5 ms·

Should that right include the option to have people jailed and fined for behavior nobody can prove is harmful to anybody?

whiddershins 10y ago
But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  What makes you think I don't use that criticism against everything equally? Law is supposed to prevent harm, not to satisfy feelings.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    Many artists feel that the current state of affairs does harm them.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      As far as I see it, the big media companies are the cause for most of their troubles. To a large part through resisting better business models, and through forcing themselves into the position as gatekeepers. Artists should be supported, but I can't see any sane justification for letting them dictate the terms for how a society may interact with its own culture.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        That's a very convenient excuse. Media companies can't actually force themselves into that position. Artists have to sign contracts with them voluntarily.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        That's a very naive way of looking at it. Why do you think artists historically have felt they had no other choice than to do so? (hint: they control the vast majority of the distribution and PR) What about recoupment contract terms and similar unjust practices?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        That is a very paternalistic way of looking at it. You are effectively saying to artists, shut up, you have no right to sign contracts or have your voluntary agreements respected because you are too exploited to know what's good for you. And now step aside and let me download all your stuff for free until we have sorted out all the warts of media business models, capitalism and the universe in general. We all face constraints and we are not completely free in the choices we make. That doesn't mean the choices we do make can simply be discounted.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        Why are you calling it paternalistic, instead of anti-monopolist? You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival. And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >Why are you calling it paternalistic Because you are talking over artists' heads like they were little children unable to understand how enslaved they are. If an artist says, I feel enslaved (and some probably do), I take that seriously, and I would have a very close look at those contracts. But if an artist says I am acting voluntarily and I demand restrictions on free music downloads, and a consumer of music such as yourself says no you are being enslaved and therefore I feel entitled to free music downloads in the name of fighting big bad media companies, then that is too obviously self-serving for me to take at face value.

whiddershins 10y ago

But that criticism could be leveled at any law or regulation, except assault, theft, and murder. Why single out copyright? If you want to be an anarchist, great, but stop picking on creators of intellectual property.

Natanael_L 10y ago
What makes you think I don't use that criticism against everything equally? Law is supposed to prevent harm, not to satisfy feelings.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  Many artists feel that the current state of affairs does harm them.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    As far as I see it, the big media companies are the cause for most of their troubles. To a large part through resisting better business models, and through forcing themselves into the position as gatekeepers. Artists should be supported, but I can't see any sane justification for letting them dictate the terms for how a society may interact with its own culture.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      That's a very convenient excuse. Media companies can't actually force themselves into that position. Artists have to sign contracts with them voluntarily.
      - Natanael_L 10y ago
        That's a very naive way of looking at it. Why do you think artists historically have felt they had no other choice than to do so? (hint: they control the vast majority of the distribution and PR) What about recoupment contract terms and similar unjust practices?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        That is a very paternalistic way of looking at it. You are effectively saying to artists, shut up, you have no right to sign contracts or have your voluntary agreements respected because you are too exploited to know what's good for you. And now step aside and let me download all your stuff for free until we have sorted out all the warts of media business models, capitalism and the universe in general. We all face constraints and we are not completely free in the choices we make. That doesn't mean the choices we do make can simply be discounted.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        Why are you calling it paternalistic, instead of anti-monopolist? You're essentially excusing slave trade where people sell themselves to become slaves "because they could choose not to", when they actually in the real world couldn't see any other viable option for survival. And while at it you're blatantly ignoring (or perhaps obscuring) the other option, of targeting the other side of the equation and banning such exploitative contracts, requiring that they offer reasonable terms instead. Are you claiming it is impossible for them, who keep making record profits, to afford to be fair?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >Why are you calling it paternalistic Because you are talking over artists' heads like they were little children unable to understand how enslaved they are. If an artist says, I feel enslaved (and some probably do), I take that seriously, and I would have a very close look at those contracts. But if an artist says I am acting voluntarily and I demand restrictions on free music downloads, and a consumer of music such as yourself says no you are being enslaved and therefore I feel entitled to free music downloads in the name of fighting big bad media companies, then that is too obviously self-serving for me to take at face value.