Great masterpieces like the ones made by Michaelangelo will be made regardless of copyright. The law (or lack thereof) cannot stifle the truly great geniuses.
I'm not much of a visual arts fellow, so I cant speak about scupture or painting; but if you argue say Music, I posit that Masterpieces such as Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" or Eric Clapton's "Layla" are every bit as worthy of the title of "Masterpiece" as anything Mozart or Chopin has done.
So great Art will be accomplished regardless of the legal system, but what about "Good Art", you know, the stuff that's better than average, but not quite as good as the masters? Example: Wheel of Time series.
Would the Wheel of Time series be written in a world without copyright? It's an absolute certainty that The Lord of the Rings and Narnia would be written, but I am not so sure that without an assurance of compensation that Jordan would have (or could have... he'd have to get a real job if Eye of the World was copied ad nausium) written such an expansive and engaging series.
My point is that copyright isn't set up to protect the truly great Art and achievements, but rather copyright protects the Mediocre to Good art, that we all enjoy on a daily basis.
It's theft if the "taker" makes it difficult for you to claim that you are who say you are. example: identity theft uses your identity to sign up for an AmEx credit card. Later, you try to sign up for an AmEx card but cannot... that is identity _theft_.
No it's ethically wrong. When I make something to share, I have the right to say "if I share this with you, you have to promise not to copy it."
This is basically what a software license is.
If you go about and break your promise not to copy, then you are being unethical.
I'm not saying that the act of copying is wrong, Im saying that the act of copying when I have asked you not to is wrong. If you truly don't understand that breaking your promise is unethical, then you have an inferior ethical code.
Now for another ethical conundrum. If someone ELSE has broken their promise not to copy a thing, and you obtain one of these copies, is it ethically wrong?
Because the owner of the Ferrari can still drive the Ferrari.
Copy the design and make copies and they lose a LOT more sales
NOW you are getting into deeper illegal waters. My original argument wasn't based on the manufacture of fake Ferrari's with intent to sell, it was based on a single "end ferrari user" making a duplicate for him/herself. Similarly those people who download pirate movies to sell in malls are much more morally dubious than people pirating for their own consumption.
Once you go into design copying with intent to sell, then yes, this is much more "wrong"
No, just because English speakers lazily use terms like theft and stealing incorrectly for acts of copying, doesn't mean that their lazy and incorrect application of the term redefines the act.
Theft and stealing are terms to describe the deprivation of an owned "thing" from a person who owns it. Theft is not because you have a thing that you shouldn't have; theft is when you deprive me of a thing I own.
Just because people use the English language incorrectly, doesn't mean that incorrect English becomes correct.
"You stole my idea" - this isn't actually theft, people are just too lazy (or not educated enough) to say "you copied my idea and implemented it before I did."
"You took the words right out of my mouth" - this statement isn't even colloquially attributed to any sort of theft. Im not quite sure why you used it in your argument. This statement is used as an expression of "I agree with you," not an argument of "you stole my idea" (see above).
"I stole past the ticket desk and straight into the theater" - I've never heard this statement before, the normal statement people would use is "I snuck into the theatre" - which implies a trespassing crime (which it is), not a theft crime (which it isn't).
So maybe you're "too native" of a speaker to understand that just because people lazily apply the term "steal" to a variety of concepts, doesn't mean that the label of "steal" is a correct one.
Wow, this is good. You should consider blogging this point (and posting it to hacker news) rather than letting this idea flounder in slashdot comment obscurity.
Seriously, this point deserves to be more than just some comment.
When the cold war was happening, spys would actually "steal" state secrets; as in, they would take a dossier of papers.
The term stole/steal stuck. But in today's context, the use of the term "steal/stole" is incorrect. News agencies should now report that "someone 'obtained an unauthorized copy' of state secrets" .
I also develop some open source software (original bsd license), you can copy my copyrighted material because _I expressly give you permission to do so_ AND you must adhere to certain stipulations that *I* demand.
One of those demands is that you cannot claim that YOU wrote the software, another of those demands is that you cannot use my name and/or reputation to sell any derivative software you create. The last of these demands is that when you distribute MY software, you distribute with it my list of demands.
So while it's true that you can copy my copyrighted material legally, it's also true that there are ways to copy my copyrighted material illegally (if you don't meet my copyright demands).
Lets just say that instead of it taking Louis $250k to produce the video, it cost him $100Million. Thus, he now has to raise his price to from $5 to $45.
Do you expect that people will be downloading from him, or going to the pirate bay?
This is the difference between a cheepo comedy show, and a mega hollywood blockbuster.
Yes, and your new idea that companies are child molesters has "given birth" to new thoughts in my head; thus I'm going to take you to court to get my child support payments.
You're not understanding a key part of the argument. The difference between copyright infringement and stealing is the deprivation of the original work from the owner.
In the case of the Ferrari, the copyright infringer isn't stealing the car, she is manufacturing an exact duplicate of the car. This is still morally "wrong" because Ferrari had to work hard to come up with the design of the car, but it isn't as wrong as stealing, because the copyright infringer didn't take the actual product.
Similarly, the copyright infringer isn't stealing the boxed software the same as a shoplifter. In the case of boxed software, the vendor is the one being stolen from. The vendor paid the manufacturer a certain amount for the boxed software, and pays a certain amount for the location where she does her vending; when a shoplifter takes from the vendor, she is depriving the vendor from selling the boxed software to ANOTHER person; thus a TRUE deprivation of a sale.
Now all that aside, I agree with your statement of "licence, plus some punitive amount" as the penalty for copyright infringement. But this isn't the same as theft, which should come with additional punishment (eg licence + punitive + short incarceration)
3D is just one trend I don't like and will not pay for (yes I've seen a few 3D movies).
Like the gp said, watch 2d movies then. Just because a movie comes out in 3d doesn't mean you must never watch it in 2d. Your "I will not watch movies in a theatre because there are some in 3d" argument doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if all movies were shown in 3d, or perhaps your friends wont go to any movie not in 3d or something... but just because there are 3d movies for the rest of us, doesn't exclude you from seeing the movie in 2d.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because Humble Indie Bundles are at all equivalent to Skyrim or CoD.
Really? Im fucking quitting my job tomorrow then.
Stores still sell CDs? That fucking stupid.
NO DONT TAKE MY BABY!
Bad argument.
Great masterpieces like the ones made by Michaelangelo will be made regardless of copyright. The law (or lack thereof) cannot stifle the truly great geniuses.
I'm not much of a visual arts fellow, so I cant speak about scupture or painting; but if you argue say Music, I posit that Masterpieces such as Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" or Eric Clapton's "Layla" are every bit as worthy of the title of "Masterpiece" as anything Mozart or Chopin has done.
So great Art will be accomplished regardless of the legal system, but what about "Good Art", you know, the stuff that's better than average, but not quite as good as the masters? Example: Wheel of Time series.
Would the Wheel of Time series be written in a world without copyright? It's an absolute certainty that The Lord of the Rings and Narnia would be written, but I am not so sure that without an assurance of compensation that Jordan would have (or could have... he'd have to get a real job if Eye of the World was copied ad nausium) written such an expansive and engaging series.
My point is that copyright isn't set up to protect the truly great Art and achievements, but rather copyright protects the Mediocre to Good art, that we all enjoy on a daily basis.
It can be argued that humanity under copyright laws has been far more creative than without copyright laws.
The creative explosion that has happened in the last 60 years may, or may not, have had something to do with copyright.
It's theft if the "taker" makes it difficult for you to claim that you are who say you are. example: identity theft uses your identity to sign up for an AmEx credit card. Later, you try to sign up for an AmEx card but cannot... that is identity _theft_.
Unlicensed copying is ethically neutral.
No it's ethically wrong. When I make something to share, I have the right to say "if I share this with you, you have to promise not to copy it."
This is basically what a software license is.
If you go about and break your promise not to copy, then you are being unethical.
I'm not saying that the act of copying is wrong, Im saying that the act of copying when I have asked you not to is wrong. If you truly don't understand that breaking your promise is unethical, then you have an inferior ethical code.
Now for another ethical conundrum. If someone ELSE has broken their promise not to copy a thing, and you obtain one of these copies, is it ethically wrong?
Why is it not "as wrong"?
Because the owner of the Ferrari can still drive the Ferrari.
Copy the design and make copies and they lose a LOT more sales
NOW you are getting into deeper illegal waters. My original argument wasn't based on the manufacture of fake Ferrari's with intent to sell, it was based on a single "end ferrari user" making a duplicate for him/herself. Similarly those people who download pirate movies to sell in malls are much more morally dubious than people pirating for their own consumption.
Once you go into design copying with intent to sell, then yes, this is much more "wrong"
No, just because English speakers lazily use terms like theft and stealing incorrectly for acts of copying, doesn't mean that their lazy and incorrect application of the term redefines the act.
Theft and stealing are terms to describe the deprivation of an owned "thing" from a person who owns it. Theft is not because you have a thing that you shouldn't have; theft is when you deprive me of a thing I own.
Also, I should have added, that the label isn't always applied incorrectly, even when it's used lazily.
burglary, robbery, larceny, embezzlement, fraud
All of these are actually theft because you a depriving someone of something.
Just because people use the English language incorrectly, doesn't mean that incorrect English becomes correct.
"You stole my idea" - this isn't actually theft, people are just too lazy (or not educated enough) to say "you copied my idea and implemented it before I did."
"You took the words right out of my mouth" - this statement isn't even colloquially attributed to any sort of theft. Im not quite sure why you used it in your argument. This statement is used as an expression of "I agree with you," not an argument of "you stole my idea" (see above).
"I stole past the ticket desk and straight into the theater" - I've never heard this statement before, the normal statement people would use is "I snuck into the theatre" - which implies a trespassing crime (which it is), not a theft crime (which it isn't).
So maybe you're "too native" of a speaker to understand that just because people lazily apply the term "steal" to a variety of concepts, doesn't mean that the label of "steal" is a correct one.
Wow, this is good. You should consider blogging this point (and posting it to hacker news) rather than letting this idea flounder in slashdot comment obscurity.
Seriously, this point deserves to be more than just some comment.
When the cold war was happening, spys would actually "steal" state secrets; as in, they would take a dossier of papers.
The term stole/steal stuck. But in today's context, the use of the term "steal/stole" is incorrect. News agencies should now report that "someone 'obtained an unauthorized copy' of state secrets" .
I also develop some open source software (original bsd license), you can copy my copyrighted material because _I expressly give you permission to do so_ AND you must adhere to certain stipulations that *I* demand.
One of those demands is that you cannot claim that YOU wrote the software, another of those demands is that you cannot use my name and/or reputation to sell any derivative software you create. The last of these demands is that when you distribute MY software, you distribute with it my list of demands.
So while it's true that you can copy my copyrighted material legally, it's also true that there are ways to copy my copyrighted material illegally (if you don't meet my copyright demands).
No, unlicensed copying IS unethical.
What is at question is HOW unethical it is, and how to prevent unlicensed copying without going draconian.
Copying is not stealing is rarely, if ever, used as a justification for copyright infringement.
It's simply a statement that you should not judge a copyright infringer, the same as you would a thief. And you should not label an infringer a thief.
This argument is pointless (im not quite sure why I bothered to join it).
and you murdered the whitespace that would exist if you didn't post a reply to his reply. Murderer!
Lets just say that instead of it taking Louis $250k to produce the video, it cost him $100Million. Thus, he now has to raise his price to from $5 to $45.
Do you expect that people will be downloading from him, or going to the pirate bay?
This is the difference between a cheepo comedy show, and a mega hollywood blockbuster.
That was consensual bitch! If you didn't want it, should shouldn't have dressed in all that tight fitting subprime hoochie momma mortgage.
WHORE!
Yes, and your new idea that companies are child molesters has "given birth" to new thoughts in my head; thus I'm going to take you to court to get my child support payments.
You're not understanding a key part of the argument. The difference between copyright infringement and stealing is the deprivation of the original work from the owner.
In the case of the Ferrari, the copyright infringer isn't stealing the car, she is manufacturing an exact duplicate of the car. This is still morally "wrong" because Ferrari had to work hard to come up with the design of the car, but it isn't as wrong as stealing, because the copyright infringer didn't take the actual product.
Similarly, the copyright infringer isn't stealing the boxed software the same as a shoplifter. In the case of boxed software, the vendor is the one being stolen from. The vendor paid the manufacturer a certain amount for the boxed software, and pays a certain amount for the location where she does her vending; when a shoplifter takes from the vendor, she is depriving the vendor from selling the boxed software to ANOTHER person; thus a TRUE deprivation of a sale.
Now all that aside, I agree with your statement of "licence, plus some punitive amount" as the penalty for copyright infringement. But this isn't the same as theft, which should come with additional punishment (eg licence + punitive + short incarceration)
Sorry, did you just make the argument that autistic people are little more than apes?
And with an added bonus from iTunes, you get some nice, high quality DRM to boot!!! :)
3D is just one trend I don't like and will not pay for (yes I've seen a few 3D movies).
Like the gp said, watch 2d movies then. Just because a movie comes out in 3d doesn't mean you must never watch it in 2d. Your "I will not watch movies in a theatre because there are some in 3d" argument doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if all movies were shown in 3d, or perhaps your friends wont go to any movie not in 3d or something... but just because there are 3d movies for the rest of us, doesn't exclude you from seeing the movie in 2d.