4 ms·

> Does anyone agree with me? The law doesn't even agree with you. Copyright is not a natural right, it's an exchange of monopoly for the hope that your artisti

by 0x44 18y ago

> Does anyone agree with me? The law doesn't even agree with you. Copyright is not a natural right, it's an exchange of monopoly for the hope that your artistic achievement will advance the natural arts of our society. If the terms of that grant are onerous and society derives no benefit from it, then it is not immoral or unethical for society to revoke your monopoly. In this case, if everyone is pirating, then it's absolutely moral for an individual to do it.

edw519 18y ago
"The law doesn't even agree with you." My lawyer would beg to differ with you. "Copyright is not a natural right" Neither is land ownership. "In this case, if everyone is pirating, then it's absolutely moral for an individual to do it." Thanks for the new counterargument. This one is even better than "They've already ripped me off, so I'm just getting them back." I guess I'll be using it in next month's post.
- sabat 18y ago
  "My lawyer would beg to differ with you." The constitution doesn't agree with your lawyer. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. That established copyright. It doesn't say anything -- direct or implied -- about "property". And if you read the letters of Jefferson, you can see that the idea that an intangible item cannot be treated as property was very much on the founding fathers' minds.
- davidw 18y ago
  Land is a rivalrous good, whereas most digital products are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) Some information goods are excludable, but not easily, and less so with fast internet connections. This pushes them towards the category of 'public goods': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Copyright is "legislated exclusion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions Anyway, copyright is a compromise, and I agree that people should respect the law, but the law should also change to fit the facts. The Mickey Mouse copyright extenions, for example, are what might be described in technical terms as "a load of horse shit". 100 years is way too long. I think that we should look at how to rejig the compromise, without eliminating it completely, for the moment.
- 0x44 18y ago
  If society declines to acknowledge the limited monopoly granted, why is it immoral for an individual within that society to also ignore the monopoly?
bdr 18y ago
Please stop equating being legal with being moral.
- 0x44 18y ago
  There is no inherent morality to the copyright monopoly as it is not a natural right. It was created foremost as a mutually beneficial arrangement between the Crown and publishers to ensure certain subjects were not published in exchange for a guaranteed monopoly on publication. In our current system, copyright is supposed to be a mutually beneficial arrangement between Society and creators to foster the useful Art in exchange for a temporary monopoly. Since the temporary nature of that monopoly has been over-stretched, effectively to the point of permanence, society (especially the digitally literate youth) has begun to disregard the compromise.

by 0x44 18y ago

edw519 18y ago

"The law doesn't even agree with you." My lawyer would beg to differ with you. "Copyright is not a natural right" Neither is land ownership. "In this case, if everyone is pirating, then it's absolutely moral for an individual to do it." Thanks for the new counterargument. This one is even better than "They've already ripped me off, so I'm just getting them back." I guess I'll be using it in next month's post.

sabat 18y ago
"My lawyer would beg to differ with you." The constitution doesn't agree with your lawyer. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. That established copyright. It doesn't say anything -- direct or implied -- about "property". And if you read the letters of Jefferson, you can see that the idea that an intangible item cannot be treated as property was very much on the founding fathers' minds.
davidw 18y ago
Land is a rivalrous good, whereas most digital products are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) Some information goods are excludable, but not easily, and less so with fast internet connections. This pushes them towards the category of 'public goods': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Copyright is "legislated exclusion": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions Anyway, copyright is a compromise, and I agree that people should respect the law, but the law should also change to fit the facts. The Mickey Mouse copyright extenions, for example, are what might be described in technical terms as "a load of horse shit". 100 years is way too long. I think that we should look at how to rejig the compromise, without eliminating it completely, for the moment.
0x44 18y ago
If society declines to acknowledge the limited monopoly granted, why is it immoral for an individual within that society to also ignore the monopoly?

bdr 18y ago

Please stop equating being legal with being moral.

0x44 18y ago
There is no inherent morality to the copyright monopoly as it is not a natural right. It was created foremost as a mutually beneficial arrangement between the Crown and publishers to ensure certain subjects were not published in exchange for a guaranteed monopoly on publication. In our current system, copyright is supposed to be a mutually beneficial arrangement between Society and creators to foster the useful Art in exchange for a temporary monopoly. Since the temporary nature of that monopoly has been over-stretched, effectively to the point of permanence, society (especially the digitally literate youth) has begun to disregard the compromise.