5 ms·

First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for

First, it does indicate a problem with the copyright system when such a large number of people (+50%, per Free Culture) are 'felons' under US law and liable for hundreds of thousands in damages. While I agree with your conclusions, the logic here is flawed. If everyone started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals. (Sidenote: Only a small number of people are felons on account of copyright. Under US law, to be a felon you have to have been convicted of a felony.)

nextparadigms 15y ago
Copyright infringement is not shoplifting.
- pyre 15y ago
  He's arguing that "everyone is doing it" isn't proof that something is good.
- masterzora 15y ago
  Goddammit, I knew someone was going to trot that line out. You see, I never said copyright infringement was shoplifting, or related to shoplifting, in any way. Just because someone uses the words "copyright" and "shoplifting" in the same post doesn't mean that they are saying copyright infringement is shoplifting. In my above post shoplifting was only an example. My post makes just as much as sense if I replace shoplifting with murder and copyright infringement with cannabis possession. Or shoplifting with arson and copyright infringement with being left handed. The underlying logic I quoted is what was wrong, not the categorisation, so stop jerking your knee.
  - wvenable 15y ago
    Your argument demands an obviously immoral crime in order to work. You used shoplifting because everyone agrees that is immoral. You are begging the question. If you replaced shoplifting with cannabis possession then the line "If everyone started smoking pot, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals" isn't nearly true. In fact, you could argue that alcohol is legal, while cannabis is not, is entirely because everyone does it.
    - masterzora 15y ago
      I disagree, for a number of reasons. 1. I don't agree with the statement "shoplifting is necessarily immoral" so it makes no sense for my own argument to hinge on such a fact. 2. My argument does not only work for an immoral crime; it is merely illustrated by an example of a law people think is not wrong. Shoplifting is merely a counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law". I do not take this on to conclude that X is not a bad law which would be begging the question. 3. The original logic was begging the question, not I. The statement "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law" only holds if X is already a priori a bad law (and, even then, it requires a few more statements to actually work).
      - wvenable 15y ago
        > Shoplifting is merely a counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law" Perhaps if 90% of the population shoplifted, then any law against shoplifting would be bad. What is missing from the question is why the majority of the population would shoplift.
        masterzora 15y ago
        That is a very valid line of reasoning and one that I would implore everyone to explore in such a situation. But, as you said, "perhaps". It does not directly follow that it is necessarily a bad law.
pyre 15y ago
> Under US law, to be a felon you have to have been > convicted of a felony. Don't worry. The RIAA/MPAA will be remedying this with another bill after they ram SOPA through.
jacobolus 15y ago
> If everyone started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals. Yes it would. Laws are not “good” or “bad” in a vacuum; they’re just the written-down versions of agreed-upon social relations – specifically, agreed upon by whoever in the society has enough social and economic power (and in a democracy, votes) to get a law enacted and enforced. At the point where “everyone” was shoplifting, we’d be in some kind of social situation where the strictures against stealing had completely broken down. This happens sometimes, for example in rebellions or disaster zones. When there’s a revolution and a mass of people loot, throw out, kill, etc. existing power-holders, it quite clearly “indicates a problem” with the previous set of laws in the society, no matter how vehemently those elites protest. Usually, in modern democracies, we have enough mutual respect and a sufficiently broad distribution of power that things don’t get to the point of complete breakdown of order. In this particular example, where there are fines in the $100Ks for something that most people have done and don’t consider bad, there’s quite clearly a problem with the law.
- sehugg 15y ago
  Or for a more concrete example, see the Volstead Act and Prohibition.
ugh 15y ago
Not really, no. Laws should fit the society, not the other way around. Laws that lock up everyone are unjust laws, no matter the crime. Everything else would be a misguided adherence to laws.
MichaelGG 15y ago
The flaw there is that the only reason copyright exists is to benefit the public. If the public is finding it's against the current copyright laws, it's copyright that should change to suit the public, not the other way around.
rayiner 15y ago
His logic is fine. You can work backwards from a result that seems suspect to question the conclusions from which that result stems.
- masterzora 15y ago
  I agree with your second statement but that does not imply the first. Your second sentence leads to a different conclusion: Such a situation indicates that causes should be examined. It does not indicate what the cause is.
nickik 15y ago
Shoplifting is something diffrent because you cant copy something in a store. You dont take anything away from somebody when you copy (exept an abstract right). If I could copy a car for basiclly nothing I probebly would too.
- masterzora 15y ago
  I've been over this already: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3246010 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3246010

nextparadigms 15y ago

pyre 15y ago
He's arguing that "everyone is doing it" isn't proof that something is good.
masterzora 15y ago
Goddammit, I knew someone was going to trot that line out. You see, I never said copyright infringement was shoplifting, or related to shoplifting, in any way. Just because someone uses the words "copyright" and "shoplifting" in the same post doesn't mean that they are saying copyright infringement is shoplifting. In my above post shoplifting was only an example. My post makes just as much as sense if I replace shoplifting with murder and copyright infringement with cannabis possession. Or shoplifting with arson and copyright infringement with being left handed. The underlying logic I quoted is what was wrong, not the categorisation, so stop jerking your knee.
- wvenable 15y ago
  Your argument demands an obviously immoral crime in order to work. You used shoplifting because everyone agrees that is immoral. You are begging the question. If you replaced shoplifting with cannabis possession then the line "If everyone started smoking pot, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals" isn't nearly true. In fact, you could argue that alcohol is legal, while cannabis is not, is entirely because everyone does it.
  - masterzora 15y ago
    I disagree, for a number of reasons. 1. I don't agree with the statement "shoplifting is necessarily immoral" so it makes no sense for my own argument to hinge on such a fact. 2. My argument does not only work for an immoral crime; it is merely illustrated by an example of a law people think is not wrong. Shoplifting is merely a counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law". I do not take this on to conclude that X is not a bad law which would be begging the question. 3. The original logic was begging the question, not I. The statement "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law" only holds if X is already a priori a bad law (and, even then, it requires a few more statements to actually work).
    - wvenable 15y ago
      > Shoplifting is merely a counterexample to the logic "If X is a law that a lot of people break then X is a bad law" Perhaps if 90% of the population shoplifted, then any law against shoplifting would be bad. What is missing from the question is why the majority of the population would shoplift.
      - masterzora 15y ago
        That is a very valid line of reasoning and one that I would implore everyone to explore in such a situation. But, as you said, "perhaps". It does not directly follow that it is necessarily a bad law.

pyre 15y ago

> Under US law, to be a felon you have to have been > convicted of a felony. Don't worry. The RIAA/MPAA will be remedying this with another bill after they ram SOPA through.

jacobolus 15y ago

> If everyone started shoplifting, for example, it wouldn't indicate a problem with the laws that people are now criminals. Yes it would. Laws are not “good” or “bad” in a vacuum; they’re just the written-down versions of agreed-upon social relations – specifically, agreed upon by whoever in the society has enough social and economic power (and in a democracy, votes) to get a law enacted and enforced. At the point where “everyone” was shoplifting, we’d be in some kind of social situation where the strictures against stealing had completely broken down. This happens sometimes, for example in rebellions or disaster zones. When there’s a revolution and a mass of people loot, throw out, kill, etc. existing power-holders, it quite clearly “indicates a problem” with the previous set of laws in the society, no matter how vehemently those elites protest. Usually, in modern democracies, we have enough mutual respect and a sufficiently broad distribution of power that things don’t get to the point of complete breakdown of order. In this particular example, where there are fines in the $100Ks for something that most people have done and don’t consider bad, there’s quite clearly a problem with the law.

sehugg 15y ago
Or for a more concrete example, see the Volstead Act and Prohibition.

ugh 15y ago

Not really, no. Laws should fit the society, not the other way around. Laws that lock up everyone are unjust laws, no matter the crime. Everything else would be a misguided adherence to laws.

MichaelGG 15y ago

The flaw there is that the only reason copyright exists is to benefit the public. If the public is finding it's against the current copyright laws, it's copyright that should change to suit the public, not the other way around.

rayiner 15y ago

His logic is fine. You can work backwards from a result that seems suspect to question the conclusions from which that result stems.

masterzora 15y ago
I agree with your second statement but that does not imply the first. Your second sentence leads to a different conclusion: Such a situation indicates that causes should be examined. It does not indicate what the cause is.

nickik 15y ago

Shoplifting is something diffrent because you cant copy something in a store. You dont take anything away from somebody when you copy (exept an abstract right). If I could copy a car for basiclly nothing I probebly would too.

masterzora 15y ago
I've been over this already: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3246010 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3246010