4 ms·

> Taking something somebody has made without their permission is unethical. Here lies the problem : define "taking". If I download a music file, I'm not removi

by wazoox 15y ago

> Taking something somebody has made without their permission is unethical. Here lies the problem : define "taking". If I download a music file, I'm not removing it from where I've got it. I'm not depriving anyone from it, or preventing anyone from listening it. Therefore, I didn't take anything. This has nothing to do with the fact that it is or isn't easy.

nailer 15y ago
> Here lies the problem : define "taking". You're right. Using something somebody has made without their permission is unethical. Fixed.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  I find your ethics disturbing, and will not be subscribing to them.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Would you consider parodies to be unethical, since they involve using something someone made without their permission? What about the other traditional exceptions to copyright? What about something that goes way beyond copyright, like an architect putting up a building and then saying that nobody was allowed to look at it unless they paid him money first. Would you say that people would be morally obligated to pay him money in that case? If someone decided that they regretted publishing a book, would they be within their rights to insist that everybody with a copy of that book destroy it, provided they got their money back? I'm having a hard time understanding where your attitude here originated from. Copyright in the US has always just been a matter of practicality from the founding of the US through hundreds of years of jurisprudence, and you can see that in how readily aspects of it are traded off against other public interests. Copyright as basic morality would result in a system radically different from the one we have now.
  - nailer 15y ago
    > Would you consider parodies to be unethical, since they involve using something someone made without their permission? No, as the value being provided isn't the item being used, but the satire. Piracy doesn't add value like satire does.
    - mnutt 15y ago
      You switched from "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong" to "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong, unless you add value to it". From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they don't care that something was added, only that their work was used without their permission. Which is why intellectual property isn't a moral right, but a tradeoff. And currently a lopsided one, at that.
      - nailer 15y ago
        I changed the language to illustrate that whether the originally copy still existed makes no difference. > From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they care only their work was used without their permission. No, they care that that are being made fun of. People who attack parodies aren't concerned that someone would buy the parody instead of the original work - very few people would.
        mnutt 15y ago
        To Paul McCartney, it doesn't really matter whether I'm making a crappy metal cover of Hey Jude, or a parody of it. Why is one unethical, but not the other? One could argue that I'm profiting from the original song either way--people are more likely to buy a parody of a song they've heard than one they haven't.

by wazoox 15y ago

nailer 15y ago

> Here lies the problem : define "taking". You're right. Using something somebody has made without their permission is unethical. Fixed.

AndrewDucker 15y ago
I find your ethics disturbing, and will not be subscribing to them.
Symmetry 15y ago
Would you consider parodies to be unethical, since they involve using something someone made without their permission? What about the other traditional exceptions to copyright? What about something that goes way beyond copyright, like an architect putting up a building and then saying that nobody was allowed to look at it unless they paid him money first. Would you say that people would be morally obligated to pay him money in that case? If someone decided that they regretted publishing a book, would they be within their rights to insist that everybody with a copy of that book destroy it, provided they got their money back? I'm having a hard time understanding where your attitude here originated from. Copyright in the US has always just been a matter of practicality from the founding of the US through hundreds of years of jurisprudence, and you can see that in how readily aspects of it are traded off against other public interests. Copyright as basic morality would result in a system radically different from the one we have now.
- nailer 15y ago
  > Would you consider parodies to be unethical, since they involve using something someone made without their permission? No, as the value being provided isn't the item being used, but the satire. Piracy doesn't add value like satire does.
  - mnutt 15y ago
    You switched from "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong" to "using something without someone's permission is morally wrong, unless you add value to it". From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they don't care that something was added, only that their work was used without their permission. Which is why intellectual property isn't a moral right, but a tradeoff. And currently a lopsided one, at that.
    - nailer 15y ago
      I changed the language to illustrate that whether the originally copy still existed makes no difference. > From the perspective of the person whose work was infringed via parody, they care only their work was used without their permission. No, they care that that are being made fun of. People who attack parodies aren't concerned that someone would buy the parody instead of the original work - very few people would.
      - mnutt 15y ago
        To Paul McCartney, it doesn't really matter whether I'm making a crappy metal cover of Hey Jude, or a parody of it. Why is one unethical, but not the other? One could argue that I'm profiting from the original song either way--people are more likely to buy a parody of a song they've heard than one they haven't.