3 ms·

They own it for sure. But I'm not sure they should be entitled to freely set the terms under which the public may interact with copies of the work once release

by clarry 12y ago

They own it for sure. But I'm not sure they should be entitled to freely set the terms under which the public may interact with copies of the work once released. And they definitely shouldn't be entitled to abuse the justice system and call the big men with guns to trample through the door and ruin the life of someone who didn't play along with these insane terms. By definition they may indeed be entitled, but I'm not sure their entitlement to people's wallet and liberty (which the producers don't own) is morally any more sound than the "consumer entitlement" to movies (which the consumers don't own).

anigbrowl 12y ago
So you're arguing for price controls. Who's going to set them, the government? You don't want producers to price their own offerings, and presumably you recognize that if the price is set at the consumer's preference of $0 then it won't be economical to make any films.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Who's going to set them, the government? Copyright is not a natural right. It was made up from whole cloth a relatively short time ago. The only rights the producer has are explicitly granted to them by the government. Therefore, yes, price controls are a valid point to raise. I'm not in favor of them, but I can't argue against them on indignant moral grounds. I think this can of worms was opened when the DMCA extended copyright in directions no one had ever contemplated before. The content producers pulled all kinds of new "rights" out of their asses, such as the right to have the government act as their own private police force to back up their own private encryption and protection mechanisms, and the legislators cheerfully signed them into law. It should have been obvious to the legislators that this was equivalent to a perpetual copyright grant, but if it was, nobody cared. When the DMCA was passed, copyright became a one-sided affair. Any notion of a bargain with society involving limited rights granted for limited times flew out the window. Is it surprising that this leaves consumers feeling "entitled," as people keep saying in this thread?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Copyright is not a natural right. It was made up from whole cloth a relatively short time ago. All legal rights are made up from whole cloth and consist only of what is granted by the government, the only difference between is how old the original conception and most recent revision are. Many are based on some conception of natural rights (including at least some conceptions of copyright, which are grounded in the concept of the ownership of one's own labor.) "Natural rights" are a quasi-religious set of value statements, not facts (or even fact claims.) A statement that something is or is not a natural right is not a claim about the situation that exists in the external universe, it is a statement about one's personal values.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Agreed, but that's not how the (religiously-influenced) US government has historically worked. They've always made a distinction between rights endowed by the FSM versus rights that are enumerated by law.

by clarry 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

So you're arguing for price controls. Who's going to set them, the government? You don't want producers to price their own offerings, and presumably you recognize that if the price is set at the consumer's preference of $0 then it won't be economical to make any films.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Who's going to set them, the government? Copyright is not a natural right. It was made up from whole cloth a relatively short time ago. The only rights the producer has are explicitly granted to them by the government. Therefore, yes, price controls are a valid point to raise. I'm not in favor of them, but I can't argue against them on indignant moral grounds. I think this can of worms was opened when the DMCA extended copyright in directions no one had ever contemplated before. The content producers pulled all kinds of new "rights" out of their asses, such as the right to have the government act as their own private police force to back up their own private encryption and protection mechanisms, and the legislators cheerfully signed them into law. It should have been obvious to the legislators that this was equivalent to a perpetual copyright grant, but if it was, nobody cared. When the DMCA was passed, copyright became a one-sided affair. Any notion of a bargain with society involving limited rights granted for limited times flew out the window. Is it surprising that this leaves consumers feeling "entitled," as people keep saying in this thread?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Copyright is not a natural right. It was made up from whole cloth a relatively short time ago. All legal rights are made up from whole cloth and consist only of what is granted by the government, the only difference between is how old the original conception and most recent revision are. Many are based on some conception of natural rights (including at least some conceptions of copyright, which are grounded in the concept of the ownership of one's own labor.) "Natural rights" are a quasi-religious set of value statements, not facts (or even fact claims.) A statement that something is or is not a natural right is not a claim about the situation that exists in the external universe, it is a statement about one's personal values.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Agreed, but that's not how the (religiously-influenced) US government has historically worked. They've always made a distinction between rights endowed by the FSM versus rights that are enumerated by law.