Ethics and Piracy

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Pardon my ignorance, what is GPL?

The general public license. It's a specific form of copyright that mandates sharing. It is most famous for being applied to the Linux OS, but there is nothing stopping anyone from releasing any sort of material under a similar license.

The GPL mandates sharing. If you obtain a piece of GPLed material you are free to share it with others and if you change it you are mandated to share your changes with others so that they may benefit from your changes as you did from theirs.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

[Kuciwalker]

It's all beside the point. You do not have the right to force other people to produce music for you (or distribute it, for that matter). However, some people are willing to do this, PROVIDED you agree to give them some money and not share the music with other people. If you don't agree, you don't get the music.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them.

so you consider music and games and movies to be "information" and thus they cannot be owned by an individual? Do you feel the same way about patents?

[Whaleboy]

Unless you dispute the right to contract in this instance, you have no argument against it. You signed a contract, you have to honor it.

But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.

Kant - act in such a way that you can generalize it to a universal law.

God I feel so dirty by agreeing with that.

Ignore Kant people!!

God help me if I ever agree with the notion of moral or qualitative absolutes. I don't even believe in quantitative absolutes!

again to Agathon.

[Whaleboy]

so you consider music and games and movies to be "information" and thus they cannot be owned by an individual? Do you feel the same way about patents?

Yes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Where is it written that people have a right to make a living selling music? People made music long before it was a business and will continue to do so for the joy of doing it. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I have the right to charge other people for it.

Of course you have the right to charge someone. You can charge someone for anything you want, assuming the other party agrees. I don't HAVE to give you the music, but I will if you give me some money and don't share it with other people. It's called a "contract".

I could say that about the jokes I tell, but it is impossible for me to seek compensation from everyone who tells someone else my jokes.

Besides, it is simply not true that one can contract to do anything. Some contracts (like those involved in organ selling) are automatically void.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.

Ever heard of receiving stolen property?

[Whaleboy]

Ever heard of receiving stolen property?

Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

Not in this world

[lord of the mark]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Whaleboy
ignore Kant people!!
God help me if I ever agree with the notion of moral or qualitative absolutes. I don't even believe in quantitative absolutes!

why? the point is that if you act according to a rule that makes sense for you ONLY if other people DONT act according that rule, then your action makes sense ONLY if you arbitrarily privilege yourself.

[Agathon]

And what gives a musician the right to charge me for a recording of his, if it is not completely original.

Say for example, it's a metal album. Should he have to pay Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple for ripping off their style. Or should he have to pay Eddie Van Halen because he's one of the countless guitarists who have basically ripped off Eddie's style. And should Eddie have to pay Jimi Hendrix and Richie Blackmore, and should they have to pay the black bluesmen they adapted their style from? etc. etc.

[monkspider]

Silly things like intellectual property laws really have no bearing on this discussion. Such laws are only the product of the ego, of people who are too concerned with material things.

The only laws that I obey are that of God, which are really quite simple: love, love, love, and then love some more. Therefore, I will share MP3s with anyone who wants them, in hopes of making their day just a little bit better. I hope that others realize that this is the right thing to do as well.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

Not in this world

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by skywalker

Of course you have the right to charge someone. You can charge someone for anything you want, assuming the other party agrees. I don't HAVE to give you the music, but I will if you give me some money and don't share it with other people. It's called a "contract".

So if you buy a CD and you play it for me is it wrong because you'd shared it with me and I enjoyed the music without paying for it?

[Kuciwalker]

If the contract was "you can't play it where anyone else can here", then yes.

The only laws that I obey are that of God which are really quite simple: love, love, love, and then love some more. Therefore, I will share MP3s with anyone who wants them, in hopes of making their day just a little bit better. I hope that others realize that this is the right thing to do as well.

Well, the only laws that I obey are those of Sauron, which are really quite simple: KILL KILL KILL. Think the judge cares?