3 ms·

"The argument I responded to [...] is the idea that because copyvio is rampant, the law must be wrong" No, it has nothing to do with often violated laws being

by tsuraan 17y ago

"The argument I responded to [...] is the idea that because copyvio is rampant, the law must be wrong" No, it has nothing to do with often violated laws being wrong. It has to do with broken social contracts. As I said in my original posting, copyright was formulated as a contract between society and an artist. The deal is that if an artist shares his work with society, then society will allow the artist to have a limited time monopoly on the work. In return, society gets ownership of that work once the monopoly's time period has expired. That is a social contract that isn't terribly hard to justify. Our new contract, apparently, is that an artist can create a work, share it with the world, and profit from every time the work is shared. Not only that, but when the artist dies, his next of kin get to keep that deal going. For all of eternity, given the trends of the last several decades. That's a deal that is repugnant to me, and to nearly everybody that I've met. It's not something that I can find any way to defend, so convincing people that copyright is a just institution is quite difficult. I want copyright to be just and defensible; I write software for a living, and I like being able to profit from its sale. However, I can't explain that copyright has any moral basis when it clearly doesn't. The only reasons that I see not to violate copyright today are fear of legal reprisal and personal feelings of loyalty towards individual content producers. Loyalty is good, and fear of punishment can be effective, but I'd love to have a law that's founded in some sort of morality.

apotheon 17y ago
> I want copyright to be just and defensible; I write software for a living, and I like being able to profit from its sale. You've made three separate statements here, and linked them together: 1. I want copyright to be just and defensible. 2. I write software for a living. 3. I like being able to profit from its sale. These three statements are not necessarily related. Since I assume you know your own mind reasonably well, I'll assume that 2 and 3 are related in this case: you write software for a living, and (in part because of that) you like being able to profit from its sale. This does not, however, necessitate that copyright must be just and defensible (as you seem to admit, at least tentatively, in following sentences). Since that connection is not necessary, it is not really the case that the cause you identify for wanting it to be just and defensible is the real reason for that desire. Perhaps the actual desire is that you do not at this time see a way to make a living at it that is as easy to get started -- especially since it has already been started, and all you have to do is maintain it. Of course, as time passes and copyright violation becomes more prevalent, it may become the case that maintaining the already established business model becomes more expensive than establishing a new one that will be easier to maintain. > However, I can't explain that copyright has any moral basis when it clearly doesn't. The only reasons that I see not to violate copyright today are fear of legal reprisal and personal feelings of loyalty towards individual content producers. Loyalty is good, and fear of punishment can be effective, but I'd love to have a law that's founded in some sort of morality. I love it when someone can see my side of the argument, even when having just stated a desire for the other side of the argument to "win".

by tsuraan 17y ago

apotheon 17y ago

> I want copyright to be just and defensible; I write software for a living, and I like being able to profit from its sale. You've made three separate statements here, and linked them together: 1. I want copyright to be just and defensible. 2. I write software for a living. 3. I like being able to profit from its sale. These three statements are not necessarily related. Since I assume you know your own mind reasonably well, I'll assume that 2 and 3 are related in this case: you write software for a living, and (in part because of that) you like being able to profit from its sale. This does not, however, necessitate that copyright must be just and defensible (as you seem to admit, at least tentatively, in following sentences). Since that connection is not necessary, it is not really the case that the cause you identify for wanting it to be just and defensible is the real reason for that desire. Perhaps the actual desire is that you do not at this time see a way to make a living at it that is as easy to get started -- especially since it has already been started, and all you have to do is maintain it. Of course, as time passes and copyright violation becomes more prevalent, it may become the case that maintaining the already established business model becomes more expensive than establishing a new one that will be easier to maintain. > However, I can't explain that copyright has any moral basis when it clearly doesn't. The only reasons that I see not to violate copyright today are fear of legal reprisal and personal feelings of loyalty towards individual content producers. Loyalty is good, and fear of punishment can be effective, but I'd love to have a law that's founded in some sort of morality. I love it when someone can see my side of the argument, even when having just stated a desire for the other side of the argument to "win".