3 ms·

It all depends on the purpose of copyright in the first place. In the US, at least, copyright law stems from one section of the Constitution: The Congress sh

by csallen 15y ago

It all depends on the purpose of copyright in the first place. In the US, at least, copyright law stems from one section of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. The stated purpose is clear: to promote progress. It's not difficult to evaluate the current environment in terms of this initial purpose, and I imagine it would be tough to build a case that piracy is stunting artistic progress. (And thus difficult to justify laws that inhibit file-sharing.) Somewhere along the way, people began to confuse the concept of promoting-artistic-progress with ensuring-people-can-make-millions-of-dollars. These are two unrelated things. The success of some company's (or some artist's) business model has nothing to do with the progress of the arts in general. So I agree with you: the amount of monetary "damage" caused by piracy is entirely irrelevant. What really matters is the moral argument that piracy equates to theft, or that piracy hinders artistic progress. I don't think it does. But if anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear your argument here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577454 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577454

pjdorrell 15y ago
It doesn't really matter what the purpose of copyright was in the first place. History is interesting, but it doesn't determine our understanding in the present of what is moral and what is not moral. Also, copyright is world-wide, so what it says in the US Constitution isn't all that interesting to anyone not in the US. And when I say "irrelevant", I mean it is irrelevant to public debate. The copyright industry's side of the debate about copyright enforcement is mostly the following, based on what I called the "moral model": * We created something * We own what we created * Someone is stealing it This message can just be repeated over and over and over again. Someone's report that internet piracy might not reduce cinema takings completely fails to address the above moral claim. So the report can be ignored, and the moral claim can be repeated again. And again.
- csallen 15y ago
  * We created something * We own what we created * Someone is stealing it The content industry derives both the 2nd and 3rd part of that argument from the law. They do not own something just because they say so. Nor is copying the equivalent of stealing just because they say so. They are basing their moral arguments purely on the law, which defines ownership and theft. So when they tell the public, "It's stealing!", that's nothing but marketing. When the chips are down and they're standing in court, they argue based on legal precedent. I don't think we can argue against them on any other grounds.

by csallen 15y ago

pjdorrell 15y ago

It doesn't really matter what the purpose of copyright was in the first place. History is interesting, but it doesn't determine our understanding in the present of what is moral and what is not moral. Also, copyright is world-wide, so what it says in the US Constitution isn't all that interesting to anyone not in the US. And when I say "irrelevant", I mean it is irrelevant to public debate. The copyright industry's side of the debate about copyright enforcement is mostly the following, based on what I called the "moral model": * We created something * We own what we created * Someone is stealing it This message can just be repeated over and over and over again. Someone's report that internet piracy might not reduce cinema takings completely fails to address the above moral claim. So the report can be ignored, and the moral claim can be repeated again. And again.

csallen 15y ago
* We created something * We own what we created * Someone is stealing it The content industry derives both the 2nd and 3rd part of that argument from the law. They do not own something just because they say so. Nor is copying the equivalent of stealing just because they say so. They are basing their moral arguments purely on the law, which defines ownership and theft. So when they tell the public, "It's stealing!", that's nothing but marketing. When the chips are down and they're standing in court, they argue based on legal precedent. I don't think we can argue against them on any other grounds.