23 ms·

I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable altern

by netcan 14y ago

I'm not sure exactly why, but we have a tendency to tie together three not necessarily connected issues. One is the question of whether there are viable alternative business models complimented by free distribution of traditionally copyright protected content. The second is whether we can sustain copyright in the digital age. The third is the moral questions. People are always mixing and matching from these. Objecting to a morality point with a business one or somesuch. I'll grant that often there are legitimate cross-overs, but a lot of the time its just absurd. If someone thinks copying art is like stealing from someones house, how can you retort with an alternative business model. Would you suggest that if passers by keep stealing oranges from a tree the owner should accept it & try to sell them orange juice subscriptions? If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? I think copyright is doomed by reality. I think the industries built around copyright will be rattled, resized & otherwise changed but ultimately survive in some new form. I think that copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft: it's an artificial system of rules that were engineered around a technological & political reality that no longer exist. I also think that the public does not see piracy as morally wrong. These all conveniently unanimous for me. But, they don't have to be. Sometimes conflicts exists. I believe that heroine criminalisation is morally problematic, creates terrible drug crime. I also think that legalization it would probably lead to increased use and associate problem. It's a conflict.

skymt 14y ago
It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.
- netcan 14y ago
  Sometimes, but very often it isn't. If copying is equivalent to theft new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns does not solve the moral problem. It solves the business problem. If copying is equivalent to theft, the copyright owner has similar rights to property owners. Can a property owner have his stuff stolen if allowing it gives them some other financial advantage. What about the right to control how their work is sold? What about the right to stop selling? This isn't just theoretical. For example, Prince wants to exercise these rights.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    OK, but I don't understand where you're going with this. Some people think digital piracy is bad, maybe even "equivalent to theft" of real world artifacts. Most people familiar with technology don't agree with them. As such, our society is not obliged to grant these unnatural monopolistic "rights". Do you want to argue that copyright is equivalent to theft, or do you just want to point out that people who hold an alternate view of copyright are going to be upset when the laws inevitably catch up with society? Of course, there are some people who are going to be unhappy no matter what happens. I recognize your point that even though the artists feel they are making equivalent or more money than previously, they can still feel wronged when something that is contrary to their concept of copyright occurs. But like I said, I'm not really sure where you intend to go from there.
cookiecaper 14y ago
>If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? No, which is why I wrote: >The further reality is that people are not motivated by the moral argument that consumer-facing copyright law is an intrinsic good that must be universally respected. and discussed what happens when this collides with the impossibility of enforcement. In the case of rape, there would still be a widespread communal response to ostracize rapists, develop counter-technologies, etc., because normal people will not just sit idly by and accept the fact that they can't do anything about rapists. Somehow they just don't find the concept of lost sales as noble. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft because theft forcibly removes a thing. Copyright protects against whole and independent copies that have no bearing on the physical item (whether a real, bound book or a string of digits stored on a disc). This is why people are charge with "copyright infringement" instead of "burglary" when they violate copyright law. You're right that I didn't address each point independently and consistently. I didn't believe this is necessary; my post wasn't about the moral implications of copyright adherence or copyright violation or why some people believe it's theft, but about the practicalities and futility of Big Media's "fight against piracy". I think it's a legitimate mashup. The only moral argument I referenced was simply that people do not believe copyright should prevent them from downloading content, and that was only a sentence or so.

by netcan 14y ago

skymt 14y ago

It can be relevant to answer the moral question with a business argument because the moral question often has economic underpinnings. The idea that copying is equivalent to theft is based on the idea that pirates would otherwise have bought the work, making piracy an indirect financial loss. Creating a new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns resolves the fundamental moral issue. (Whether that's possible is beyond me, though.) There is, of course, the completely separate moral issue of the rights of artists to control their work. Business arguments are inappropriate there.

netcan 14y ago
Sometimes, but very often it isn't. If copying is equivalent to theft new business model that accommodates piracy with equal or better returns does not solve the moral problem. It solves the business problem. If copying is equivalent to theft, the copyright owner has similar rights to property owners. Can a property owner have his stuff stolen if allowing it gives them some other financial advantage. What about the right to control how their work is sold? What about the right to stop selling? This isn't just theoretical. For example, Prince wants to exercise these rights.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  OK, but I don't understand where you're going with this. Some people think digital piracy is bad, maybe even "equivalent to theft" of real world artifacts. Most people familiar with technology don't agree with them. As such, our society is not obliged to grant these unnatural monopolistic "rights". Do you want to argue that copyright is equivalent to theft, or do you just want to point out that people who hold an alternate view of copyright are going to be upset when the laws inevitably catch up with society? Of course, there are some people who are going to be unhappy no matter what happens. I recognize your point that even though the artists feel they are making equivalent or more money than previously, they can still feel wronged when something that is contrary to their concept of copyright occurs. But like I said, I'm not really sure where you intend to go from there.

cookiecaper 14y ago

>If new technology made rape much harder to prevent and prosecute, would we suggest women readjust their sexual expectations? No, which is why I wrote: >The further reality is that people are not motivated by the moral argument that consumer-facing copyright law is an intrinsic good that must be universally respected. and discussed what happens when this collides with the impossibility of enforcement. In the case of rape, there would still be a widespread communal response to ostracize rapists, develop counter-technologies, etc., because normal people will not just sit idly by and accept the fact that they can't do anything about rapists. Somehow they just don't find the concept of lost sales as noble. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft because theft forcibly removes a thing. Copyright protects against whole and independent copies that have no bearing on the physical item (whether a real, bound book or a string of digits stored on a disc). This is why people are charge with "copyright infringement" instead of "burglary" when they violate copyright law. You're right that I didn't address each point independently and consistently. I didn't believe this is necessary; my post wasn't about the moral implications of copyright adherence or copyright violation or why some people believe it's theft, but about the practicalities and futility of Big Media's "fight against piracy". I think it's a legitimate mashup. The only moral argument I referenced was simply that people do not believe copyright should prevent them from downloading content, and that was only a sentence or so.