A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread

[Guynemer]

If 5 violates copyright law, I'm not sure I agree with that.




You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It isn't being lent to you, or given as a gift to you. That is ****ing theft, and if you can't see that, you're a spoiled ****ing brat like the rest of this ****ing country, wanting everything, paying for nothing.

[Kuciwalker]

If 5 violates copyright law, I'm not sure I agree with that.

As in you think the law ought to be changed to permit 5, or you don't believe the law actually prohibits 5?

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It isn't being lent to you, or given as a gift to you. That is ****ing theft, and if you can't see that, you're a spoiled ****ing brat like the rest of this ****ing country, wanting everything, paying for nothing.

Why does the book "belong" to me after the copyright expires? Why did this notion of "belonging" change in duration when Congress extended the term of copyright? If Congress repealed its copyright laws, would it no longer be theft?

[Guynemer]

As in you think the law ought to be changed to permit 5, or you don't believe the law actually prohibits 5?

The first one.

Why does the book "belong" to me after the copyright expires? Why did this notion of "belonging" change in duration when Congress extended the term of copyright? If Congress repealed its copyright laws, would it no longer be theft?

And Congress could repeal the law that keeps me from coming over to your house and taking your TV, too. Your point?

[Kuciwalker]

The first one.

So it's not theft, despite being illegal?

And Congress could repeal the law that keeps me from coming over to your house and taking your TV, too. Your point?

My point - which you illustrate well - is that you think taking my TV is theft regardless of the law. Inexplicably, though, piracy stops being "theft" the moment Congress decides it's no longer illegal. Why the difference, Guy?

[Guynemer]

The first one.

So it's not theft, despite being illegal?

I think it ought not be illegal.

My point - which you illustrate well - is that you think taking my TV is theft regardless of the law. Inexplicably, though, piracy stops being "theft" the moment Congress decides it's no longer illegal. Why the difference, Guy?

I don't know why there is a legal distinction between one day and the next. I'm sure there's some legalese reason. But without the copyright existing at all, without making piracy theft, why would anyone produce works in the first place?

If someone wants to take her book seventy years and a day after she dies, without paying for it, be my ****ing guest. We'll be long past the point of giving a ****.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know why there is a legal distinction between one day and the next.

But you presumably know why there's a moral distinction, since you asserted one! It's theft the day before and not theft the day after. Are you using "theft" to just mean "against the law", with no moral connotations? Or do you attach moral weight to your idea of theft, beyond just the idea of "it's good to follow the law"?

But without the copyright existing at all, without making piracy theft, why would anyone produce works in the first place?

That's an excellent argument for a legal regime in which authors are granted limited, temporary monopolies on copying and distribution of original works. It benefits the rest of us! That doesn't, however, seem to explain why the authors are morally entitled to it. We've given them this monopoly as a matter of expedience, not because they "deserve" it.

[Guynemer]

1. So what then do they deserve?

2. So if copyright benefits the rest of us, what exactly does circumventing copyrights by downloading works you haven't paid for do?



As for the morality of theft: yes, theft is theft is theft. However, I don't think one can steal from a dead person in the same way we're talking about here. I'd be all for making the copyright period end at the death of the producer of the work in question.

[Guynemer]

No. Thank you.

[Kuciwalker]

1. So what then do they deserve?

They don't deserve anything. Legally we grant them certain privileges; those may or may not be the privileges we ought to grant them, and morally there's a decent case for ignoring the law as written and following the law as it ought to be written. You yourself made that case when you denied that (5) was theft, even though it was illegal.

(Aside: the notion of desert is incoherent. Universally we decide people "deserve" something if it's in our own interest to establish their claim to it as a general rule. This alone is identical between real property and intellectual "property".)

2. So if copyright benefits the rest of us, what exactly does circumventing copyrights by downloading works you haven't paid for do?

As an individual act? Nothing. In fact, if you wouldn't have bought the work at the price demanded, you have increased social welfare by pirating it!

Of course, society has a lot of difficult enforcing the rule "you can download it for free if you wouldn't have bought it, but otherwise you have to pay", and even individuals have difficulty correctly following that rule - the incentives to self-deceive are strong. But treating "theft" piracy as identical to theft, morally, definitely produces absurd answers, as you showed in #163.

[Guynemer]

As an individual act? Nothing. In fact, if you wouldn't have bought the work at the price demanded, you have increased social welfare by pirating it!

You couldn't be wronger. If hundreds or thousands of people steal a book or a game, the publisher gets less money, and it appears that the producer of the work in question is underperforming, even though the number of people reading the book/listening to the music/whatever might be exactly what they expected, or even more than expected. Underperforming producers of works generally don't get the opportunity to produce anything else. The pirates harm the authors.

You continue to try to dress up the fact that you are defending people who want a service without paying jack **** for it. I remain amazed that you deny this is theft, by any and every definition of the word.

[Kuciwalker]

You couldn't be wronger. If hundreds or thousands of people steal a book or a game, the publisher gets less money, and it appears that the producer of the work in question is underperforming, even though the number of people reading the book/listening to the music/whatever might be exactly what they expected, or even more than expected. Underperforming producers of works generally don't get the opportunity to produce anything else. The pirates harm the authors.

1) "Individual"
2) If none of those people were going to buy the work at the price demanded, the author is still no worse off.

You continue to try to dress up the fact that you are defending people who want a service without paying jack **** for it. I remain amazed that you deny this is theft, by any and every definition of the word.

I want to read Shakespeare without paying for it either. Is that wrong?

[Aeson]

2) If none of those people were going to buy the work at the price demanded, the author is still no worse off.

This is actually not true given the inability to predict future price movements, user evaluations, and the ability to use the work as value towards other products/services (eg. buy X and get a free copy of Y!)

[Felch]

The difference between theft and infringement is that theft deprives the victim of a possession while infringement deprives them of an economic benefit. That's why your restaurant analogy breaks down. If I copy Galnemer's novel, she doesn't lose a copy of the book that she paid to publish, she simply isn't compensated for her efforts. It's wrong, but it's not the same thing. That's also why it's different from you breaking into my house and stealing my TV.

[Addled Platypus]

Camelot any better ?

[Guynemer]

1) "Individual"

I see. So it only becomes a problem when more than one person does it. Makes perfect sense.

2) If none of those people were going to buy the work at the price demanded, the author is still no worse off.

Of course. How dare I question the intentions of the people downloading a piece of media for free. Stop being so ****ing oblivious, you know full well that people download games, music, books, etc., simply because a) they want it, and b) they don't want to pay for it. Most would pay for it if they didn't have the option to be a spoiled, arrogant, demanding little ****.

I want to read Shakespeare without paying for it either. Is that wrong?

And I want to sleep with Alison Brie. It's not wrong to want to do so. To actually do it is another matter entirely.