Ethics and Piracy

[Kuciwalker]

Ooops... typo. My opinion of course. I can offer a more logical argument for that than a mere emotional one.

Of course, they're both extensions of the same thing.

How? (to both statements)

Indeed, but of course, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away. Free on the radio but not on CD? Another inconsistency? Perhaps not, one isn't allowed to copy from the radio iirc.

If you buy the CD, you have to obey the contract that goes with it (or get sued); if the contract doesn't end up DOING anything, well, that sucks for the company that sold the CD to you.

But I am not signing it, I am not acknowledging it, nor am I being told to read it as I buy it. This point is academic though. The contract is irrelevant.

If you know the contract is there and that it is part of the agreement that allows you to have the CD, then your excuse can't be "but I intentionally didn't read it!"

[Fake Boris]

Whaleboy, you suck. Seriously, I can back you up when you deny qualitative absolutes... but QUANTITATIVE ones...

OK, you don't suck THAT much, but some of your statements are pissing me off.

I've taken the time to read the whole debate, and it appears Whaleboy and Agathon are defending the idea that information, from an ethical point of view, should be free. Actually, I should say Agathon only- because Whaleboy thinks he can deny the existence of logics and morality because of his 6 credits in Critical theory (again, ).

So, it seems that the problem arising is that of distribution. We have never, yet, found a way to make distribution truly free- even now, bandwidth costs something. And a fact often overlooked is that studio recording is extremely expensive.

From the point some form of distribution is required, given that we live in capitalist societies, some form of compensation is necessary to the distributors. Obviously enough, like it almost always end up with capitalism, these distributors have formed oligopolies which are blatantly abusing their power, both by charging too much and by underpaying the artists.

This abuse, however, does not hide a critical fact: distribution still does have a cost, however free should the information be (I tend to agree with Agathon here).

It has been suggested, in a recent study, that a 6$ per month tax on broadband connections would be sufficient to compensate and make all dowloads of music and movies legal. If the numbers behind it hold any truth, it seems like a reasonable compromise to me, barring any 'profoundly ethical' arguments Agathon is likely to bring up.

[Kuciwalker]

Oncle Boris: the problem is that whether or not information is "property" is irrelevent to this debate, as it's simply a matter of contractual obligation - you don't have to fulfill it in that you'll go to jail otherwise, but you do have to fulfill it in that you'll be sued otherwise. Unless someone has an OBLIGATION to provide you with music, you can't avoid the fact that there's a contract.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oncle Boris: the problem is that whether or not information is "property" is irrelevent to this debate, as it's simply a matter of contractual obligation - you don't have to fulfill it in that you'll go to jail otherwise, but you do have to fulfill it in that you'll be sued otherwise. Unless someone has an OBLIGATION to provide you with music, you can't avoid the fact that there's a contract.

I believe this debate to be ethical in the first place- so, the true question should be: "does anyone has the right to force such contracts to end users, when they are producing such critically important things as 'cultural products'? Can the free flow of information and culture be restricted from the usual conception of business rights?"

I don't claim that I have a definite, absolute answer for this. However, I was suggesting that the 6$ per month tax looked like a promising idea.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't claim that I have a definite, absolute answer for this.

A shocking admission here at apolyton.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
However, I was suggesting that the 6$ per month tax looked like a promising idea.

sounds intriguing, I would wonder how to equitably divy up the proceeds to artists etc. I don't like the idea of giving everybody the same amount, some groups are just more popular than others. not to mention what to do about royalties. how long would you pay the artist out of the fund? I much prefer the 99 cent download cost per song or something similar, seems more equitable.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

It has been suggested, in a recent study, that a 6$ per month tax on broadband connections would be sufficient to compensate and make all dowloads of music and movies legal. If the numbers behind it hold any truth, it seems like a reasonable compromise to me, barring any 'profoundly ethical' arguments Agathon is likely to bring up.

I would consider this to be an illegitimate rent paid to a dying industry. Why subsidize an industry for which there is no need?

I said that information by its very nature resists being made into property. Nevertheless, there are those people who want to make some into property to suit themselves. Their means of doing so threatens to morph into a totalitarian control over the distribution of information or at least a severe curtailing of the rights we currently enjoy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


I would consider this to be an illegitimate rent paid to a dying industry. Why subsidize an industry for which there is no need?

I said that information by its very nature resists being made into property. Nevertheless, there are those people who want to make some into property to suit themselves. Their means of doing so threatens to morph into a totalitarian control over the distribution of information or at least a severe curtailing of the rights we currently enjoy.

I could agree with you, if only you come up with an answer to this problem: who's gonna pay for the distribution?

Even if intellectual property was 0$, we would need to pay for the bandwidth, the book, the CD, etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris




I could agree with you, if only you come up with an answer to this problem: who's gonna pay for the distribution?

Even if intellectual property was 0$, we would need to pay for the bandwidth, the book, the CD, etc.

We already pay for that. Don't you pay for your internet connection?

[Urban Ranger]

Whaleboy,

Firstly, stealing means that you are taking the resources of another for yourself, and they are losing because of it. So in other words, you are directly depleting their finite resources. However, in terms of digital information, text, music, movies, images and the like, this is a resource that is for all intents and purposes infinite, the only expense being hard disk space, processor time, memory and bandwidth etc.

One can always argue that piracy depletes the financial resources of the owner(s) of said works and objects.

...since the record company in the first place puts the information into the public domain...

AFAIK, copyrighted material is definitely not public domain. This kils your third point as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
So it's OK to steal money from rich people's bank accounts, but not poor people's?

Who do you think Robin Hood was?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
You however are only a licensee of the contents. And contracts don't need to be signed to be enforceable, by using the contents of the cd, you are consenting to be bound to the license.

IANAL, but a contract where one side has no say in is extremely likely to be not enforceable.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Why are you the arbiter of "adequate compenation"? Who are you to determine another's value (beyond your own economic investment that is)? Isn't that for the free market to determine?

Uh, free market is not some sort of imaginary place in the astral plane that dishes out prices. A free market is composed of the people in them. It's the will of the buyers and sellers that sets the price. However this is just the lesser of your errors. Markets for copyrighted materials are not free markets.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
But artists aren't being compensated when people illegally download their music.

Most of the money goes to the middleman.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
You still have complete freedom of information! However, you agree to waive that freedom (with respect to the particular song or game) when you purchase the CD. If you don't agree, don't buy the CD!

No you don't. Do you sign a contract before you buy the CD, with all the terms detailed and agreed to by both parties?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
actually, you have. By picking it up and using it, you have become a licensee and are subject to any licensee agreements.

No you don't. Suppose I place a large pile of bricks in front of your door. By clearing the bricks, you agree to owe me a billion dollars. You see how ridiculous your assertion is, no?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Unless the copying was considered "hacking".

What is "hacking" and why is it illegal?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IANAL, but a contract where one side has no say in is extremely likely to be not enforceable.

you would be incorrect. well, the first phrase you are correct . On what other grounds do you think the RIAA is suing people?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Uh, free market is not some sort of imaginary place in the astral plane that dishes out prices. A free market is composed of the people in them. It's the will of the buyers and sellers that sets the price. However this is just the lesser of your errors. Markets for copyrighted materials are not free markets.

unfortunately your error is to show up at the party six hours late, but I suppose that's par for the course. And you are quoting me out of context. I was responding to this quote by sava :

Originally posted by Sava
Acquiring media for free without compensation to the artist, in general, is immoral... but only in context. If we're talking about a starving artist, that's one thing... but to hear *******s like Metallica whining about their excess wealth is sickening. They already have adequate compensation for their work.

I was responding to Sava's remarks that Metallica was already adequately compensated. I was using you in the second person singular, not plural. Comprende? I thought that it was obvious I was referring to his particular impact on the free market by including the phrase "beyond your own economic investment"