5 ms·

> 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 fi

> 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.
      - VMG 15y ago
        > Again, you cant circumvent democracy. You can, you should and we do. For example, the US is a republic and not a democracy. People have unalienable rights that cannot be voted on. Even if 80% of Americans would like to re-institute slavery tomorrow, it would be wrong and illegal.
    - decode 15y ago
      > 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. In common law countries like the US, UK, Australia, and Canada, this has not historically been a principle of our societies, and has never been a part of our legal systems. Copyright is a purely statutory concept that does not relate to any moral law. That's one reason why, in the US, we have fair use exceptions for criticism, education, news reporting, and research. Strangely, although civil law countries often declare a moral right of the individual to control the fruits of their labor, the law stomps all over that moral right with many exceptions to copyright: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#I6 http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#I6
MrScruff 15y ago
Why should we? We don't hold referendums on every other issue. I'm not sure you'd like a world where politics was entirely reduced to the lowest common denominator as much as you think you would.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > Why should we? Because it yields a situation which the largest number of people is OK with. It maximizes the satisfaction of the people with the legal system. > We don't hold referendums on every other issue. We not doing something does not mean that we shouldnt. We absolutely should have more referendums. > I'm not sure you'd like a world where politics was entirely reduced to the lowest common denominator I'm sure I dont want to live in a world where laws directed against the population can be purchased by a few uberrich stake holders, where laws binding for everyone can be decided behind closed doors, without any legal way (other than useless protesting, campaigning, begging, etc) for the population way to get rid of unjust, bad laws and corrupt politicians.
  - VMG 15y ago
    > Because it yields a situation which the largest number of people is OK with. It maximizes the satisfaction of the people with the legal system. It could maximize the number of people satisfied with the legal system, assuming they are rational. The gain of satisfaction for the may majority comes at a steep price on the satisfaction of the minority and has lead to much suffering in humanity. The "first they came for"-quote is thrown around in this thread without much care. It should be noted that they came for the minorities.
MrScruff 15y ago
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. What about someone decompiling someone else's app and putting it up for sale on the Android market. Is that wrong? What about hacking into someone's server and copying their source code and design documents and using it to build a rival service? What about selling software which contains GPL code and not acknowledging it or providing the source code?
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Apples to oranges. These are all examples of commercial infringment, which is quite different from the standard Hollywood claim that "unauthorized viewing" of a movie is exactly equivalent to stealing.
  - MrScruff 15y ago
    So you're saying the difference is that the perpetrator intends to profit from copying? Surely by copying a movie for personal use you are still profiting, if not by much.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      You're playing games with words now. If you're going to define "profit" so broadly that it covers benefit of any kind, then I fear we can't have a profitable discussion. No, I do not typically profit from piracy. When I purchase a kids' movie on DVD, Hollywood says that I have only purchased a "licence" to use the movie. When I then rip the movie to avi's (no complex decoding required to view) and copy the files to two old laptops so that my kids can watch the movie in the car, Hollywood says that I am a pirate -- that I am stealing their movie. Not only does this process cost me time (and thus money) and aggravation, I also get the benefit of being labelled a criminal. At least the kids are happy.

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.
    - VMG 15y ago
      > Again, you cant circumvent democracy. You can, you should and we do. For example, the US is a republic and not a democracy. People have unalienable rights that cannot be voted on. Even if 80% of Americans would like to re-institute slavery tomorrow, it would be wrong and illegal.
  - decode 15y ago
    > 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. In common law countries like the US, UK, Australia, and Canada, this has not historically been a principle of our societies, and has never been a part of our legal systems. Copyright is a purely statutory concept that does not relate to any moral law. That's one reason why, in the US, we have fair use exceptions for criticism, education, news reporting, and research. Strangely, although civil law countries often declare a moral right of the individual to control the fruits of their labor, the law stomps all over that moral right with many exceptions to copyright: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#I6 http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#I6

MrScruff 15y ago

Why should we? We don't hold referendums on every other issue. I'm not sure you'd like a world where politics was entirely reduced to the lowest common denominator as much as you think you would.

muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Why should we? Because it yields a situation which the largest number of people is OK with. It maximizes the satisfaction of the people with the legal system. > We don't hold referendums on every other issue. We not doing something does not mean that we shouldnt. We absolutely should have more referendums. > I'm not sure you'd like a world where politics was entirely reduced to the lowest common denominator I'm sure I dont want to live in a world where laws directed against the population can be purchased by a few uberrich stake holders, where laws binding for everyone can be decided behind closed doors, without any legal way (other than useless protesting, campaigning, begging, etc) for the population way to get rid of unjust, bad laws and corrupt politicians.
- VMG 15y ago
  > Because it yields a situation which the largest number of people is OK with. It maximizes the satisfaction of the people with the legal system. It could maximize the number of people satisfied with the legal system, assuming they are rational. The gain of satisfaction for the may majority comes at a steep price on the satisfaction of the minority and has lead to much suffering in humanity. The "first they came for"-quote is thrown around in this thread without much care. It should be noted that they came for the minorities.

MrScruff 15y ago

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. What about someone decompiling someone else's app and putting it up for sale on the Android market. Is that wrong? What about hacking into someone's server and copying their source code and design documents and using it to build a rival service? What about selling software which contains GPL code and not acknowledging it or providing the source code?

nate_meurer 15y ago
Apples to oranges. These are all examples of commercial infringment, which is quite different from the standard Hollywood claim that "unauthorized viewing" of a movie is exactly equivalent to stealing.
- MrScruff 15y ago
  So you're saying the difference is that the perpetrator intends to profit from copying? Surely by copying a movie for personal use you are still profiting, if not by much.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    You're playing games with words now. If you're going to define "profit" so broadly that it covers benefit of any kind, then I fear we can't have a profitable discussion. No, I do not typically profit from piracy. When I purchase a kids' movie on DVD, Hollywood says that I have only purchased a "licence" to use the movie. When I then rip the movie to avi's (no complex decoding required to view) and copy the files to two old laptops so that my kids can watch the movie in the car, Hollywood says that I am a pirate -- that I am stealing their movie. Not only does this process cost me time (and thus money) and aggravation, I also get the benefit of being labelled a criminal. At least the kids are happy.