4 ms·

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 e

by 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.

by skymt 14y ago

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.