4 ms·

Just to be clear, there is no moral right to copyright. It's a legal artifact we created to advance society by rewarding artists and other creators for content

Just to be clear, there is no moral right to copyright. It's a legal artifact we created to advance society by rewarding artists and other creators for content created in the hope they'll create more/better stuff. However, it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content. Worse, copyright is being used to justify restrictions and prohibitions on new methods of distribution and entire new technologies. They may not be forcing people to copyright, but they have lost the moral standing to complain about it.

GHFigs 14y ago
it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content What are you referring to here? When I think of the piracy debate, I think of the things that are most commonly pirated, and I can't think of any examples from that set where society is being "held back" due to copyright on them.
- Ensorceled 14y ago
  Well there are the obvious examples from the original article; content that is not available to some people. I think that arts advance society, so preventing some people from being exposed to some art because you "put in the vault" (as in Disney) or "don't want to sell it there" is holding us back. But, I was actually thinking of things like the VHS/Beta or Blu-Ray/HD DVD where copyright holders had undue influence on the process. Or how long it took music to be come digital and how it is still second rate because of DRM issues. Or weird stuff like HDMI requiring a security layer that puts additional technical challenges in place for engineers. Or, how the entire internet is twisted and malformed because of copyright laws including things like 3 strikes and you lose you internet access.
  - GHFigs 14y ago
    how the entire internet is twisted and malformed because of copyright laws I'm even more confused now than I was before. Thanks for trying.
simbyotic 14y ago
There is a moral right to own that which you have produced, and it is definetely not an legal artifact but an expression of the concept of individual rights. Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business model to the way consumers consume content these days. There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.
- purplelobster 14y ago
  There isn't a moral consensus of what 'owning' entails. You seem to suggest that owning an item means that nobody in the world can make a copy of it without your permission. I don't agree with that.
- Ensorceled 14y ago
  If I create a unique and artistic picture you can not take the picture from me without it being theft. If you say "Nice Pic!" and paint your own copy, you have NOT done anything morally wrong, I have not been harmed. You HAVE broken copyright laws. You can not have a moral right to ownership of an idea or thought.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  Even taking the production-ownership right as a given, that begs the question of whether copyright should even exist at all. Remember that, unlike land or physical items, copyright exists only as a societal convention without a rivalrous physical component.
- delinka 14y ago
  "There is a moral right to own that which you have produced." Sure. You produce a tool, it's your very own tool. You produce a painting, it's your very own painting. You produce a pie, it's your very own pie. Ralph sees your Very Own Tool and decides that'd be handy. Ralph knows taking your Very Own Tool would deprive you of your property and decides he won't do that. Not to mention it's a physical item and the law has something to saw about theft of physical items. So Ralph, being the upstanding citizen he is, makes another tool just like yours - his Very Own Tool. Ralph's also a bit of an extrovert and tells everyone about this great new tool and other people want one. So Ralph sets about making more of the tool you designed to sell to other people. Do you have the right to be upset at Ralph for making money off your idea without compensation to you? Controlling copying of your creations is what copyright is about. It says that with respect to certain works, you as the creator own the right to make copies ... or to license other people (or companies) to make copies. P.S. Now don't get me wrong - I understand that a tool design is probably best protected by patents. Maybe this "tool" is a sculpture that's also useful to accomplish a task. My argument is about "intellectual property" in general.
purplelobster 14y ago
If enough people pirate something and are cheap enough not to buy the real thing, it will hurt the maker, I fully realize that. It's just that I don't feel particularly bad pirating most stuff. Partly because I'm copying, not stealing, and partly because I wouldn't have paid for 90% of it anyway. Mostly though, part of me just doesn't feel that bad about it. Just as I'm not entitled to unlimited free entertainment, creators aren't necessarily entitled to making a living off making said entertainment. Might sound heartless, but throughout most of history it wasn't possible. Just recently there was a period of time where there was a mass market for entertainment and where distribution was controlled and copying difficult. It's not anymore though. Copying a book a billion times is as simple as the press of a button, and no amount of talk about morality is going to change that. The sad fact is that content makers will need to find other ways to generate revenue, even if that means abandoning some formats. Personally, I try to support the content makers I like, but most people won't.
- Ensorceled 14y ago
  I realize it too. And as a software developer I need copyright laws (or, at least, I did before SaaS). That's why I personally don't pirate. At all.

GHFigs 14y ago

it's now being used to hold back society, via actually preventing people from accessing the copyrighted content What are you referring to here? When I think of the piracy debate, I think of the things that are most commonly pirated, and I can't think of any examples from that set where society is being "held back" due to copyright on them.

Ensorceled 14y ago
Well there are the obvious examples from the original article; content that is not available to some people. I think that arts advance society, so preventing some people from being exposed to some art because you "put in the vault" (as in Disney) or "don't want to sell it there" is holding us back. But, I was actually thinking of things like the VHS/Beta or Blu-Ray/HD DVD where copyright holders had undue influence on the process. Or how long it took music to be come digital and how it is still second rate because of DRM issues. Or weird stuff like HDMI requiring a security layer that puts additional technical challenges in place for engineers. Or, how the entire internet is twisted and malformed because of copyright laws including things like 3 strikes and you lose you internet access.
- GHFigs 14y ago
  how the entire internet is twisted and malformed because of copyright laws I'm even more confused now than I was before. Thanks for trying.

simbyotic 14y ago

There is a moral right to own that which you have produced, and it is definetely not an legal artifact but an expression of the concept of individual rights. Furthermore, it isn't copyright that is preventing people from accessing the content, but the fact that these corporations have not evolved their business model to the way consumers consume content these days. There may be several reasons as to why that has not happened (they may still be making enough money with their old business model and are risk-averse to try new things) but claiming that the creators of something do not have the moral right to own their creations is an absurdity.

purplelobster 14y ago
There isn't a moral consensus of what 'owning' entails. You seem to suggest that owning an item means that nobody in the world can make a copy of it without your permission. I don't agree with that.
Ensorceled 14y ago
If I create a unique and artistic picture you can not take the picture from me without it being theft. If you say "Nice Pic!" and paint your own copy, you have NOT done anything morally wrong, I have not been harmed. You HAVE broken copyright laws. You can not have a moral right to ownership of an idea or thought.
thirdtruck 14y ago
Even taking the production-ownership right as a given, that begs the question of whether copyright should even exist at all. Remember that, unlike land or physical items, copyright exists only as a societal convention without a rivalrous physical component.
delinka 14y ago
"There is a moral right to own that which you have produced." Sure. You produce a tool, it's your very own tool. You produce a painting, it's your very own painting. You produce a pie, it's your very own pie. Ralph sees your Very Own Tool and decides that'd be handy. Ralph knows taking your Very Own Tool would deprive you of your property and decides he won't do that. Not to mention it's a physical item and the law has something to saw about theft of physical items. So Ralph, being the upstanding citizen he is, makes another tool just like yours - his Very Own Tool. Ralph's also a bit of an extrovert and tells everyone about this great new tool and other people want one. So Ralph sets about making more of the tool you designed to sell to other people. Do you have the right to be upset at Ralph for making money off your idea without compensation to you? Controlling copying of your creations is what copyright is about. It says that with respect to certain works, you as the creator own the right to make copies ... or to license other people (or companies) to make copies. P.S. Now don't get me wrong - I understand that a tool design is probably best protected by patents. Maybe this "tool" is a sculpture that's also useful to accomplish a task. My argument is about "intellectual property" in general.

purplelobster 14y ago

If enough people pirate something and are cheap enough not to buy the real thing, it will hurt the maker, I fully realize that. It's just that I don't feel particularly bad pirating most stuff. Partly because I'm copying, not stealing, and partly because I wouldn't have paid for 90% of it anyway. Mostly though, part of me just doesn't feel that bad about it. Just as I'm not entitled to unlimited free entertainment, creators aren't necessarily entitled to making a living off making said entertainment. Might sound heartless, but throughout most of history it wasn't possible. Just recently there was a period of time where there was a mass market for entertainment and where distribution was controlled and copying difficult. It's not anymore though. Copying a book a billion times is as simple as the press of a button, and no amount of talk about morality is going to change that. The sad fact is that content makers will need to find other ways to generate revenue, even if that means abandoning some formats. Personally, I try to support the content makers I like, but most people won't.

Ensorceled 14y ago
I realize it too. And as a software developer I need copyright laws (or, at least, I did before SaaS). That's why I personally don't pirate. At all.