making file sharing protocols illegal unless they contain anti-piracy countermeasures. For example, posting bogus files is an effective countermeasure. Just because a law is not theoretically perfectly enforceable doesn't mean that it can't be 90% effective in practice.
Legality should be based on enforceability. Morality doesn't need to be.
You told me plagarism was immoral because it was lying. Are you now saying that plagarism should be legal?
If you want me to talk about leeching any more, you need to define the term.
I was trying to point out that there is no black and white distinction between what is leeching and what is not. I have a broad opinion about what leeching is. I think it covers anything from living on welfare to pirating music to sneaking into a concert without paying. Using open source products without contributing is also leeching, but I believe it is my moral duty to do so.
You seem to have a more narrow definition of leeching and my comment was that your definition doesn't seem to have a consistent rationale. It seems to me that your definition is specially tuned to support your views. Why is it that when you take from society without giving anything back to society, that is leeching, but when you take from a group/individual without giving back to that group/individual it is not leeching?
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
The link you posted only said you can't prosecute consumers under that act. I imagine you can still charge them with petty theft.
Are you fucking nuts? Copyright infringement is not "petty theft". I guess IHBT.
You told me plagarism [sic] was immoral because it was lying. Are you now saying that plagarism [sic] should be legal?
No. Laws against plagiarism are quite enforceable, because they necessarily involve publication.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Are you fucking nuts? Copyright infringement is not "petty theft".
Oh yeah, it would be ludicrous to suggest that copyright infringment is literally theft, especially since a large portion of this discussion concerns exactly that issue. Here's another guy who thought the same thing I did. [cmyjoy.com]
I guess IHBT.
Oh come off it. I suppose I could have said the same thing when you said you believe in laissez-faire capitalism.
No. Laws against plagiarism are quite enforceable, because they necessarily involve publication.
I'm sorry I didn't know how to spell plagiarism correctly. I almost looked it up, but I didn't know you'd care. Laws against plagiarism are really no easier to enforce than laws against copyright infringement. It all depends on the size of the target.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Oh yeah, it would be ludicrous to suggest that copyright infringment is literally theft, especially since a large portion of this discussion concerns exactly that issue.
I didn't realize you meant that copyright infringment fell under the legal definition of theft. I thought you were talking about the layman definition.
I'm sorry I didn't know how to spell plagiarism correctly.
Apology accepted. I'm surprised you didn't try to claim that you had actually spelled it correctly, because someone else on the internet happened to spell it that way.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Apology accepted. I'm surprised you didn't try to claim that you had actually spelled it correctly, because someone else on the internet happened to spell it that way.
I was afraid that if I copied someone else's spelling, that would give them grounds to sue me.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
[Sneaking into movies and concerts and bars may or may not be leeching] Depends on whether or not you are a person who contributes to society or not.
I contribute to society by posting to
I don't consider [blockbuster movies] a work separate from movies.
Well, you mentioned that all artistic media would survive without the incentive of copyright, except for fiction. I imagine that fiction would survive as well... just not blockbuster fiction.
Most of all, I consider your assertion that you support free market capitalism to be crazy. Free market communism, maybe. It just doesn't make sense. You may be following some kind of old fashioned capitalist dogma, but you don't grok its intent.
Capitalism presupposes that theft is wrong. If you don't have enforcement against theft then you have anarchy, not capitalism. Your statement that receiving stolen property is not a crime implies that you support a black market.
The intent of capitalism is to encourage production and innovation by rewarding those who produce/create. The implementation of this system is to allow people to sell goods at whatever price they choose. You seem rather attached to the implementation and not the concept.
Ayn Rand believed that copyright was of paramount importance. She had Howard Roark blow up a building because someone messed with his vision. Adam Smith spoke of capitalism's "invisible hand", in which:
This is not exactly in line with your notions of contributing to society rather than leeching. You say it doesn't matter whether or not you have talent, as long as you can contribute. And you decide whether or not to pay for a CD depending on who the money goes to. Haven't I heard that idea before? "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability..."
Call it what you like; it smells like communism to me.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
I contribute to society by posting to /. That should be enough, don't you think?
I don't know, that's up to you to decide.
Well, you mentioned that all artistic media would survive without the incentive of copyright, except for fiction. I imagine that fiction would survive as well... just not blockbuster fiction.
I think movies would survive. I don't think they would have as high of budgets. I believe I mentioned fiction books as possibly not being able to survive. Considering that books are what copyright was invented for in the first place, maybe it would be enough to just restrict copyright to books. I don't know. I certainly feel that music would survive, though. Again, maybe not mega-national-pop-stars, but I don't think the world will be worse off without mega-national-pop-stars.
Most of all, I consider your assertion that you support free market capitalism to be crazy. Free market communism, maybe. It just doesn't make sense. You may be following some kind of old fashioned capitalist dogma, but you don't grok its intent.
I don't see how copyright is a necessary part of capitalism. Perhaps you could point to some writings by Adam Smith where he relied on copyright?
Capitalism presupposes that theft is wrong.
Capitalism presupposes that theft is illegal (not wrong). But it doesn't presuppose that "intellectual property" is actual property.
If you don't have enforcement against theft then you have anarchy, not capitalism.
Or communism, or socialism, or... Well, in any case, I agree if you don't have enforcement against theft then you don't have capitalism.
Your statement that receiving stolen property is not a crime implies that you support a black market.
My statement was that receiving stolen property without knowledge that it is stolen property is not a crime. It's not. Besides, all of this is completely irrelevant, because I don't agree that music is property.
The intent of capitalism is to encourage production and innovation by rewarding those who produce/create.
Sort of. It's really more to distribute the capital of the nation to those who will use it to produce/create.
The implementation of this system is to allow people to sell goods at whatever price they choose. You seem rather attached to the implementation and not the concept.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
This is not exactly in line with your notions of contributing to society rather than leeching. You say it doesn't matter whether or not you have talent, as long as you can contribute. And you decide whether or not to pay for a CD depending on who the money goes to. Haven't I heard that idea before? "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability..."
Now look, you need to stop doing this. You're mixing up my moral ideals on what is right and wrong and my legal ideals on what is legal and illegal. When I decide whether or not to pay for a CD there are two separate questions. One, is it illegal, and if so, will I get caught. Two, is it immoral. That's the basis of capitalism - each person acting in his own rational self-interest. Do you think AOL Time Warner gives a shit about whether or not it's breaking the law? I can give you a whole list of lawsuits that shows otherwise. AOLTW executives care about one thing - profit. I'm going to treat them exactly that same way back - especially when we're talking about civil law, and not criminal law.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but it's not enforced, so I won't get caught. So instead it comes down to a question of morality. Do I think the world will be a better place if I have the money or if AOL Time Warner has the money. Fuck AOL. If I can get away with not paying them money, I'm going to do so.
On the other hand, I recently went to see Tina Vero [tinavero.com] play, and afterwards I bought a CD. Legally, I could have simply made a copy from a friend. I know you claim that I could still be sued under petty theft laws but I reject that claim and believe that I am protected from prosecution by the Audio Home Recording Act. Besides that, Tina's not going to sue me. But morally, I felt that it was proper for me to support Tina and help her make another CD. I feel that it was proper for me to vote with my money against the RIAA. I trust Tina to do good with my money, and not evil.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I don't see how copyright is a necessary part of capitalism. Perhaps you could point to some writings by Adam Smith where he relied on copyright?
You see... this is what I mean about revering capitalist dogma while ignoring its intent. I notice you skipped right over the more modern Ayn Rand example and went straight back 300 years to Adam Smith. The fact is, Adam Smith lived in different times, in an economy that was centred around farming. Audio recordings and movies didn't exist back then. And while book piracy did happen, it was held in check by the cost of engraving plates. If Adam Smith were alive today he would probably be in favour of copyright. Did you read the quote I posted? The whole premise of his Invisible Hand model was people acting in their own interest and not towards any common goal. That doesn't sound a lot like your hypothetical society in which people produce artistic works for the common good, and where consumers donate money to their favorite bands out of the goodness of their heart or avoid leeching by producing free works of their own.
My statement was that receiving stolen property without knowledge that it is stolen property is not a crime. It's not.
Why would I ask if receiving stolen property without knowledge that is stolen property is a crime? Receiving is what you are charged with when you should have known better (e.g. when you buy from a guy who sells tvs out of the back of a truck.
Besides, all of this is completely irrelevant, because I don't agree that music is property.
It's not irrelevant. The real question is why don't you believe that music is property, since this is inconsistent with your alleged capitalist beliefs.
I think movies would survive. I don't think they would have as high of budgets. I believe I mentioned fiction books as possibly not being able to survive.
Of course books would survive, just not books by authors who are in it for the money. The same people who are making low budget movies for the fun of it will write free books. I don't know why you make the distinction.
Considering that books are what copyright was invented for in the first place, maybe it would be enough to just restrict copyright to books.
Right. The all-knowing, all-seeing prophetic wisdom of 500 years ago triumphs again.
I certainly feel that music would survive, though. Again, maybe not mega-national-pop-stars, but I don't think the world will be worse off without mega-national-pop-stars.
Of course. Since you don't like N'Sync, obviously the world wouldn't be worse off without N'Sync. Never mind the fact that millions of people buy their albums. I'm not a big fan of N'Sync either, but I do like some bands that are popular. The Beatles were mega-national pop stars. I doubt that the world would have been better off without the Beatles.
Sort of. It's really more to distribute the capital of the nation to those who will use it to produce/create.
So here we have two statements:
I contend that a true capitalist would agree that music is property since it is created, and that it is necessary to enforce copyright in order to distribute the money back to bands who can use it to fund their next album. (Even if you don't like the RIAA, it is hard to dispute the fact that they will take the money they earned by screwing over one artist and they will use it to fund the next album by a different artist.) The fact that you value the second statement shows that you are attached to the implementation of capitalism 300 years ago, rather than the concept itself.
When I decide whether or not to pay for a CD there are two separate questions. One, is it illegal, and if so, will I get caught. Two, is it immoral. That's the basis of capitalism - each person acting in his own rational self-interest.
No, that [each person acting in his own rational self-interest] is the basis of anarchy. Capitalism indeed involves each person acting in his own ration self-interest, but with property rights enforced.
Yes, copyright infringement is illegal, but it's not enforced, so I won't get caught. So instead it comes down to a question of morality.
Right, which is why I think you are an anarchist rather than a capitalist. I can see how you would confuse the two. Anarchy is fundamentally similar to capitalism, until morality is involved.
But morally, I felt that it was proper for me to support Tina and help her make another CD. I feel that it was proper for me to vote with my money against the RIAA. I trust Tina to do good with my money, and not evil.
That's really sweet but it's not capitalism. Capitalism is about letting the market (not the consumer) decide. This comes right back to the issue of rationalization. People are fundamentally dishonest about their motives. Capitalism removes that factor from the equation by tracking what people actually want and not what they claim they want.
This is not to say that I support unregulated capitalism (personally I think that extremism is almost always bad), but at least I think I understand it at a conceptual level and not just a dogmatic one.
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
You've done it again. I can't continue this conversation as long as you keep mixing morality and economy. Pick one and talk about it if you want to continue.
Now it's morality and economy? Last time you said I was mixing up morality and legality. (I have a feeling that my questions were just too difficult.)
I only want to know about your economic views. I have ascertained from your previous statements that you understand that capitalism is rooted in game theory. How can you advocate a capitalist system for physical property and a communist system for intellectual property and call the hybrid system capitalism?
Maybe the problem is this: Do you believe that "property" is an objective concept inherent in the natural world or do you believe that it is a man made idea? If the former, why? If the latter, how can you justify a definition of property that undermines the game theory basis of capitalism?
-a
Re:So? (Score:2)
Now it's morality and economy? Last time you said I was mixing up morality and legality.
In the context of what we were discussing, same thing.
How can you advocate a capitalist system for physical property and a communist system for intellectual property and call the hybrid system capitalism?
I do not advocate a communist sytem for "intellectual property".
Maybe the problem is this: Do you believe that "property" is an objective concept inherent in the natural world or do you believe that it is a man made idea?
Real property and "intellectual property" are man made ideas. The concept of physical possessions is more of an objective concept inherent in the natural world.
If the former, why?
Even animals have physical possessions. Squirels collect nuts, hermit crabs carry shells on their backs, etc.
If the latter, how can you justify a definition of property that undermines the game theory basis of capitalism?
Why do you feel that I justify a definition of property that undermines the game theory basis of capitalism? In game theory each individual works in his own rational self interest. Introducing laws such as our current copyright laws which cannot possibly be enforced wouldn't change behavior whatsoever in a system where each individual works in his own rational self interest. The current implementation of copyright law relies on irrational fear and guilt, which are beyond the scope of game theoretical analysis.
Re:So? (Score:2)
I do not advocate a communist sytem for "intellectual property".
It is a system in which no one has any possessions and everyone contributes to the common good. Isn't that what communism was supposed to be?
Real property and "intellectual property" are man made ideas. The concept of physical possessions is more of an objective concept inherent in the natural world.
Right. But in the natural world, you only own what you can defend. Squirrels can't sue one another for theft of nuts. Many animals also have a notion of territory. The way it works is that when two dogs are evenly matched, the one who owns the territory will be the aggressor and the one who doesn't will back off. This is a game theory-based compromise that has arisen through natural selection; the advantage is that neither of them has to fight. But if one dog is bigger than the other, he still wins regardless of whose territory it is. What you are saying sounds a lot like the old adage "possession is nine tenths of the law." In the animal world, as in the human world, might makes right.
Why do you feel that I justify a definition of property that undermines the game theory basis of capitalism? In game theory each individual works in his own rational self interest.
It is tautological that in game theory every individual works in his own self interest. However, by changing the rules of the game you can create games with different outcomes. A communist system tends to result in a game where nobody wins. A capitalist system results in a game where there are some winners and some losers but there is a net benefit to society.
Introducing laws such as our current copyright laws which cannot possibly be enforced wouldn't change behavior whatsoever in a system where each individual works in his own rational self interest.
You are wrong to think that the law is completely unenforceable. If we lived in a state of complete anarchy you might think that laws against theft of physical property were unenforceable. As it is, a lot of theft goes on undetected. Does that mean we should scrap laws against theft of property?
The current implementation of copyright law relies on irrational fear and guilt, which are beyond the scope of game theoretical analysis.
The fact is, laws against theft are enforced mainly by the average person's ethics. People are taught that it is wrong to steal, and most of them don't. This ethic is definitely something that develops with age. Young people are more likely to shoplift or pirate music than their parents.
If people generally stopped believing that theft was wrong, it would suddenly become hard to enforce. That is basically what has happened with music. Of course, you can't discount the fact that file sharing networks made piracy much easier. Shut down the file sharing, and copyright will be much easier to enforce.
-a
flawed analogy in #4 (Score:1)
A more accurate analogy would be to suppose you went to a Ferrari dealer, liked one of the cars but weren't willing to spend the $100,000, found each Ferrari only cost $9000 to build, and spent $9000 making an identical copy of the Ferrari for yourself.
In the real world that's not possible (though I do know a number of people who have built unauthorized replicas of classic cars, at great time and expense to themselves for the love of the work, and they are not in jail) which is why actual property has scarcity -- and therefore intrinsic value -- and imaginary property doesn't.
Of course, if it ever does become possible to make a copy of any tangible object for the cost of materials and negligible effort, whole industries will scream bloody murder and try to make the inconvenient technology go away just as the imaginary property industries are doing now. They will succeed for a short time but ultimately fail, and we'll be that much closer to the kind of utopia futurists were predicting in the postwar era -- for better or worse.
Re:flawed analogy in #4 (Score:2)
-a
Re:The value of music (Score:2)
You can be fair to consumers en mass by selling your content "to the people". You declare the value of your content up front, eg it took me 100 hours to produce this work, my time is worth $100/hour, so my content is worth $10,000 in total. Once you've received that much money, the content passes into the public domain and can be freely copied, reworked or built upon.
AKA the Blender model. Of course, Blender didn't really want to pursue this model. They only did it as a last ditch effort after they ran out of money. I think you'd have a hard time convincing authors to pass up free money. They could ensure that their work never passes into the public domain simply by setting the price unreasonably high. If the price is low, there is another problem. If 20,000 people want the product, but only 10,000 need to pay in order for the work to pass into the public domain then there will be a waiting game. You can pay to have the product now, but if you wait just a little while you can have it for free. Therefore, no one will want to pay.
Or, if you're talking about downloads, you calculate the price as a function of sales, so it's low at first to encourage people to try your work out, then increases a little as word gets around and tails off to zero as your revenue approaches the content's value.
This solves the problem above, but it still doesn't explain why people would want to pursue this system unless they were force to do so.
Alternatively you can be fair to the content provider (the artist). The artist gives the first copy of their content away (sell the first CD at cost). As the content gains in popularity the value increases. Quickly at first, approaching a limit. That way, the market decides the value of the content, and a good CD (or whatever) will create more revenue.
This is often what happens anyway.
A limiting value is approached with an increasing number of sales, so people aren't forced to pirate popular works
That only happens if the limiting value is much lower that what the copyright owners want to be.
What do you think of these ideas?
They rely on a governing body to fix CD prices artificially low (based on price points and the assumption that copyright infringement is wrong). If you take a $4 billion industry and reduce it to a $1 billion industry, there will be less money to go around. The copyright owners will fight it kicking and screaming.
-a