5 ms·

Content creators should feel free to do as they please with their content. I, however, as a technologist am saying I will not do anything to help them build sof

Content creators should feel free to do as they please with their content. I, however, as a technologist am saying I will not do anything to help them build software that limits others freedoms, will encourage others not to do so as well, and to whatever degree possible, boycott them and those who help them. I do believe in licensing though, so your comment motivated me to add a (permissive) license to my website. That's the only good use for it.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
That's a fair enough opinion to have. There was a time I believed something similar too, until I realised I haven't created anything worth protecting, so who am I to have an opinion on protecting content.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > so who am I to have an opinion on protecting content. How does it make even the slightest sense to allow only those who profit from a norm to have an opinion on it? You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation? You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed? You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners?
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation? Unless everyone is living on a different planet, some people will necessarily be affected by the consequences of the chemical plant's operations. Looking out for those people is reasonable. You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed? That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society. You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners? That's more like the first question. The slaves are necessarily affected by that arrangement, and again looking out for them is reasonable. Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society. It's actually not that hard: The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. If you simply claim ownership of something, but noone agrees with you, then you don't actually own it. If society grants you the advantages of this norm and enforces it for you, it's just as valid to partially revoke it where that is to the advantage of society at large. It would be completely arbitrary to say that everyone is obligated to help enforcing a norm that's to their own disadvantage and they should not have any say in it because the person profiting from it says so. > Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference? Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy? Does a human need participation in culture? In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it. > And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to. What conclusion do I want it to lead to?
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. I see what you're getting at, but I think you're missing something. What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership, which essentially means a recognised form of ownership that society will defend on the owner's behalf. The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state. What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference? This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think. Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy? I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal. What we're really talking about in this sort of discussion is whether it's worthwhile for content creators to create and distribute new content at all. At present, it is, but in many cases that remains so only because of the customer base who do comply with the law and provide a solid economic foundation for doing the necessary work. Freeloaders benefit from the content but contribute nothing to support its creation, and if the legal environment were changed so that everyone could lawfully act as a freeloader, the economics would change radically. This is not to say that some other economic model to support creative work couldn't function as well or better than what we have today, but so far I don't think we've found one that does and I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not. In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it. I would think that common sense and common decency made it clear that everyone was entitled to an opinion on whatever subject they want, and however unpleasant anyone else might happen to find that opinion. What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take. What conclusion do I want it to lead to? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be opposing the idea that the views of those who create the content should carry more weight than the views of those who merely benefit from the content's existence without contributing. In that case, economic arguments much like those you have just made yourself in favour of physical property rights would also tend to support strong IP rights that support the content creators in this debate.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

That's a fair enough opinion to have. There was a time I believed something similar too, until I realised I haven't created anything worth protecting, so who am I to have an opinion on protecting content.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> so who am I to have an opinion on protecting content. How does it make even the slightest sense to allow only those who profit from a norm to have an opinion on it? You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation? You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed? You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners?
- Silhouette 10y ago
  You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation? Unless everyone is living on a different planet, some people will necessarily be affected by the consequences of the chemical plant's operations. Looking out for those people is reasonable. You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed? That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society. You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners? That's more like the first question. The slaves are necessarily affected by that arrangement, and again looking out for them is reasonable. Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society. It's actually not that hard: The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. If you simply claim ownership of something, but noone agrees with you, then you don't actually own it. If society grants you the advantages of this norm and enforces it for you, it's just as valid to partially revoke it where that is to the advantage of society at large. It would be completely arbitrary to say that everyone is obligated to help enforcing a norm that's to their own disadvantage and they should not have any say in it because the person profiting from it says so. > Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference? Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy? Does a human need participation in culture? In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it. > And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to. What conclusion do I want it to lead to?
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. I see what you're getting at, but I think you're missing something. What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership, which essentially means a recognised form of ownership that society will defend on the owner's behalf. The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state. What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference? This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think. Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy? I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal. What we're really talking about in this sort of discussion is whether it's worthwhile for content creators to create and distribute new content at all. At present, it is, but in many cases that remains so only because of the customer base who do comply with the law and provide a solid economic foundation for doing the necessary work. Freeloaders benefit from the content but contribute nothing to support its creation, and if the legal environment were changed so that everyone could lawfully act as a freeloader, the economics would change radically. This is not to say that some other economic model to support creative work couldn't function as well or better than what we have today, but so far I don't think we've found one that does and I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not. In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it. I would think that common sense and common decency made it clear that everyone was entitled to an opinion on whatever subject they want, and however unpleasant anyone else might happen to find that opinion. What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take. What conclusion do I want it to lead to? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be opposing the idea that the views of those who create the content should carry more weight than the views of those who merely benefit from the content's existence without contributing. In that case, economic arguments much like those you have just made yourself in favour of physical property rights would also tend to support strong IP rights that support the content creators in this debate.