3 ms·

I'm mainly talking morally and ethically, legally grooveshark dance through the hoops to remain just about "legal". Also I'm not arguing for or against the who

I'm mainly talking morally and ethically, legally grooveshark dance through the hoops to remain just about "legal". Also I'm not arguing for or against the whole RIAA thing, I think it's moronic how they refuse to innovate and (in my opinion) make more money, however my own opinion of how stupid they're being shouldn't over-ride the (moral/ethical) "rights" of a content creator. If I make something I sure as hell want to decide what happens with it.

jbri 16y ago
Should the people who's work you "built upon" get to decide what you do with your own work too?
- CamperBob 16y ago
  No, because they built upon others' work as well. At some point the sheer bureaucracy would kill you.
jessriedel 16y ago
> I'm mainly talking morally and ethically I think there's a huge moral difference between your right to your shoes and your right to some idea. Here are some things that make it hard to believe IP is a good fundamental right (in the sense of Locke): * Bob and Joe on opposite sides of the world have no problem with each owning a pair of shoes. But if Bob invents a device on Tuesday, and Joe independently invents in on Wednesday, why should Bob get everything and Joe nothing? Yes, from a practical standpoint it's necessary to give patents solely to the first-mover; otherwise people would pretend to invent existing things. But why should time-of-invention matter morally...at all? * Should Shakespeare's heirs (or, more realistically, a copyright-holding corporation) really be able to dictate how his plays are used today? And forever? If not, what moral principle would we use to choose a time limit? * Why, if IP is a moral right, are mathematical theorems not ownable? * It's not to hard to distinguish things which are physically ownable, but where does one draw the line with IP? How detailed must my graphic design be for it to be mine forever? Can I own all green squares, or only green squares inside of blue hexagons? Legally, the threshold for copyright is set to try to maximize societal benefit. But if copyrights are moral rights existing independent of any legal framework, on what moral principle could one decide what's copyright-able?
- Natsu 16y ago
  Indeed. There are plenty of other arguments, too, based on game theory, which I should hope any mathematician or economist would appreciate. Some good papers and discussion can be found at these sites: * http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/index.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/index.htm * http://www.againstmonopoly.org/ http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    Well, those seem to be econ/math arguments which assume a utilitarian(-like) moral philosophy. I was trying to convince citricsquid with a philosophical argument that IP is probably not a good fundamental right, whether or not you're a utilitarian.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      True. I wasn't trying to take away from your post. I just thought I'd add that, because it ought to be relevant to a fair number of the hackers here.

jbri 16y ago

Should the people who's work you "built upon" get to decide what you do with your own work too?

CamperBob 16y ago
No, because they built upon others' work as well. At some point the sheer bureaucracy would kill you.

jessriedel 16y ago

> I'm mainly talking morally and ethically I think there's a huge moral difference between your right to your shoes and your right to some idea. Here are some things that make it hard to believe IP is a good fundamental right (in the sense of Locke): * Bob and Joe on opposite sides of the world have no problem with each owning a pair of shoes. But if Bob invents a device on Tuesday, and Joe independently invents in on Wednesday, why should Bob get everything and Joe nothing? Yes, from a practical standpoint it's necessary to give patents solely to the first-mover; otherwise people would pretend to invent existing things. But why should time-of-invention matter morally...at all? * Should Shakespeare's heirs (or, more realistically, a copyright-holding corporation) really be able to dictate how his plays are used today? And forever? If not, what moral principle would we use to choose a time limit? * Why, if IP is a moral right, are mathematical theorems not ownable? * It's not to hard to distinguish things which are physically ownable, but where does one draw the line with IP? How detailed must my graphic design be for it to be mine forever? Can I own all green squares, or only green squares inside of blue hexagons? Legally, the threshold for copyright is set to try to maximize societal benefit. But if copyrights are moral rights existing independent of any legal framework, on what moral principle could one decide what's copyright-able?

Natsu 16y ago
Indeed. There are plenty of other arguments, too, based on game theory, which I should hope any mathematician or economist would appreciate. Some good papers and discussion can be found at these sites: * http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/index.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/index.htm * http://www.againstmonopoly.org/ http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
- jessriedel 16y ago
  Well, those seem to be econ/math arguments which assume a utilitarian(-like) moral philosophy. I was trying to convince citricsquid with a philosophical argument that IP is probably not a good fundamental right, whether or not you're a utilitarian.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    True. I wasn't trying to take away from your post. I just thought I'd add that, because it ought to be relevant to a fair number of the hackers here.