I find it hard to see how you can cite disadvantages to a solution of a problem when the specific problem hasn't even been defined, let alone the specific solution.
You don't appear to be following the thread. The specific issue we're discussing here is the proposal that taxpayer money should be used as the primary means of funding for creative works.
I think we'd enjoy a lot more technology by eliminating IP law. A lot more people are able to afford generic drugs than name brand drugs, and derivitive drugs would be available much more quickly. Plus society as a whole would benefit from lower health care costs and a more healthy society.
This is a short-sighted view that is not well-supported by historical data, which shows that in the long run, you'd get the opposite effect-- that is, turning a resource into a commons discourages those who would otherwise be producers of that resource.
The scenarios you propose are entirely analogous to the failed "grabs" in communist revolutions. Of course everyone benefits in the short term by a simple asset seizure, but in the long term, nobody wants to produce, because anything that is produced will be "grabbed". The result is a lack of production.
But I do think that IP law, especially copyright law, is fundamentally broken now that nearly instant, nearly free, nearly anonymous communication is in our hands.
I think it depends to a degree on how honest people are. The less honest people are, the more we're going to see things like dongles and other annoying technical solutions. At present, the copyright model is based on trust and social contract. If you have a large amount of people who
are wiling to cheat such contracts, the obvious response is more forceful measures. The measures don't have to be infallible, they merely need to be effective enough that most people won't bother to subvert them
think that once it becomes clear to most of the public that copyright law is not about morality,
There are a lot of moral issues raised by copyright law. Do you consider the DMCA to be an immoral law ? If so, you agree that there is a moral issue here. There are different stances one can take on the moral issues, but these issues are undeniably there.
there will be a major reworking of copyright law at the least, and the elimination of it at the most.
I hope not, because the alternatives to copyright
are a lot worse. What alternative funding models
for the producers of creative works do you propose ? Any system that is friendly to freeloaders is inevitably one that punishes those who are productive. I'd imagine that the alternative would
be a tragedy of commons scenario, more unpleasent technical measures to deal with common criminals like the slashdot crowd, or possibly a mix of both.
You might want to check out the NEA [nea.gov] and NEH [neh.gov]. While you may be correct in thinking they're not terribly popular, you can have public funding of the arts...
Good point, and I agree that it's a good thing. I could list a number of others-- I work in academia, and I'm personally funded through similar means. Central planning has certain advantages, and it's certainly a good thing. But private enterprise also enjoys certain advantages that government funded models don't.
Basically, the good thing about government funded
models is that they are not responsive to immediate market forces, and the good thing about private enterprise is that it is responsive to the same. When you practice one system to the exclusion of the other, you're going to be too responsive to the market (which unfortunately can be a rather shortsighted beast at times), or not responsive enough -- a criticism often levelled at "academics" and one which ignores the fact that it's actually a good thing that academia is not market oriented-- as long as it doesn't take the place of private enterprise.
Why not? Do people not deem science and the useful arts as something which benefits society?
Food is also something which clearly benefits society, as are most goods, but they aren't primarily funded by tax dollars. There are advantages and disadvantages to central planning. The ideal thing would be to have the best of both worlds, by funding such things with government money, but also facilitating a market based system, which is what copyright law does. This is much the way it's done now, and it works very well, in fact I'd go so far as to say that if a private or public model were practised to the exclusion of the other, the consequences would really be quite disasterous.
Personally I don't think books will cease to be created just because copyright law is eliminated. But if they do, what's the problem?
I think a lot of the technology that you enjoy today exists largely because of IP law, and because you live in a country that places a high economic value on creativity.
Without some way to compensate folks who fight forest fires, arrest criminals, educate the public, keep our environment clean, build highways, explore outer space, prosecute criminals, adjudicate criminal lawsuits, create legislation, heal the poor, and house orphans, the incentives to do those things disappear as well.
Most of these items are taxpayer funded. It would be possible to use taxes to fund creative works, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular idea in most countries (besides old-style communist countries like North Korea)
We are moving very quickly away from a manufacturing economy (which is where patents, copywrites, and other IP protections come in handy) to a service economy,
I don't see how a service oriented model works against IP. One can think of copyright is a way of facilitating a
service contract between one provider and multiple users.
In fact, IMO, a service oriented economy
would favour IP. This is actually reflected by trends in the US to make stiffer IP laws-- this trend is because, and not inspite of the fact that
the market is more service oriented.
Actually, this is the free software movement's aim. You're just missing an important piece of the puzzle: all software would be in the public domain.
It may also require activation keys, etc. One could release a binary-only derivative of a GPLd work, that used an activation key. I don't believe that a
situation like this is the goal of the FSF, and I don't believe the FSF would take very kindly to someone who did such a thing.
I said that they have to extract the value in different ways . There are literally dozens of options. I've listed several including the street performer protocol, grants, sponsorships, donations, merchandise, related performances, related consulting, limited edition speciality print runs
And why should these models be practised to the exclusion of copyright ? Why not allow all models, and let the best one (apparently copyright, if we're to believe the markets result), stand ?
The important thing to understand is that it is in society's best interest to fund creative work which is why society has always done so, whether copyright was the law or not. That will never change.
Society doesn't necessarily act in its own interest. Individuals act in their own interest. When there's a substantial conflict of interest between the individual and society, one has a tragedy of commons problem. In this case, all of the models you raise are freeloader friendly, so the conflict is that it is not in the individuals interest to pay for a work thhat they could get for free anyway, but it is in societies interest.
But let's be clear that we are talking only about the loss of authors with few readers and/or readers who are not willing to pony up to support the author.
It's not that simple. Again, there's a case of the individuals interests competing with societies interests. Under your proposals, there is very little self-interest in the individual supporting
an author.
Does society owe this minority a living? Does society owe anyone a job doing what they want?
If someonme provides you with a service, whether that service is building you a bridge, or writing you a book, and you use that service, then yes, you owe them something. I have no problem with those who don't want to consume art, and don't want to pay for it. These people would have no problem with copyright, since they will not be motivated to use what they don't pay for. It's the freeloading slashdot hypocrites that bug me.
The Microsoft-dominated CLR is not really suitable for open source on Linux either - unless you want to make your software dependent on Microsoft's API - which may have "proprietary extensions" added at any time.
Again, there's mono. "Proprietary extensions" are not really a problem. Microsoft add "proprietary extensions" to C++ all the time, it doesn't stop me using C++ (I just ignore their extensions, and their C++ development tools;-)
Why do people have to reinvent the wheel a thousand times, but never succeeding in making it truly round? WHAT advantage has Ruby over Common Lisp or Smalltalk?
Comparing ruby to common lisp doesn't make a whole
lot of sense, they're substantially different beasts. Can you write GUI applications in common Lisp ? (and would you want to ?) Ruby has more of an OO bias, while Common Lisp has a functional bias (though both are multi-paradigm).
As for comparing it to smalltalk, IMO the main advantage Ruby has is that it's better at interoperating with the rest of the system. Smalltalk is great in a hypothetical universe where everyone programs in SmallTalk, but unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that.
It's not a question of "what (x) can do that (y) can't". You can do everything in assembly language
, however, you may find some tools more convenient.
Alcohol prohibition and the 55 MPH speed limit were both brought down mainly by widespread disregard of the law and the belated recognition that it's stupid to have laws that the majority of people don't follow.
Yes, but piracy is not the most obvious way to
violate an anti-fair use law. The obvious way to violate/protest such a law, and practice civil disobedience is to violate that law and only that law.
For example, a drunken wife-beater, a drunk driver, or a drug-addicted murderer is less effective in his practice of "civil disobedience" against prohibition, because he creates the impression that he isn't merely protesting unfair laws, he's merely a common criminal. Civil disobedience needs to be targetted and systematic.
To practice it effectively, one must primarily
focus on breaking the laws that are considered unjust, and do so in a way that is not morally questionable (which usually means minimising breaking other laws that might be considered more acceptable)
As you later note, they could feel that they are doing their fair share to maintain the noosphere.
Indeed, they could feel this way. In practice though, most of them don't appear to even consider
this to be an important issue.
Major-label albums generally lose money; they make the difference up on the big hits. So if a music snob, one who dislikes the current cartel system, only buys non-hit music, he's receiving a subsidy from all those teeny-boppers. Is he morally in the wrong?
This is a little different, because he'd probably
still keep purchasing even without the subsidies,
and he probably doesn't question the right of the
subsidisers to sell music, even though he isn't
terribly enthusiastic about their stuff (-;
In English, the word "if" is often used to introduce a hypothetical statement. That was my intention.
I understand that. My point still stands.
As to saying you don't think it holds water, that's swell, but if you want other people to take you seriously, you've going to have to show why it doesn't hold water, not just wave your hands around.
Without saying what laws need to be changed and
why, there's really not much to argue with. If the issue is that "all music should be free",
then the most effective form of civil disobedience is not merely to ride on the backs of those who fund non-free musicians (which ultimately perpetuates a state of affairs where non-free music is essential, as no alternative exists), but also to
start "free music" communities. This is exactly what RMS did with software, and it has IMO been
very effective. There are people who can get by
using only free software.
If you honestly feel that there are no changes needed to copyright law in response to the rise of the computer and the Internet, you're in a pretty small minority.
I'm not saying that none are necessary.
However, piracy is not an effective way
to protest against anti fair-use laws. An effective way to protest against it would be something that doesn't involve piracy. Writing
or distributing software that enables fair use and
has substantial non-infringing uses, but is banned by an anti fair use law is a good example of civil disobedience. Harvesting subsidies from those who support a model you don't agree with is
not.
But for those who honestly hold that view, it's still not hypocritical to depend on others to fund music production, any more than it's hypocritical of them to use Linux without contributing time or money.
These are not the same thing. The difference here is that these people disagree with the model that is being used to fund music production, and yet they are depending on that model, and depend on others to fund it.
On the other hand, a user of GPL software is accepting a gift, and usually has no objection in
principal to accepting gifts. The person accepting the gift is not compromising
the existence or maintenance of it by failing to
contribute, because the maintainer/giver does not
ask the user to contribute to the community as a
condition of maintenaning the software.
Even if it's not hypocritical, it might be parasitical, but even that's not necessarily the case:
The basic principal here is, would you wish everyone else to adopt your conduct ? Clearly,
accepting gifts, and producing your own gifts in
return is a behaviour one may plausibly wish others to emulate. Free-riding is not. This is the
sense in which I consider it hypocritical.
Well, I disagree there. Mere copying can certainly be amoral or even virtuous.
This doesn't in itself put you in disagreement
with me, because I merely suggest that there are
moral issues associated with copyright. Maybe you misread my post (?) I don't
claim that copying is always immoral.
Your examples are all examples in which the author is deceased -- works which I personally believe should be commoditised, and in many cases, are. But this is orthogonal to the points I was making-- that there are moral issues.
I still think that there are moral issues with these works, and the end is similar -- to make creative works available) but the means are different, in that we need to facilitate preservation, not creation.
The question of whether or not freeloading "is a problem" is also orthogonal to the points I was
making. The argument that freeloading is immoral does not depend on the proposition that it "is a problem".
The keyword here is "often". IMO, "sometimes" would
be more appropriate. In any case, my point is that there is still some incentive to purchase.
Both bad analogies.As to the first, I belong to an outfit called City CarShare [citycarshare.org], which lets me check out a car when I need one. Their studies show that this substantially reduces the purchase of cars. And for the second, one of the major scandals right now is the massive amounts that large music corporations play to buy air time.
Yes, I could see that such a scheme could reduce
the sale of cars, but that service ultimately needs to buy cars, and hence doesn't remove all
economic incentive to create cars. The main effect is that the buyer changes, and the users
do a better job at utilising a smaller pool of resources.
If Film88 has one copy for each simultaneous viewing, just like a rental store, then would you view it as perfectly legal?
Video stores don't rent out movies that are
just out on big-screen.
No, hypocricy is behaving contrary to your beliefs. Illegal copying is only hypocrisy if they believe they should pay, but don't. That's not true of all of the people involved.
They are behaving in a way that depends on others
adhering to a principal that they don't accept.
This is contrary to their beliefs, because they
believe that non-free music shouldn't exist, while depending on others to fund non-free music for their consumption.
Regarding the sort of infringement you discuss,
it's obviously legally wrong, but morally, I think
it's acceptable, because it does not
in any way compromise future availability of music (in particular, it's not a thinly vieled attempt to bypass the costs of content creation and distribution)
A third is more complex: Suppose you believe that a) the big record companies form a large, price-fixing cartel,
Most of the freeloaders have not made any sort
of credible argument that this is the case. This
line of argument is usually a poorly thought out rationalisation of freeloading, and IMO does not
hold water.
If so, it's plausible to conclude that the only way to force the necessary changes to copyright law
But this would imply that it is "necessary" to make changes to copyright law. For those who think outright abolition of copyrights is necessary ("no non-free music should exist"), it's hypocritical to depend on others to fund non-free music.
No, I definately support copyright. I just feel that the entire scheme typically has little to do with morals.
I'm mostly in agreement with you, but have a nitpick. It's one thing to say that any reproducing
of copyrighted work is not immoral (an assertion I'd agree with), but it's a much stronger statement to say that copyright has little to do
with morals.
See Kants categorical imperative. There is definitely a moral issue -- someone who freeloads
depends on someone to fund copyrighted work, and yet
they refuse to do it. This basically makes them
a
hypocrite.
Fair use is just what it claims to be -- it's morally fair, and it passes Kants moral test, because someone who creates parody is contributing to the art, they are not merely taking; they could plausibly wish everyone else to behave in a similar way (ie produce art).
Of course, what I _want_ is free works. I just recognize that the best way to get them that is evident is to limit my free access etc. so as to encourage additional creation.
I'm in agreement with this-- but I'd propose that
the moral issue here is that if one contributes to
subversion of these limitations, one also subverts
the goal of additional creation.
But it is the copy that is "taken", not the original. No theft, since the original is not involved in the taking at all. Can't be theft if the taking is taking of what you own.
The word own does not appear in any of the definitions I cite. The
key words in those definitions are , respectively, wrongfully, by unjust means, and secretly or without permission. I don't think the last of these
three definitions is disputable.
It has no applicability, since it is not theft.
I've just shown that in fact it is theft.
The use of the word "Steal" for IP infringement is nothing more than an attempt to charge the argument with emotion.
Well, why not use emotionally charged words ? The freeloaders use words like "share" and "information" in a way that is , while correct, lies
outside the usual usage of those words. You guys
rebuke others for using emotionally charged words, but you do it all the time.
Show how it is bogus.
I don't have to show that an analogy is bogus. It
has no relevance to the argument unless it is shown to be valid. However, in this case, I'll oblige because it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
The obvious difference is that the car owners livelihood
does not depend on selling cars. So the owner of the
car is not analogous to the creative author.
The copy the guy made is not stolen, even if it is "Taken"... you can't steal something you created and own.
Go back and read the definitions I posted. As for "created and owned", this is questionable -- "created" is questionable because what you are "creating" is actually derivative. "Owned" is a loaded term that makes an assumptions about who should own the copy.
Nope. There are 280 million people in the U.S. Approximately 260 million of those (just about everyone over the age of 2) people have written, or sung, or drawn.
To say that "everyone is an artist" obfuscates the discussion, since the music that is being pirated is typically authored by professionaal musicians who put a lot of time into their work, not Joe Blogs strumming his guitar in
the basement.
If there was no demand for professional artists,
we wouldn't be discussing this, because the slashdot
herd would not be interested in pirating studio
recordings (which cost money to produce)
music. Instead, they'd be content to sit around
the fire playing guitar and listening to each others tone-deaf bleating.
Of the artists who have the commitment and skills
to actually get their act together and record something worth listening to, and perform their
work, I'd wager that a majority would really like
to be able to pursue their art full time.
If this theory is meant to be taken literally, then it is an insult to the Russian people. They aren't that stupid, nor ignorant, at least those that I know in Moscow and StPetersburg. Even many years before the fall of Russian Communism many Russians were well aware about the world outside Russia and the failings of their political system.
It seems fairly clear to me that this is more of a catchy slogan than something that is intended to be taken literally. It encapsulates an important concept though -- it's not enough for "many" Russians to be aware of the failings of the system to bring about change -- the average guy on the street has to see it, and preferably experience it first hand-- it's not really enough to read about it, because even if you're "aware", you will probably not get angry or
otherwise excited about something that seems so
distant. You feel it so much more if it's rubbed in your face. McDonalds symbolises a first-hand exposure to Western culture,
and the relative failings of their own system, as
experienced by the common man (as opposed to pontifications on the failings of the system by an academic elite)
I would have to say I'm not sure where you get this notion. If he feels that it's moral to download a CD he wouldn't buy, I see no reason to conclude that he wouldn't in fact, appreciate someone else downloading a CD he made, if that person wouldn't otherwise be able to enjoy it.
The point is that he wouldn't appreciate those who
paid for it downloading it instead of buying it, because it would not be available for him if they didn't buy it.
I've snipped the rest of your post because it does
not address my argument-- that those who freeload
depend on others who pay for it, and hence, they fail this moral test.
Consider the library, for example. Or listening to music on the radio. Or a friend who lends you an album. All perfectly legal, and all create that possibility.
These do not go so far as to remove incentive to
actually purchase though. In the case of the library, or borrowing it from your friend, the item
is being treated in a similar way to physical property -- the lender is temporarily without the
work. So it doesn't undermine copyright economics
any more than borrowing your friends car or renting a car hurts the car market.
As for radio play, the radio stations are supposed to compensate the copyright holders.
I think the current system is flawed, and I think the ability of the record companies to buy the legislation they like undermines the democratic process so severely that I could see why some people believe civil disobedience is the only route to pressuring the record companies.
Let's get this straight -- illegaly copying is not "civil disobedience", it is hypocrisy. I've pointed out several times in this thread why it's hypocrisy (basically, it's because you don't believe in paying for copyrighted music, but are dependent on people who do pay ).
"Civil disobedience" is just a convenient rationalisation used by freeloaders.
I think your point is this. Downloading the file off of the internet is *NOT* stealing because it doesn't cause someone else a lack. I'm still undecided about whether or not it's right or wrong, but it's definitly not wrong the same way theft is wrong.
It's still theft, but it is not the same as removal
of physical property, and it's still wrong, but not
for the same reasons.
There's a maxim that I think is applicable to the moral question (Kants moral imperative)-- don't do what you would not wish others to do. Copyright infringers fail this test, because they depend on
others to fund the work to make it available to them. In a sense, they are parasites and hypocrites.
IMO, record companies should not have copyrights
to the work of deceased artists-- record companies
should be able to competetively sell the same work
(similar, but not exactly the same as what happens with classical music)
However, I don't believe it's moral to redistribute
in-print records, because doing so increases the
probability that their status will change to
"out of print", unless you can provide better
accesibility to the work than the record companies.
Sharing information is clearly a moral and good thing to do.
The first problem with this statement is you're
abusing the word "information", which is usually used to mean "knowledge", or "facts". Without a
clear explanation of what you mean by the word "information", it is certainly not clear that "sharing" it is a moral thing.
Your monkey example is not analogous -- you offer
an example of one person informing another, and from that, we're supposed to conclude that freeloading is a good thing.
The main problem with freeloading is that those who
illegaly abuse copyright are ultimately hypocrites and parasites -- because their behaviour violates Kants categorical imperative: their behaviour is
not one they would wish everyone else to emulate, because their entertainment is funded by those with better moral standards.
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same
Bah. You've only given one definition, and the legal one at that, which supports the claim that you are a "legal man", but has no bearing on
claims of morality.
There are a number of definitions, not all of which
require an intent to deprive the rightful owner
of their property. (Theft of services is an obvious example of theft that doesn't deprive the
owner of property)
Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man?
on
Live from Iran, Film88
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is a false analogy. Forgery increases the amount of money relative to the amount of goods, making everybody's money worth less. Each forged bill in effect steals a tiny amount of money from every other bill out there.
Exactly the same applies to copyright enfringement and the artists labor. Each act of copyright infringement is an attack on the artists compensation.
It undermines the artists ability to obtain compensation for the workk, because it creates the possibility that those who would be willing to pay the artist to obtain the work will not.
Ultimately, it costs everyone, because the people who commit copyright infringement are effectively being subsidised by those who pay for the copyrighted work. There are two possible outcomes: either these people end up paying more, or the
availability of material is compromised.
Laughable in the extreme. Most artists want time to
do their art without spending all their time in another occupation, and that requires that they can feed themselves and purchase equipment. And this
requires getting paid. They don't want to get paid a lot, but they still want to get paid.
I'll just close by noting that all intellectual property is recent - none of it existed before the 1700's. We did acceptably well without intellectual property - had the golden ages of Rome and Greece and China, had the Renaissance, etc.
There was no such thing as copyright because it wasn't cheap to manufacture high quality digital recordings. But proprietary information has always been valuable.
When something is copied, it is not taken or appropriated: the original copy is left behind.
The copy is appropriated, but not the original.
Your other points come down to repititions of this.
The fact that the copy is taken is beside the point-- the fact remains that a copy is indeed taken/appropriated.
There is a difference between taking something, and copying something and taking the copy.
There is indeed a difference, but this difference has no impact on the applicability of the definition of "steal" to the practice of copyright infringement.
How upset would you be if someone in the middle of the night made a duplicate of the car in your driveway and drove away with the duplicate?
Like most analogies this one is bogus (as well as irrelevant to this discussion)
Slashdot Mirror
You don't appear to be following the thread. The specific issue we're discussing here is the proposal that taxpayer money should be used as the primary means of funding for creative works.
I think we'd enjoy a lot more technology by eliminating IP law. A lot more people are able to afford generic drugs than name brand drugs, and derivitive drugs would be available much more quickly. Plus society as a whole would benefit from lower health care costs and a more healthy society.
This is a short-sighted view that is not well-supported by historical data, which shows that in the long run, you'd get the opposite effect-- that is, turning a resource into a commons discourages those who would otherwise be producers of that resource.
The scenarios you propose are entirely analogous to the failed "grabs" in communist revolutions. Of course everyone benefits in the short term by a simple asset seizure, but in the long term, nobody wants to produce, because anything that is produced will be "grabbed". The result is a lack of production.
But I do think that IP law, especially copyright law, is fundamentally broken now that nearly instant, nearly free, nearly anonymous communication is in our hands.
I think it depends to a degree on how honest people are. The less honest people are, the more we're going to see things like dongles and other annoying technical solutions. At present, the copyright model is based on trust and social contract. If you have a large amount of people who are wiling to cheat such contracts, the obvious response is more forceful measures. The measures don't have to be infallible, they merely need to be effective enough that most people won't bother to subvert them
think that once it becomes clear to most of the public that copyright law is not about morality,
There are a lot of moral issues raised by copyright law. Do you consider the DMCA to be an immoral law ? If so, you agree that there is a moral issue here. There are different stances one can take on the moral issues, but these issues are undeniably there.
there will be a major reworking of copyright law at the least, and the elimination of it at the most.
I hope not, because the alternatives to copyright are a lot worse. What alternative funding models for the producers of creative works do you propose ? Any system that is friendly to freeloaders is inevitably one that punishes those who are productive. I'd imagine that the alternative would be a tragedy of commons scenario, more unpleasent technical measures to deal with common criminals like the slashdot crowd, or possibly a mix of both.
Good point, and I agree that it's a good thing. I could list a number of others-- I work in academia, and I'm personally funded through similar means. Central planning has certain advantages, and it's certainly a good thing. But private enterprise also enjoys certain advantages that government funded models don't.
Basically, the good thing about government funded models is that they are not responsive to immediate market forces, and the good thing about private enterprise is that it is responsive to the same. When you practice one system to the exclusion of the other, you're going to be too responsive to the market (which unfortunately can be a rather shortsighted beast at times), or not responsive enough -- a criticism often levelled at "academics" and one which ignores the fact that it's actually a good thing that academia is not market oriented-- as long as it doesn't take the place of private enterprise.
Food is also something which clearly benefits society, as are most goods, but they aren't primarily funded by tax dollars. There are advantages and disadvantages to central planning. The ideal thing would be to have the best of both worlds, by funding such things with government money, but also facilitating a market based system, which is what copyright law does. This is much the way it's done now, and it works very well, in fact I'd go so far as to say that if a private or public model were practised to the exclusion of the other, the consequences would really be quite disasterous.
Personally I don't think books will cease to be created just because copyright law is eliminated. But if they do, what's the problem?
I think a lot of the technology that you enjoy today exists largely because of IP law, and because you live in a country that places a high economic value on creativity.
Most of these items are taxpayer funded. It would be possible to use taxes to fund creative works, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular idea in most countries (besides old-style communist countries like North Korea)
I don't see how a service oriented model works against IP. One can think of copyright is a way of facilitating a service contract between one provider and multiple users. In fact, IMO, a service oriented economy would favour IP. This is actually reflected by trends in the US to make stiffer IP laws-- this trend is because, and not inspite of the fact that the market is more service oriented.
It may also require activation keys, etc. One could release a binary-only derivative of a GPLd work, that used an activation key. I don't believe that a situation like this is the goal of the FSF, and I don't believe the FSF would take very kindly to someone who did such a thing.
And why should these models be practised to the exclusion of copyright ? Why not allow all models, and let the best one (apparently copyright, if we're to believe the markets result), stand ?
The important thing to understand is that it is in society's best interest to fund creative work which is why society has always done so, whether copyright was the law or not. That will never change.
Society doesn't necessarily act in its own interest. Individuals act in their own interest. When there's a substantial conflict of interest between the individual and society, one has a tragedy of commons problem. In this case, all of the models you raise are freeloader friendly, so the conflict is that it is not in the individuals interest to pay for a work thhat they could get for free anyway, but it is in societies interest.
But let's be clear that we are talking only about the loss of authors with few readers and/or readers who are not willing to pony up to support the author.
It's not that simple. Again, there's a case of the individuals interests competing with societies interests. Under your proposals, there is very little self-interest in the individual supporting an author.
Does society owe this minority a living? Does society owe anyone a job doing what they want?
If someonme provides you with a service, whether that service is building you a bridge, or writing you a book, and you use that service, then yes, you owe them something. I have no problem with those who don't want to consume art, and don't want to pay for it. These people would have no problem with copyright, since they will not be motivated to use what they don't pay for. It's the freeloading slashdot hypocrites that bug me.
Again, there's mono. "Proprietary extensions" are not really a problem. Microsoft add "proprietary extensions" to C++ all the time, it doesn't stop me using C++ (I just ignore their extensions, and their C++ development tools ;-)
Comparing ruby to common lisp doesn't make a whole lot of sense, they're substantially different beasts. Can you write GUI applications in common Lisp ? (and would you want to ?) Ruby has more of an OO bias, while Common Lisp has a functional bias (though both are multi-paradigm).
As for comparing it to smalltalk, IMO the main advantage Ruby has is that it's better at interoperating with the rest of the system. Smalltalk is great in a hypothetical universe where everyone programs in SmallTalk, but unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that.
It's not a question of "what (x) can do that (y) can't". You can do everything in assembly language , however, you may find some tools more convenient.
Yes, but piracy is not the most obvious way to violate an anti-fair use law. The obvious way to violate/protest such a law, and practice civil disobedience is to violate that law and only that law.
For example, a drunken wife-beater, a drunk driver, or a drug-addicted murderer is less effective in his practice of "civil disobedience" against prohibition, because he creates the impression that he isn't merely protesting unfair laws, he's merely a common criminal. Civil disobedience needs to be targetted and systematic. To practice it effectively, one must primarily focus on breaking the laws that are considered unjust, and do so in a way that is not morally questionable (which usually means minimising breaking other laws that might be considered more acceptable)
As you later note, they could feel that they are doing their fair share to maintain the noosphere.
Indeed, they could feel this way. In practice though, most of them don't appear to even consider this to be an important issue.
Major-label albums generally lose money; they make the difference up on the big hits. So if a music snob, one who dislikes the current cartel system, only buys non-hit music, he's receiving a subsidy from all those teeny-boppers. Is he morally in the wrong?
This is a little different, because he'd probably still keep purchasing even without the subsidies, and he probably doesn't question the right of the subsidisers to sell music, even though he isn't terribly enthusiastic about their stuff (-;
I understand that. My point still stands.
As to saying you don't think it holds water, that's swell, but if you want other people to take you seriously, you've going to have to show why it doesn't hold water, not just wave your hands around.
Without saying what laws need to be changed and why, there's really not much to argue with. If the issue is that "all music should be free", then the most effective form of civil disobedience is not merely to ride on the backs of those who fund non-free musicians (which ultimately perpetuates a state of affairs where non-free music is essential, as no alternative exists), but also to start "free music" communities. This is exactly what RMS did with software, and it has IMO been very effective. There are people who can get by using only free software.
If you honestly feel that there are no changes needed to copyright law in response to the rise of the computer and the Internet, you're in a pretty small minority.
I'm not saying that none are necessary. However, piracy is not an effective way to protest against anti fair-use laws. An effective way to protest against it would be something that doesn't involve piracy. Writing or distributing software that enables fair use and has substantial non-infringing uses, but is banned by an anti fair use law is a good example of civil disobedience. Harvesting subsidies from those who support a model you don't agree with is not.
But for those who honestly hold that view, it's still not hypocritical to depend on others to fund music production, any more than it's hypocritical of them to use Linux without contributing time or money.
These are not the same thing. The difference here is that these people disagree with the model that is being used to fund music production, and yet they are depending on that model, and depend on others to fund it.
On the other hand, a user of GPL software is accepting a gift, and usually has no objection in principal to accepting gifts. The person accepting the gift is not compromising the existence or maintenance of it by failing to contribute, because the maintainer/giver does not ask the user to contribute to the community as a condition of maintenaning the software.
Even if it's not hypocritical, it might be parasitical, but even that's not necessarily the case:
The basic principal here is, would you wish everyone else to adopt your conduct ? Clearly, accepting gifts, and producing your own gifts in return is a behaviour one may plausibly wish others to emulate. Free-riding is not. This is the sense in which I consider it hypocritical.
This doesn't in itself put you in disagreement with me, because I merely suggest that there are moral issues associated with copyright. Maybe you misread my post (?) I don't claim that copying is always immoral.
Your examples are all examples in which the author is deceased -- works which I personally believe should be commoditised, and in many cases, are. But this is orthogonal to the points I was making-- that there are moral issues. I still think that there are moral issues with these works, and the end is similar -- to make creative works available) but the means are different, in that we need to facilitate preservation, not creation.
The question of whether or not freeloading "is a problem" is also orthogonal to the points I was making. The argument that freeloading is immoral does not depend on the proposition that it "is a problem".
The keyword here is "often". IMO, "sometimes" would be more appropriate. In any case, my point is that there is still some incentive to purchase.
Both bad analogies.As to the first, I belong to an outfit called City CarShare [citycarshare.org], which lets me check out a car when I need one. Their studies show that this substantially reduces the purchase of cars. And for the second, one of the major scandals right now is the massive amounts that large music corporations play to buy air time.
Yes, I could see that such a scheme could reduce the sale of cars, but that service ultimately needs to buy cars, and hence doesn't remove all economic incentive to create cars. The main effect is that the buyer changes, and the users do a better job at utilising a smaller pool of resources.
If Film88 has one copy for each simultaneous viewing, just like a rental store, then would you view it as perfectly legal?
Video stores don't rent out movies that are just out on big-screen.
No, hypocricy is behaving contrary to your beliefs. Illegal copying is only hypocrisy if they believe they should pay, but don't. That's not true of all of the people involved.
They are behaving in a way that depends on others adhering to a principal that they don't accept. This is contrary to their beliefs, because they believe that non-free music shouldn't exist, while depending on others to fund non-free music for their consumption.
Regarding the sort of infringement you discuss, it's obviously legally wrong, but morally, I think it's acceptable, because it does not in any way compromise future availability of music (in particular, it's not a thinly vieled attempt to bypass the costs of content creation and distribution)
A third is more complex: Suppose you believe that a) the big record companies form a large, price-fixing cartel,
Most of the freeloaders have not made any sort of credible argument that this is the case. This line of argument is usually a poorly thought out rationalisation of freeloading, and IMO does not hold water.
If so, it's plausible to conclude that the only way to force the necessary changes to copyright law
But this would imply that it is "necessary" to make changes to copyright law. For those who think outright abolition of copyrights is necessary ("no non-free music should exist"), it's hypocritical to depend on others to fund non-free music.
I'm mostly in agreement with you, but have a nitpick. It's one thing to say that any reproducing of copyrighted work is not immoral (an assertion I'd agree with), but it's a much stronger statement to say that copyright has little to do with morals.
See Kants categorical imperative. There is definitely a moral issue -- someone who freeloads depends on someone to fund copyrighted work, and yet they refuse to do it. This basically makes them a hypocrite.
Fair use is just what it claims to be -- it's morally fair, and it passes Kants moral test, because someone who creates parody is contributing to the art, they are not merely taking; they could plausibly wish everyone else to behave in a similar way (ie produce art).
Of course, what I _want_ is free works. I just recognize that the best way to get them that is evident is to limit my free access etc. so as to encourage additional creation.
I'm in agreement with this-- but I'd propose that the moral issue here is that if one contributes to subversion of these limitations, one also subverts the goal of additional creation.
The word own does not appear in any of the definitions I cite. The key words in those definitions are , respectively, wrongfully, by unjust means, and secretly or without permission. I don't think the last of these three definitions is disputable.
It has no applicability, since it is not theft.
I've just shown that in fact it is theft.
The use of the word "Steal" for IP infringement is nothing more than an attempt to charge the argument with emotion.
Well, why not use emotionally charged words ? The freeloaders use words like "share" and "information" in a way that is , while correct, lies outside the usual usage of those words. You guys rebuke others for using emotionally charged words, but you do it all the time.
Show how it is bogus.
I don't have to show that an analogy is bogus. It has no relevance to the argument unless it is shown to be valid. However, in this case, I'll oblige because it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The obvious difference is that the car owners livelihood does not depend on selling cars. So the owner of the car is not analogous to the creative author.
The copy the guy made is not stolen, even if it is "Taken"... you can't steal something you created and own.
Go back and read the definitions I posted. As for "created and owned", this is questionable -- "created" is questionable because what you are "creating" is actually derivative. "Owned" is a loaded term that makes an assumptions about who should own the copy.
To say that "everyone is an artist" obfuscates the discussion, since the music that is being pirated is typically authored by professionaal musicians who put a lot of time into their work, not Joe Blogs strumming his guitar in the basement.
If there was no demand for professional artists, we wouldn't be discussing this, because the slashdot herd would not be interested in pirating studio recordings (which cost money to produce) music. Instead, they'd be content to sit around the fire playing guitar and listening to each others tone-deaf bleating.
Of the artists who have the commitment and skills to actually get their act together and record something worth listening to, and perform their work, I'd wager that a majority would really like to be able to pursue their art full time.
It seems fairly clear to me that this is more of a catchy slogan than something that is intended to be taken literally. It encapsulates an important concept though -- it's not enough for "many" Russians to be aware of the failings of the system to bring about change -- the average guy on the street has to see it, and preferably experience it first hand-- it's not really enough to read about it, because even if you're "aware", you will probably not get angry or otherwise excited about something that seems so distant. You feel it so much more if it's rubbed in your face. McDonalds symbolises a first-hand exposure to Western culture, and the relative failings of their own system, as experienced by the common man (as opposed to pontifications on the failings of the system by an academic elite)
The point is that he wouldn't appreciate those who paid for it downloading it instead of buying it, because it would not be available for him if they didn't buy it.
I've snipped the rest of your post because it does not address my argument-- that those who freeload depend on others who pay for it, and hence, they fail this moral test.
These do not go so far as to remove incentive to actually purchase though. In the case of the library, or borrowing it from your friend, the item is being treated in a similar way to physical property -- the lender is temporarily without the work. So it doesn't undermine copyright economics any more than borrowing your friends car or renting a car hurts the car market. As for radio play, the radio stations are supposed to compensate the copyright holders.
I think the current system is flawed, and I think the ability of the record companies to buy the legislation they like undermines the democratic process so severely that I could see why some people believe civil disobedience is the only route to pressuring the record companies.
Let's get this straight -- illegaly copying is not "civil disobedience", it is hypocrisy. I've pointed out several times in this thread why it's hypocrisy (basically, it's because you don't believe in paying for copyrighted music, but are dependent on people who do pay ). "Civil disobedience" is just a convenient rationalisation used by freeloaders.
It's still theft, but it is not the same as removal of physical property, and it's still wrong, but not for the same reasons.
There's a maxim that I think is applicable to the moral question (Kants moral imperative)-- don't do what you would not wish others to do. Copyright infringers fail this test, because they depend on others to fund the work to make it available to them. In a sense, they are parasites and hypocrites.
wish others to do.
However, I don't believe it's moral to redistribute in-print records, because doing so increases the probability that their status will change to "out of print", unless you can provide better accesibility to the work than the record companies.
The first problem with this statement is you're abusing the word "information", which is usually used to mean "knowledge", or "facts". Without a clear explanation of what you mean by the word "information", it is certainly not clear that "sharing" it is a moral thing. Your monkey example is not analogous -- you offer an example of one person informing another, and from that, we're supposed to conclude that freeloading is a good thing.
The main problem with freeloading is that those who illegaly abuse copyright are ultimately hypocrites and parasites -- because their behaviour violates Kants categorical imperative: their behaviour is not one they would wish everyone else to emulate, because their entertainment is funded by those with better moral standards.
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same
Bah. You've only given one definition, and the legal one at that, which supports the claim that you are a "legal man", but has no bearing on claims of morality. There are a number of definitions, not all of which require an intent to deprive the rightful owner of their property. (Theft of services is an obvious example of theft that doesn't deprive the owner of property)
Exactly the same applies to copyright enfringement and the artists labor. Each act of copyright infringement is an attack on the artists compensation. It undermines the artists ability to obtain compensation for the workk, because it creates the possibility that those who would be willing to pay the artist to obtain the work will not.
Ultimately, it costs everyone, because the people who commit copyright infringement are effectively being subsidised by those who pay for the copyrighted work. There are two possible outcomes: either these people end up paying more, or the availability of material is compromised.
Laughable in the extreme. Most artists want time to do their art without spending all their time in another occupation, and that requires that they can feed themselves and purchase equipment. And this requires getting paid. They don't want to get paid a lot, but they still want to get paid.
I'll just close by noting that all intellectual property is recent - none of it existed before the 1700's. We did acceptably well without intellectual property - had the golden ages of Rome and Greece and China, had the Renaissance, etc.
There was no such thing as copyright because it wasn't cheap to manufacture high quality digital recordings. But proprietary information has always been valuable.
Your other points come down to repititions of this. The fact that the copy is taken is beside the point-- the fact remains that a copy is indeed taken/appropriated.
There is a difference between taking something, and copying something and taking the copy.
There is indeed a difference, but this difference has no impact on the applicability of the definition of "steal" to the practice of copyright infringement.
How upset would you be if someone in the middle of the night made a duplicate of the car in your driveway and drove away with the duplicate?
Like most analogies this one is bogus (as well as irrelevant to this discussion)