3 ms·

>if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work Then please elaborate why we should accept s

>if you accept the premise that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production of said work Then please elaborate why we should accept said premise. You just state it like it's an universal law of the universe. It isn't. No artisan (or actually, no one at all) is entitled to a successful business modell. And by the way, the "problem" aren't the people who are unwilling to pay for anything (which I am sure you or someone else will cite sooner or later). It's the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. >Are you prepared to argue that Ace did Tolkien no harm? Why should it have? More people were able to read his beautiful works. Are you prepared to argue how that constitutes as harm in the first place?

michael_dorfman 15y ago
I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP. In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive. If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.
- praptak 15y ago
  "If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books [...]" It is possible to believe that he had the moral right to the proceeds but only on the basis of the copyright policy that existed at the time he wrote the books. This doesn't mean you cannot at the same time argue that such policy should be abolished. In other words the Tolkien case is a red herring here.
dctoedt 15y ago
> [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. Agreed that there's no entitlement to laws or monopolies. And I grant you that some ultra-libertarians oppose any restriction on their personal economic freedom, citing moral reasons. But society sometimes decides, for pragmatic reasons, that it's a sensible bet to grant limited-term monopolies [1], in the hope that over the long term everyone will benefit. We see that in the Writings and Discoveries Clause, article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] EDIT in response to comments: Just what monopolies to grant, and for how long, is of course the $64K question. It's been my observation that this is one of those issues where, for many people, where you stand depends on where you sit (or is it the other way around?) [1] Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied IP rights in the general case. In economics, the term refers to someone having a lock on access to goods or services for which there's no 'viable' substitute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly. [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Its true that copyrights aren't very much like monopolies in the economic sense, but they grew out of the the older, legal meaning of that term. Back In The Day the grown would sell patents granting the owner a monopoly over the production of some good as a way of raising money quickly. This practice has quite thankfully died out as a way of raising revenue, but our current system of assigning exclusive rights to creators grew directly out of it. The Wikipedia article on the Statute of Monopolies is pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
- hxa7241 15y ago
  > Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied to IP Whatever the technical rectitude of non-monopoly assertions, they really ought to sound fairly shady when one considers the very intent and mechanism of IP: to increase profits of the producer, by raising prices through restricting supply. IP is certainly supposed to quack like a duck.

michael_dorfman 15y ago

I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP. In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive. If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.

praptak 15y ago
"If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books [...]" It is possible to believe that he had the moral right to the proceeds but only on the basis of the copyright policy that existed at the time he wrote the books. This doesn't mean you cannot at the same time argue that such policy should be abolished. In other words the Tolkien case is a red herring here.

dctoedt 15y ago

> [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. Agreed that there's no entitlement to laws or monopolies. And I grant you that some ultra-libertarians oppose any restriction on their personal economic freedom, citing moral reasons. But society sometimes decides, for pragmatic reasons, that it's a sensible bet to grant limited-term monopolies [1], in the hope that over the long term everyone will benefit. We see that in the Writings and Discoveries Clause, article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] EDIT in response to comments: Just what monopolies to grant, and for how long, is of course the $64K question. It's been my observation that this is one of those issues where, for many people, where you stand depends on where you sit (or is it the other way around?) [1] Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied IP rights in the general case. In economics, the term refers to someone having a lock on access to goods or services for which there's no 'viable' substitute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly. [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

Symmetry 15y ago
Its true that copyrights aren't very much like monopolies in the economic sense, but they grew out of the the older, legal meaning of that term. Back In The Day the grown would sell patents granting the owner a monopoly over the production of some good as a way of raising money quickly. This practice has quite thankfully died out as a way of raising revenue, but our current system of assigning exclusive rights to creators grew directly out of it. The Wikipedia article on the Statute of Monopolies is pretty interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
hxa7241 15y ago
> Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied to IP Whatever the technical rectitude of non-monopoly assertions, they really ought to sound fairly shady when one considers the very intent and mechanism of IP: to increase profits of the producer, by raising prices through restricting supply. IP is certainly supposed to quack like a duck.