Ethics and Piracy

[Agathon]

Intellectual property law is designed to promote the creation of valuable information. When it ceases to do so and companies start hoarding it and bribing the government to extend their rights in perpetuity, it's time to revise the law.

This is especially the case with music, where corporations are making a ton of money and never even paying the composers or performers. What kind of incentive is that?

[Kuciwalker]

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

If it isn't original, then he is probably violating a contract HE signed. If not, then he has the right to charge you because you agree to pay! Otherwise, he won't give it to you. He doesn't HAVE to give it to you.

[monkspider]

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

No, but why would anyone?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

If it isn't original, then he is probably violating a contract HE signed. If not, then he has the right to charge you because you agree to pay! Otherwise, he won't give it to you. He doesn't HAVE to give it to you.

My point is nothing is completely original. That's not how ideas are formed. Given that fact, it seems ridiculously arbitrary to allow someone to charge for something that they have for the most part freely taken from others.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

No, you couldn't, because you didn't get the person to agree to a contract beforehand. If you did, they would be violating it by telling the joke. However, you would have trouble proving it to a judge.

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

So? Are you saying that a contract not to share the music with someone is on par with selling organs?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


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?

If the record companies could find a way to make this work, they would be on you in a flash.

But what they really want is for you to rent music rather than own it. So you'd have a net-connected box that charged you 10 cents every time you listened to your favourite Engelbert track.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

You don't have to physically sign it with a pen. Your agreement with the terms of the contract is implied by listening to the music. And if you dispute the right to contract, then the ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
Intellectual property law is designed to promote the creation of valuable information. When it ceases to do so and companies start hoarding it and bribing the government to extend their rights in perpetuity, it's time to revise the law.

This is especially the case with music, where corporations are making a ton of money and never even paying the composers or performers. What kind of incentive is that?

Seems to me that its the artists (not the government) that should decide what to do to remedy such a situation. They are the ones that willingly sign their lives away to these corporations.

[Kuciwalker]

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

Yeah, but if you agree to sell someone one of your organs, you can't take the money and then say "oh wait, I'm not allowed to give you my (insert organ here)". They keep the money and you keep the organ. Same for the music - if the contract is void, then you keep the money and they keep the music.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

No, you couldn't, because you didn't get the person to agree to a contract beforehand. If you did, they would be violating it by telling the joke. However, you would have trouble proving it to a judge.

You don't get it. Information wants to be free. Attempting to restrict it is basically trying to turn it into something else. Whaleboy is right. You can copy the same piece of information an infinite number of times and it will lose none of its quality.

Information by its very nature resists being reduced to property.

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

So? Are you saying that a contract not to share the music with someone is on par with selling organs?

No. Merely that your blanket assertion was false.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
My point is nothing is completely original. That's not how ideas are formed. Given that fact, it seems ridiculously arbitrary to allow someone to charge for something that they have for the most part freely taken from others.

You aren't "allowing them to charge for it". They have some music that may or may not be original - it doesn't matter. They are not REQUIRED to give a copy of it to you. However, they agree to do so, PROVIDED you agree to something else. If you don't want to agree to that something else, fine, but you can't say they have to give the music to you ANYWAYS.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


You don't get it. Information wants to be free. Attempting to restrict it is basically trying to turn it into something else. Whaleboy is right. You can copy the same piece of information an infinite number of times and it will lose none of its quality.

Information by its very nature resists being reduced to property.

It isn't being turned into property! People are agreeing to give you certain information, PROVIDED you agree not to do certain things with that information. They are not required to give the information (referring here to software and music) to you.

[Akka]

The old debate ^^

Hard to tell, one way or another.

I do understand the fact that inventing, creating, is as much work as factory or crop field work, and so should be rewarded.
I also do understand that you can't create out of the void, and that each creation is inspired by previous others.

I do agree that someone who has invented something, has a moral right to claim it's his. I recognize the inalienable right for a writer to keep his own world, characters, stories, as his personnal property.
I also see that you can't claim ownership on ideas, as concepts are universals and not just yours.

I do agree that taking benefit from other's work without paying them for it is a kind of theft.
I also see that copying something doesn't make anyone poorer, and make someone richer, so it isn't really a theft.


I see the average guy trying to rationalize why he just enjoy everything he can download, without rewarding anyone, ever. I see how many excuse he can make to justify himself and pretend he's in his own right. I see how he is often just motivated by the "I can get it free, so why should I pay ?".

I also see how the RIAA, major disc companies and so on, swear bad words about their lost money, but take measure to fight piracy that put them even below the pirats, and while they cry for the violation of copyright, they don't hesitate a second to violate the rights of consumers in lenght.
They pretend to be victims, but they twist numbers, statistics, pressure to get laws that basically protect them and f*ck the average guy, and try to milk any penny they can by overpricing products, force marketting down our throat, use license recognition to sell crappy product, cut the budgets for creation in favor of budgets for publicity, etc.
They really don't fit the role of a victim.


Anyway, I can't give a definite answer one way or the other, though my heart lean rather on the average guy than the big company.
So well, I use my own personnal judgement. I download all I'm interested in. I hear the music, I play the games, I see the movies.
Then I try to objectively evaluate if it is worth the price it's sold. If I consider that it's the case, I do buy it. If I don't, I do not buy it.
And trust me, I DO buy quite a lot of stuff.
I know that it's not something that can be translated into laws, but well, I'm in peace with my own conscience, I do know I support the people who do a good work, and that I don't reward overpricing products.

I consider I'm acting all right on this one

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
[q] Originally posted by Agathon

People are agreeing to give you certain information, PROVIDED you agree not to do certain things with that information. They are not required to give the information (referring here to software and music) to you.

Provided I don't reproduce it. That certainly sounds like making it property to me.

[Agathon]

More to the point SW. You are trying to claim that it's only a crime if I violate my contract with him. But Whaleboy has pointed out that this won't be sufficient. I could simply take it and there would be no contract. It is only if it is wrong for me to take it without his permission (i.e. it's property) that you can make a case that taking it is wrong.

I think you lose this one.