Ethics and Piracy

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
No. It's not even illegal.

I'm pretty sure it is illegal, actually. I know that it is to do so without permission at the art gallery my mother works at, and that alot of art galleries don't allow you to take cameras into the building.

[optimus2861]

^ I can't see taking a camera into a museum ever being illegal. What it would more likely be, is a violation of the terms by which the museum allows you onto their property (i.e. admission ticket which states, "no cameras"). The most they could probably do is throw you out and/or ban you -- confiscating the camera would be legally questionable.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by optimus2861
^ I can't see taking a camera into a museum ever being illegal. What it would more likely be, is a violation of the terms by which the museum allows you onto their property (i.e. admission ticket which states, "no cameras"). The most they could probably do is throw you out and/or ban you -- confiscating the camera would be legally questionable.

But I don't think it's just a matter of the museum granting permission to photograph the work, but also the artist's permission. Sure, there isn't a law saying you can't take cameras into museums, but the museums make it a rule to simplify things because they are looking after the work for the artist, and it's one less thing they have to be responsible for. But still, that does make it illegal - and you can be fined, charged, sued, ect... if you break that rule. What action is taken would probably depend on what exactly you where doing and, if it comes to it, the feelings of the artist.

[asleepathewheel]

not to mention that flash photography damages older paintings...

[SpencerH]

The biggest problem to me is that the intellectual property laws vary enormously from medium to medium. It's just ridiculous to think that one activity is allowed with a book but not with a song, or that you can videotape a football game but cant make a dvd from a movie shown on HBO.

[yavoon]

I think the biggest problem with ethics and piracy is when someone invokes the right of parlay. cuz thats just damn annoying.

[SpencerH]

Yeah!

[Agathon]

Trying to make information property is like trying to turn a shark into a guppy. The very nature of information resists being made property of. In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

If I steal your car, you no longer have a car and you are harmed. If I copy your CD you still have the CD and you aren't harmed at all.

Copyrights don't work. Artists and inventors have historically been diddled out of their expected wealth by accountants and middle men. I recall one artist saying that he would like to release his music into the public domain as Sony had not sent him a royalty check in over 20 years, despite continued sales.

The future of IP is the corporate hoarding of it. I fail to see how this benefits anyone but the hoarders. If you want to know what's wrong with copyright, the fact that Michael Jackson owns all of Paul McCartney's best songs without McCartney's consent should suffice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Trying to make information property is like trying to turn a shark into a guppy. The very nature of information resists being made property of. In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

If I steal your car, you no longer have a car and you are harmed. If I copy your CD you still have the CD and you aren't harmed at all.

Copyrights don't work. Artists and inventors have historically been diddled out of their expected wealth by accountants and middle men. I recall one artist saying that he would like to release his music into the public domain as Sony had not sent him a royalty check in over 20 years, despite continued sales.

The future of IP is the corporate hoarding of it. I fail to see how this benefits anyone but the hoarders. If you want to know what's wrong with copyright, the fact that Michael Jackson owns all of Paul McCartney's best songs without McCartney's consent should suffice.

there are lots of legal fictions. That something is a legal fiction doesnt mean its not functional.

And lots of things are abused. thats an argument for reform, not abolition.

Does Paul McCartney call for the abolition of copywright? McCartney has continued to produce cultural products - does he not copyright them?

If copyright damages the artists in question, they are free to release their work directly into the public domain, rather than copyrighting it or selling it to publishers who will copyright it. Thats their choice.

I see good arguments for shorter copyrights, and i see good arguements for insuring that technological attempts to stop copying dont infringe on fair use. This doesnt make an arguement that i see for abolishing copyright.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Trying to make information property is like trying to turn a shark into a guppy. The very nature of information resists being made property of. In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

If I steal your car, you no longer have a car and you are harmed. If I copy your CD you still have the CD and you aren't harmed at all.

Copyrights don't work. Artists and inventors have historically been diddled out of their expected wealth by accountants and middle men.

Which is why all the CPA's doing grunt work in big corporations are running to the entertainment industry to get rich, and why anyone with a little capital can get rich in that industry, and its so easy to get rich off inventors in venture capital.

What about the publishers and producers in books, music, movies, etc who've lost their shirts buying works from artists, producing them, and then seeing them fail to sell???

Publishers take risks. Theres a return to risk. Thats why artists use publishers, and dont just vanity publish.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Osweld
But I don't think it's just a matter of the museum granting permission to photograph the work, but also the artist's permission.

Whether the artist gets a say or not would depend on a couple of factors: does he still own the work (i.e. did he just loan the painting to the museum or did he sell it), and does he still have the copyright on it (i.e. did he transfer the copyright to someone else, or has the artist been dead long enough for the copyright to expire).

If neither is true, the artist's wishes don't have to be legally considered at all. Ethically/morally is a different question.

Sure, there isn't a law saying you can't take cameras into museums, but the museums make it a rule to simplify things because they are looking after the work for the artist, and it's one less thing they have to be responsible for. But still, that does make it illegal

You contradict yourself. If there's no law against it, it isn't illegal. A museum, having no authority to pass laws, can't make something illegal. QED.

Breaking museum rules != illegal.

- and you can be fined, charged, sued, ect... if you break that rule. What action is taken would probably depend on what exactly you where doing and, if it comes to it, the feelings of the artist.

The feelings of the artist are irrelevant. Either the law has to be broken or material harm done to the artist/museum in order to cause legal action. If you only break museum rules, and do no other harm, about the only recourse they've got is to throw you off the property and/or charge you with trespassing, I would think.

Standard IANAL disclaimer, of course.

To continue on a different track..

Originally posted by Agathon
In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

Agreed to an extent. There are copyrights, trademarks, and patents, each with their own set of rights, and none of them have the degree of owner-control that tangible property does (i.e. you can't generally do anything with someone else's property without their say-so; the same doesn't apply to any of the above). I despise the term "intellectual property" for that reason -- an implication of a larger degree of control than that which really exists.

Copyrights don't work.

Now that I don't agree with. They're being abused by some, definitely (i.e. Disney, grotesquely buying off Congress to keep "Steamboat Willie"'s copyight from expiring, and routinely putting their old movies "back in the Disney vault"), but on the flip side copyright is the major underpinning of the GPL. There just needs to be a better balance struck. Start with shortening the term across the board (theory: artists derive little further incentive from terms extending so far beyond their deaths, not enough to justify denying the public free access to those works for said long period) and/or requiring registration fees to maintain copyrights on older works (theory: works that are uneconomical to maintain copyright on will be allowed to pass into public domain).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
there are lots of legal fictions. That something is a legal fiction doesnt mean its not functional.

Is copyright working as intended originally, or has it been completely twisted so it's just fatting a few large companies?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And lots of things are abused. thats an argument for reform, not abolition.

The point is whether copyright and other IP laws should exist or not. Just because a law is in existence does not mean it should.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
This doesnt make an arguement that i see for abolishing copyright.

Since copyright is not intrinsic, it seems that argument is needed for it to be in place.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What about the publishers and producers in books, music, movies, etc who've lost their shirts buying works from artists, producing them, and then seeing them fail to sell???

AFAIK, small publishers don't buy works outright.

[epicurian]

Originally posted by Ned
Asleep, anything done without authorization of this nature is copyright infringement.

The problem, of course, is that there is no effective remedy is the bootleg copy is simply shared by people on the internet. That is the issue of this thread.

The bottom line is that the law should conform as best as possible to the facts on the ground, so to speak. Otherwise, people will simply break the law and respect for the law as a whole will diminish.

I have to say I totally agree with this. The fact of whether people should fileshare, bootleg and so on is secondary, tertiary, even when placed next to the fact that they are doing. In the latest NME for example (which also actually shows that 92% of people who download a track actually go on to buy the album anyway). revealed that 82% of people who took the survey are going to ignore warnings and carry on downloading music. Admittedly, without knowing the actual number of people who took part in the survey these are, like all statistics open to debate, but the point is the BPI (and for that matter the RIAA) have to be realists about this. As much as I'm sure it must gall them, they will have to a degree accept what is happening.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
I recall one artist saying that he would like to release his music into the public domain as Sony had not sent him a royalty check in over 20 years, despite continued sales.

The artist signed the contract in the first place... and in exchange, he got the money he wanted. Sony is within their rights as assigned by the contract. What's your problem. The artist can whine all he wants, but guess what... he agreed to it.

If you want to know what's wrong with copyright, the fact that Michael Jackson owns all of Paul McCartney's best songs without McCartney's consent should suffice.

Why? Again... McCartney signed and agreed to the original contract. He signed away the rights to his songs for money. The fact that Michael Jackson bought them and now owns them because he paid for them is just business.

In both cases the artists agreed to the contracts, and got paid money. At least they got something... you are arguing that they shouldn't get anything for their efforts... that anything they produce should be free for you to steal as you so desire... an argument that should suffice that some type of copyright laws are needed.