4 ms·

> If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change her job, because people obviously dont want

by VMG 15y ago

> If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change her job, because people obviously dont want to pay her for what shes doing. Maybe people aren't aware of the consequences of their actions and have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. If they knew the truth, maybe they would buy rather than copy (see, I said copy). > The only reason why your above sentence sounds the way it sounds is because saying so makes your wife (and Hollywood) money. You are saying this as if there was something wrong with that.

muuh-gnu 15y ago
> have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. The question whether copying is right or wrong has nothing to do with the amount of money filmmakers are swimming in. Person A sending a file to person B against the wish of author C is either wrong in itself or not. The only way to find out is a vote. Lets vote on copyright. > If they knew the truth, maybe they would buy rather than copy Whether somebody buys a copy or makes it himself also isnt up to debate here. The question is whether copying itself against the wish of the author should be illegal or not. Copying can be legal and you'd still have people buying copies to support the author. I can copy but I still buy. The legality of copying doesnt exclude buying. > You are saying this as if there was something wrong with that. It is wrong that action X (people exchanging information) is artificially made illegal so somebody can make money by providing service X. It is basically outlawing DIY. I think that this is wrong, you maybe dont. The only way to find out whether this should be illegal or not is to collectively vote on it, not by bribery behind closed doors. If the majority decides that it should be illegal because they value the influx Hollywood output more than personal freedoms, I'd accept that even though I personally think it shouldnt be so. But what I certainly wont accept as a behavioral guidance are "deals" made between a few influential stake holders and bribeable politicians who are essentially circumventing democracy. As long as I know that my fellow citizens, my friends and family dont consider copying wrong and objectionable, there is no reason for me and anybody else to blindly obey a purchased, undemocratic law like a serf and like feudalism never ended. The only outcome I'm personally willing to accept is a community vote. Lets vote on copyright.
- VMG 15y ago
  > The only way to find out is a vote. Lets vote on copyright. Voting on morality is not a good idea. I refer you the common persons understanding of morality in the past centuries. The moral strides we have made in the past came from reasoning about morality and imagining ourselves in the position of somebody else. Exploiting a minority to serve a majority is an expected outcome of collectivized morality, but not one that anybody should wish to gain.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > Voting on morality is not a good idea. Who is then gonna decide what behavior is OK and whats not OK? Who is gonna decide if filesharing is OK or not OK?
    - VMG 15y ago
      The legal question will be answered by the courts. You have to answer the moral question for yourself, and convince others of your position using rational arguments. The argument that it feels right to you and your peers isn't very strong, an argument derived from first principles or maybe utilitarian or consequentialist perspectives would me more convincing. One of the first principle that I hold is that the products of an individuals labor should belong to the individual and she should have control over it, regardless if it is a wooden spoon or a work of art.
      - muuh-gnu 15y ago
        > The legal question will be answered by the courts. This is not a legal question of interpreting an existing law. The law itself should be rewritten in a way that makes the biggest possible number of people OK with it. > One of the first principle that I hold is I dont. Now what? We're back to deciding whose first principles should count. The only way to get a set of generally acceptable first principles is to vote on them. Again, you cant circumvent democracy.
        15y ago

by VMG 15y ago

muuh-gnu 15y ago

> have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. The question whether copying is right or wrong has nothing to do with the amount of money filmmakers are swimming in. Person A sending a file to person B against the wish of author C is either wrong in itself or not. The only way to find out is a vote. Lets vote on copyright. > If they knew the truth, maybe they would buy rather than copy Whether somebody buys a copy or makes it himself also isnt up to debate here. The question is whether copying itself against the wish of the author should be illegal or not. Copying can be legal and you'd still have people buying copies to support the author. I can copy but I still buy. The legality of copying doesnt exclude buying. > You are saying this as if there was something wrong with that. It is wrong that action X (people exchanging information) is artificially made illegal so somebody can make money by providing service X. It is basically outlawing DIY. I think that this is wrong, you maybe dont. The only way to find out whether this should be illegal or not is to collectively vote on it, not by bribery behind closed doors. If the majority decides that it should be illegal because they value the influx Hollywood output more than personal freedoms, I'd accept that even though I personally think it shouldnt be so. But what I certainly wont accept as a behavioral guidance are "deals" made between a few influential stake holders and bribeable politicians who are essentially circumventing democracy. As long as I know that my fellow citizens, my friends and family dont consider copying wrong and objectionable, there is no reason for me and anybody else to blindly obey a purchased, undemocratic law like a serf and like feudalism never ended. The only outcome I'm personally willing to accept is a community vote. Lets vote on copyright.

VMG 15y ago
> The only way to find out is a vote. Lets vote on copyright. Voting on morality is not a good idea. I refer you the common persons understanding of morality in the past centuries. The moral strides we have made in the past came from reasoning about morality and imagining ourselves in the position of somebody else. Exploiting a minority to serve a majority is an expected outcome of collectivized morality, but not one that anybody should wish to gain.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > Voting on morality is not a good idea. Who is then gonna decide what behavior is OK and whats not OK? Who is gonna decide if filesharing is OK or not OK?
  - VMG 15y ago
    The legal question will be answered by the courts. You have to answer the moral question for yourself, and convince others of your position using rational arguments. The argument that it feels right to you and your peers isn't very strong, an argument derived from first principles or maybe utilitarian or consequentialist perspectives would me more convincing. One of the first principle that I hold is that the products of an individuals labor should belong to the individual and she should have control over it, regardless if it is a wooden spoon or a work of art.
    - muuh-gnu 15y ago
      > The legal question will be answered by the courts. This is not a legal question of interpreting an existing law. The law itself should be rewritten in a way that makes the biggest possible number of people OK with it. > One of the first principle that I hold is I dont. Now what? We're back to deciding whose first principles should count. The only way to get a set of generally acceptable first principles is to vote on them. Again, you cant circumvent democracy.
      - 15y ago