7 ms·

I love the intention of this site, which is to clarify when something is placed into the public domain, even though their carefree approach is legally risky for

by codex 13y ago

I love the intention of this site, which is to clarify when something is placed into the public domain, even though their carefree approach is legally risky for anyone to depend on. However, I've never seen cognitive dissonance on such as scale as when people discuss copying and copyright, which makes most discussions useless. Rarely are arguments supported by scholarly evidence or appeals to utilitarianism, and the political statements on the above site are no exception. Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. Nobody thinks they are a bad person (an pillar of ego which will never be shaken), and people hate being lectured, so it's the law that breaks, often with the flimsiest of excuses and fallacies ranging from the moral to the theoretical. - In some cases, copying is beneficial to the copyright holder (usually through advertising, network effects, or market segmentation), ergo, all copying must be beneficial - Some authors are against copyright, ergo all authors are against copyright - It's copying is okay if one's motives are pure (end justifies the means) - If something is easy to do, and preventing it hard, then it must be right (naturalistic fallacy) - Copying is the natural state of the universe, so it must be right (moralistic fallacy) - A copyright holder doesn't deserve protection because they're evil ("behaved in a selfish way") stupid ("doesn't understand technology") or stubborn ("won't change business models") - Copyrights restrict personal freedom, which is a natural and inalienable right of man, even though personal freedoms are always restricted at conflict points to ensure societal harmony ("thou shall not kill") - Copyrights are based on property rights, but information is not property for reason "x", ergo copyrights are invalid on a technicality. In reality, many laws are enacted because of utilitarian value and need only require group consensus ("always stop at a stop sign; person on right goes first.") - I paid money in return for "x", therefore I can do whatever I want with "x" (refusal to honor contractual agreements and/or acknowledge exceptions to property rights, which are ubiquitous) - Copying is good for society because information sharing has no marginal cost (sophomoric application of economics) - Because some people create without expectation of monetary reward, all people or corporations will still invest in creative works even when the return on investment decreases, or is non-existent - Some people or corporations could, and thus all should, make money in secondary markets (personal appearances, product endorsements) rather than by selling copyrighted works directly I would give my right arm for a rational discussion on this topic.

saraid216 13y ago
> Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. This is possibly the least nuanced way to express this. Good law isn't good if it isn't understood or if it's misunderstood. It may be either or both if people don't learn its history, purpose, and meaning. That isn't the law's fault; it's the people's. But it doesn't make the people bad, either. Accusing people of moral failings is not how you start a rational discussion.
andrewcooke 13y ago
Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. that's a static analysis. isn't it more likely that society is changing in various ways, that law naturally lags the changes, and that the result is a mess as society negotiates with itself to find an appropriate adjustment?
- codex 13y ago
  I think that could well be the case in reality--but you wouldn't know it from most discussions on the topic, and I don't think that's how people people form their initial views, or why they continue to maintain logically incorrect arguments in their own minds. In some respects, I think that some copyright denialists behave similarly to those who try to argue that the U.S. has no power to tax incomes because of various technicalities in the ratification of the appropriate constitutional amendment [1]. These people do not hold their to their positions because they are lawyers. They hold to them because they don't want to pay income tax. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendme...
harshreality 13y ago
You're missing the most obvious ones. Empirically, copyright law is not effective. That is to say, copyright is massively violated for non-commercial use. Enforcing laws which are empirically not obeyed is a bad idea, regardless of the philosophical merits of pro-copyright or anti-copyright arguments. The most popular P2P protocols will advance to the point where enforcing copyright law means enforcing an absurd policy: if your computer shares copyrighted information even without your knowledge, you're guilty of infringement. The only way to avoid it is not to participate in such advanced P2P swarms (where nodes cache content for delivery to other nodes), since nobody knows the copyright status of a particular hash-addressable piece of content. Enforcing laws in a way that bans a neutral computer technology (P2P sharing of arbitrary content) is untenable [1], regardless of the ethical, moral, and economic arguments surrounding copyright violation. I see those arguments often. If you agree that those are not fallacies, I don't understand why you think copyright discussions degenerate into fallacies. [1] What Colour are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php

by codex 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. This is possibly the least nuanced way to express this. Good law isn't good if it isn't understood or if it's misunderstood. It may be either or both if people don't learn its history, purpose, and meaning. That isn't the law's fault; it's the people's. But it doesn't make the people bad, either. Accusing people of moral failings is not how you start a rational discussion.

andrewcooke 13y ago

Fundamentally, people like copying things, and some forms of copying are restricted by law. So either the law is bad, or they are a bad person. that's a static analysis. isn't it more likely that society is changing in various ways, that law naturally lags the changes, and that the result is a mess as society negotiates with itself to find an appropriate adjustment?

codex 13y ago
I think that could well be the case in reality--but you wouldn't know it from most discussions on the topic, and I don't think that's how people people form their initial views, or why they continue to maintain logically incorrect arguments in their own minds. In some respects, I think that some copyright denialists behave similarly to those who try to argue that the U.S. has no power to tax incomes because of various technicalities in the ratification of the appropriate constitutional amendment [1]. These people do not hold their to their positions because they are lawyers. They hold to them because they don't want to pay income tax. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendme...

harshreality 13y ago

You're missing the most obvious ones. Empirically, copyright law is not effective. That is to say, copyright is massively violated for non-commercial use. Enforcing laws which are empirically not obeyed is a bad idea, regardless of the philosophical merits of pro-copyright or anti-copyright arguments. The most popular P2P protocols will advance to the point where enforcing copyright law means enforcing an absurd policy: if your computer shares copyrighted information even without your knowledge, you're guilty of infringement. The only way to avoid it is not to participate in such advanced P2P swarms (where nodes cache content for delivery to other nodes), since nobody knows the copyright status of a particular hash-addressable piece of content. Enforcing laws in a way that bans a neutral computer technology (P2P sharing of arbitrary content) is untenable [1], regardless of the ethical, moral, and economic arguments surrounding copyright violation. I see those arguments often. If you agree that those are not fallacies, I don't understand why you think copyright discussions degenerate into fallacies. [1] What Colour are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php