I consider myself Libertarian, but I'm not sure I agree with your view of corporations. I'd like to see more limits on corporate immunity, but I don't know that it would be a good thing to see corporations removed entirely. Then again, I tend to view any and all extreme positions as being misguided. You can take pretty much anything too far, if you try.
Nevertheless, I think GPP's point is valid: people tend to act in self-interest, and socialist policies require that people be selfless in order to be sustainable. Look at what's been happening between France/Greece and Germany, for example. The Germans have been the hard-workers in GPP's hypothetical situation. The Greeks and French have been the one's getting the "free stuff" in GPP's example (don't take this too literally -- this is not necessarily true for all French and Greek people but on average across the entire nation, nor am I saying the French and Greek people haven't been working; just that the ratio of labor:benefits has been skewed in towards labor for the Germans and towards benefits for the French and Greeks). And now, the German's are starting to get pissed off about it because they feel like they are contributing a disproportionate share to sustain French and Greek benefits. Honestly, in their shoes, I would probably feel the same way.
In a nutshell, it's "I'll leave you alone; you leave me alone." In practice, there is no way that I can exist without affecting those around me. Therefore, to implement Libertarian philosophy, we have to make some judgments upon when one person's rights trump another's, and that's where the difficulty arises. For example, I am an amateur musician, living on 2 1/2 acres of land. Ideally, if I want to play my electric guitar at 2:00 am with the amp turned up to 11, then I should be able to do so. However, even on 2 1/2 acres of land, I have neighbors who live close enough that my amp at full throttle at 2:00 am would probably keep them awake. Therefore, the city in which I live has enacted a noise ordinance that says I must be mindful of my neighbors' need for rest between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am. That's an infringement of my liberty, but I would argue that such a law is nevertheless a good thing. The point becomes even more obvious when you consider laws about things like murder or theft rather than noise ordinances: sure, laws preventing me from randomly killing someone else restrict my liberty, but -- excepting edge cases like self-defense -- isn't it more important that someone else be allowed to live than I be allowed to kill someone just for the lulz?
We now have drones flying semi-autonomously, literally spying on people and blowing up "suspected insurgents" (and anyone else who happens to be in a 50 yard radius), and the worst nightmare this guy can come up with is a smartphone that captures position data and maybe a tracking cookie*? Really???
*Yes, I am aware that just because proposition A sucks more than proposition B, that in no way proves that proposition B doesn't suck, too. Nevertheless, it seems to me that armed drones are both much more similar to the robots Asimov predicted and much more dangerous than a cell phone. Therefore, I'm more than a little surprised that cell phones are Moglen's first choice for implementing the Three Laws.
I'm not a huge fan of 'Vettes either:) but they work for purposes of this example. Anyway...
Whether or not you should be able to make an exact copy of a Corvette is the crux of the argument, and here we may simply have to agree to disagree. I believe that if one devotes resources to creating an original design, one is entitled to the benefits (i.e., income) that result from that effort. You, apparently do not see things that way. That's ok, I guess, but IMHO, that viewpoint will disincent others from being creative, and again, IMHO, that's a bad thing.
However, even if we don't agree, it has been enjoyable debating the topic with you. You have done a good job of responding to my arguments with well-reasoned counter-arguments of your own:)
You say that creating a copy of something I have created is okay because it costs me nothing. I have already invested time and effort into creating something, and therefore there are no additional costs to creating duplicates. Suppose, however, that we were talking about a tangible item. GM, for example, has already sunk the costs into designing and building the shiny, new Corvette on their sales room floor. Therefore, by your logic, GM should only be compensated for the actual materials that were used to build that Corvette? I guarantee you that there is not $111K of raw materials in a 2012 Corvette ZR1 (link to pricing), nor even $50K of raw materials in the base model. Nevertheless, all of us intuitively understand that just because there is only $10-20K of raw materials (just a wild guess; let's just go with that for the sake of the example) in a ZR1 does not mean we can reasonably expect to waltz in to a GM dealer, drop $10-20K on the table and drive out in a brand new ZR1.
Yet that is the moral equivalent of what you are arguing: that because there are no raw materials in a digital work of art and because the technology exists to copy it at essentially zero cost, you should be allowed to make a copy of every song ever written or every movie ever recorded because it costs the artist nothing to produce additional copies. So let me ask you a question. What makes a ZR1 worth $111K, if not the raw materials that go into its construction? And to that, I offer the answer, "the design work and engineering" (as well as the desirability of a top-of-the-line supercar). That design work and engineering is no different than the work it takes to produce a work of art; in fact, the ZR1 *is* a work of art, to some extent, because it is the result of the creative efforts of many, many people, all of whom are investing their time, their energy and their money in a product exactly as an artist invests her time, energy and money into producing digital content. Yes, we have the technology to create essentially unlimited copies of that work, but just because you can doesn't mean it is ethical to do so, any more than it is ethical to drop $10,000 on the Chevy salesman's desk and take the keys to a brand new ZR1 over his objections.
What makes you think that copying is a natural right? Furthermore, you claim that you should have the right to something intangible (content), but state that your boss should compensate you for taking something intangible (time) from you?
Also note that I do not in any size, shape or form disagree with your statement, "Feel free to ask, and be prepared for me to say no to compensating you if I want." I do, however, disagree that you still have a right to a copy of work that I have created if you say no. You are not entitled to the fruit of my labor. If it has value, then I expect to be compensated for it (after all, it took my time, and quite often, my money, to create it); if it does not have value and if you therefore choose not to compensate me for it, then you have no right to help yourself to the fruit of my labor. Period. I may choose to grant you the right to it anyway (and in fact, I have chosen to do that with most -- but certainly not all -- of my creative works, by releasing them in a CC-NC-SA license), but that is my choice to make, not yours. Why do you think that you are entitled to the benefit of my labor unless either we enter into a mutually consensual contract?
I wasn't calling him(?) ignorant, I was answering the question (s)he posed. His argument was ignorant. I could perhaps have made the distinction a little more clear, and for that I apologize. But no, I am not trolling, although I have very little patience for the self-absorbed, entitlement mentality coupled with extremely poor reasoning skills that so many people in this discussion are displaying. Radres then followed it up by being snotty ("How's that for you?"), and perhaps I got a little testy as a result. Again, I apologize.
However, saying that a content creator shouldn't release content to the public if he doesn't want it posted on file-sharing sites is every bit as absurd a statement as the counter-examples I provided. And if you want to say that file-sharing is okay because "that's the world we live in," then I guess you are okay with the **AA's doing what they do because "that's the world we live in" too?
If you would like to provide a logical argument to rebut the points I have made, I am all ears. See Capt. Kangarooski's counter-arguments for a good example of how to debate someone -- I don't entirely agree with him (her?), but (s)he has certainly earned my respect for far, far above average reasoning and logic skills.
What makes you think that is ethical? Did the rich take their money by force? Are they robber barons who use unfair business practices to force the "little guy" into bankruptcy and then jack prices through the roof once they have a monopoly? Once you have not paid for music, what are doing to raise the poor to a better standard of living (or are you just helping yourself, as I suspect)?
Nick Mason, the drummer for Pink Floyd (my all-time favorite band, FWIW) owns a Ferrari Enzo -- that's a car that is so expensive that you can't just go to a Ferrari dealer and buy one. Ferrari has to invite you to buy one. Me? I probably can't even afford an oil filter for Mason's Enzo (okay, I probably can, but you get my point). Nick Mason is clearly far, far richer than I most likely ever will be. My response to that, is "Good on ya', Nick!" He is a very talented musician, he worked hard for his success, and I wish him nothing but the best of luck for the rest of his life.
You are not acting ethically. You are cheating a professional musician (and recording engineer, and mastering engineer, and...) out of the just reward for work they have done, and trying to wrap that in some noble-sounding B.S. to rationalize your unethical behaviour. If you believe the Bono or Justin Bieber or Janet Jackson or Jerry Garcia (yes, I know he is no longer with us -- RIP, Jerry) already have enough money, and you truly believe it is unethical to pay them more money for the right listen to their music, then you have an ethical option: don't consume the product (music) that they produce. But you are not legally or ethically entitled to consume their content and refuse to pay them any more than your employer would be ethically or legally justified to decide that you are already rich enough, so he is going to withhold your wages for the past several weeks and give it to the poor, instead. You worked for that income, you had a reasonable expectation of receiving that income, and your employer would be in the wrong to take it from you and give it to someone less well off than you.
Let's just get rid of all property laws then. If you don't want someone living in your house, you shouldn't own a house. If you don't want someone driving your car, you shouldn't own a car. That's the world we will live in if we follow your ideals. How's that for you?
You assumed that copyright is ethically good. This may not be true, however, certainly not for all possible permutations of copyright.
Agreed. As it exists today, copyright certainly may be abused in ways that are clearly unethical.
I'd be very interested to know why you think it is good to restrict people's liberties so as to allow a subset of people to make a living in their chosen profession.
Now we are getting down to the point: is it ever ethical to restrict peoples' liberties? If you stop and think about that question for more than about five or ten seconds, then you will realize that the answer has to be, "yes." Any time two or more people live in reasonably close proximity to each other (with "reasonably close" being a term that can only be defined in each particular circumstance), then it is impossible to coexist without impacting each other. If I buy a plot of land, should I be allowed to do whatever I want on it? The Libertarian in me says, "yes." But practical reality says otherwise. If I dump my raw sewage into a river that crosses my property, then that can make people downstream ill. Is it ethical for me to dump raw sewage into the river anyway? Should I be allowed to shoot guns on my property? What if someone builds a house or a school at the border between my property and theirs, near where I am shooting? What if the house or school was there first? All of these things involve placing a restriction on my liberty, but I would argue that all of these restrictions are good. Even though it might prevent me from doing something I might want to do, it is better for society as a whole, and truthfully, it is good for me too, because it prevents other people from placing me in harm's way as well.
In regards to the argument at hand, copyright creates an incentive for people who want to create content to do so. That, in my opinion, is beneficial to society. There are certainly cases where copyright can be abused, and that is, of course, detrimental to society. We've all heard of patent trolls who stifle innovation by filing frivolous lawsuits involving an overly broad patent, of the **AA's using unconscionably heavy-handed tactics to enforce copyright restrictions, etc. I would like to see IP laws changed to address those problems, but the underlying principle of copyright isn't the problem, any more than the underlying principle of society creating laws to safeguard the well-being of others by restricting the rights of landowners to do as they please on their property is an inherently bad idea.
Should we control people in such a way that I can make a living at it? If not, why not?
You are missing the point. It is not about controlling others so that you can make a living at whatever you want. However, society clearly values content, as can be witnessed by the effort people go through to obtain content. However, they are not willing to compensate those who have footed the bill (both in time and in real money) to provide that content. It seems reasonable to me that if one creates content that others desire to consume, then they should be compensated for their efforts and expenses in creating that content. That is what copyright is meant to protect: the right to restrict a created good to those who have compensated the creator for that good.
If you want to convince me that copyright is inherently evil and that intellectual property is an artificial construct which therefore should be free, then you first have to convince me that you have an inherent right to that content and that all the costs of production and distribution are the responsibility of the artists rather than the consumer. Since it seems to me that the consumer is the one who benefits from the consumption of content, then, well, good luck with that.
IME, whenever you have a situation like this, the truth is often found somewhere in the middle.
Like you, I abhor a closed, locked-down Internet. That would truly be a tragedy of epic proportions. However, it would also be tragic if we were to instantly lose all concept of intellectual property. The framers of the Constitution were wise enough to see that it is a good thing to protect the intellectual property rights of creative types, and that doing so* provides incentive to continue creating things. The trick now is to find a way to provide reasonable IP protections to the creative types without unduly restricting the single greatest communications medium since the printing press.
*One could argue that we have strayed quite a ways from what the authors of the Constitution envisioned and that our current copyright and IP protection situation is anything but conducive to creativity. I would have to agree. However, as the saying goes, "don't throw out the baby with the bath water." The concept was good; the implementation needs to be tweaked, however.
Using the law to keep your outdated economic model working is far more immoral than me copying your music.
Upon what basis do you make that claim? What is immoral about using protections afforded to me under the law? What is moral about deciding that 1) you don't like the terms for using something that I created (tangible or otherwise), but 2) continuing to use my creation even though you have refused my terms? Do you not understand that if it takes time and money to bring content to you (and it does), then it is reasonable to ask to be compensated for that effort?
Would you still show up at work tomorrow if your boss decided he didn't want to compensate you for your time and effort on his behalf? After all, time isn't property either...
Cool -- so if you hire an architect to design your house, you hire a structural engineer to make sure that it is structurally fit to occupy, and you hire an interior decorator to make the inside beautiful, then you have no problem with me duplicating all of that engineering work so I can build an exact copy of your house?
I take it you've never had to foot the bill for the engineering and design work that goes into building a house before...
Why does your employer pay you to work for him (or her)? The simple answer is, "Because your time is valuable." If your employer wants you to give up some of your time to accomplish her (or his -- you get the picture) goals, then you should be compensated for the loss of your time. Likewise, if a content creator spends his time creating content for your viewing, listening (or whatever) pleasure, then he should be compensated for that time as well. Furthermore, musical instruments cost money to acquire. Strings, drum heads, drum sticks, saxophone reeds, and other gear wear out and need to be replaced, which costs money. Studio time costs *lots* of money. Then there is post-processing, marketing costs, distributing... Do you seriously think that it's fair for content creators to pay out of pocket to create the music and movies that you enjoy? Whether or not the media is or ever was physical property is entirely irrelevant; it costs content creators real money to get content to you, and therefore if you want to continue to enjoy content, it is only fair (and ethical) for them to be rewarded for their efforts.
Are there problems with the current system? You bet. But that in no way invalidates the fact that artists should be compensated for the work they have expended to create content.
I don't agree with everything Lowery said, but his overarching point is valid: a content creator gets to set the terms of use for the content. A content consumer has the choice of complying with those terms or doing without the content. Any alternative choices are unethical.
The fact that the **AA's frequently act unethically in an attempt to enforce those terms has absolutely no bearing on that argument.
Simply because one has the ability to do something does not mean it is right to do that. If people acted ethically all the time, there would be no need for copyright. However, people clearly do NOT act ethically all the time, and thus copyright was created so that content creators would be able to make a living from the content they create (assuming that it was, in fact, good enough content for people to desire it). If you want content creators to continue producing content, then it is only fair to compensate them for the work (yes, it IS work, even if it's enjoyable work) they went through to create said content.
You can attempt to rationalize your desire to obtain content without paying for it if you choose, but no amount of pseudo-intellectual rambling about "[other people's] rights...[being]...subservient to those of the creative classes..." and "controlling [creative content becoming]...a matter of restricting the liberties of others" will change the fact that if the contract creator releases content under the condition that content consumers will compensate them for their efforts and you choose to obtain that content by ripping tracks from someone else's CDs or copying their digital media, then you are acting unethically.
On most desktops and some laptops, that's no problem. On other laptops, it's a real PITA to get to the hard drive. If I were worried about this, I'd just use dd to image the drive, myself.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider myself Libertarian, but I'm not sure I agree with your view of corporations. I'd like to see more limits on corporate immunity, but I don't know that it would be a good thing to see corporations removed entirely. Then again, I tend to view any and all extreme positions as being misguided. You can take pretty much anything too far, if you try.
In other words, the key is "balance." True, that.
Nevertheless, I think GPP's point is valid: people tend to act in self-interest, and socialist policies require that people be selfless in order to be sustainable. Look at what's been happening between France/Greece and Germany, for example. The Germans have been the hard-workers in GPP's hypothetical situation. The Greeks and French have been the one's getting the "free stuff" in GPP's example (don't take this too literally -- this is not necessarily true for all French and Greek people but on average across the entire nation, nor am I saying the French and Greek people haven't been working; just that the ratio of labor:benefits has been skewed in towards labor for the Germans and towards benefits for the French and Greeks). And now, the German's are starting to get pissed off about it because they feel like they are contributing a disproportionate share to sustain French and Greek benefits. Honestly, in their shoes, I would probably feel the same way.
I don't think you understand Libertarian philosophy. Here's a primer for you. HTH!
In a nutshell, it's "I'll leave you alone; you leave me alone." In practice, there is no way that I can exist without affecting those around me. Therefore, to implement Libertarian philosophy, we have to make some judgments upon when one person's rights trump another's, and that's where the difficulty arises. For example, I am an amateur musician, living on 2 1/2 acres of land. Ideally, if I want to play my electric guitar at 2:00 am with the amp turned up to 11, then I should be able to do so. However, even on 2 1/2 acres of land, I have neighbors who live close enough that my amp at full throttle at 2:00 am would probably keep them awake. Therefore, the city in which I live has enacted a noise ordinance that says I must be mindful of my neighbors' need for rest between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am. That's an infringement of my liberty, but I would argue that such a law is nevertheless a good thing. The point becomes even more obvious when you consider laws about things like murder or theft rather than noise ordinances: sure, laws preventing me from randomly killing someone else restrict my liberty, but -- excepting edge cases like self-defense -- isn't it more important that someone else be allowed to live than I be allowed to kill someone just for the lulz?
I'm as tin-foil-hat as the best of 'em here on /. -- read my comment history, if you need proof -- but dude...hyperbole much?
We now have drones flying semi-autonomously, literally spying on people and blowing up "suspected insurgents" (and anyone else who happens to be in a 50 yard radius), and the worst nightmare this guy can come up with is a smartphone that captures position data and maybe a tracking cookie*? Really???
*Yes, I am aware that just because proposition A sucks more than proposition B, that in no way proves that proposition B doesn't suck, too. Nevertheless, it seems to me that armed drones are both much more similar to the robots Asimov predicted and much more dangerous than a cell phone. Therefore, I'm more than a little surprised that cell phones are Moglen's first choice for implementing the Three Laws.
That's very cool -- thanks for sharing the links!
I'm not a huge fan of 'Vettes either :) but they work for purposes of this example. Anyway...
:)
Whether or not you should be able to make an exact copy of a Corvette is the crux of the argument, and here we may simply have to agree to disagree. I believe that if one devotes resources to creating an original design, one is entitled to the benefits (i.e., income) that result from that effort. You, apparently do not see things that way. That's ok, I guess, but IMHO, that viewpoint will disincent others from being creative, and again, IMHO, that's a bad thing.
However, even if we don't agree, it has been enjoyable debating the topic with you. You have done a good job of responding to my arguments with well-reasoned counter-arguments of your own
You say that creating a copy of something I have created is okay because it costs me nothing. I have already invested time and effort into creating something, and therefore there are no additional costs to creating duplicates. Suppose, however, that we were talking about a tangible item. GM, for example, has already sunk the costs into designing and building the shiny, new Corvette on their sales room floor. Therefore, by your logic, GM should only be compensated for the actual materials that were used to build that Corvette? I guarantee you that there is not $111K of raw materials in a 2012 Corvette ZR1 (link to pricing), nor even $50K of raw materials in the base model. Nevertheless, all of us intuitively understand that just because there is only $10-20K of raw materials (just a wild guess; let's just go with that for the sake of the example) in a ZR1 does not mean we can reasonably expect to waltz in to a GM dealer, drop $10-20K on the table and drive out in a brand new ZR1.
Yet that is the moral equivalent of what you are arguing: that because there are no raw materials in a digital work of art and because the technology exists to copy it at essentially zero cost, you should be allowed to make a copy of every song ever written or every movie ever recorded because it costs the artist nothing to produce additional copies. So let me ask you a question. What makes a ZR1 worth $111K, if not the raw materials that go into its construction? And to that, I offer the answer, "the design work and engineering" (as well as the desirability of a top-of-the-line supercar). That design work and engineering is no different than the work it takes to produce a work of art; in fact, the ZR1 *is* a work of art, to some extent, because it is the result of the creative efforts of many, many people, all of whom are investing their time, their energy and their money in a product exactly as an artist invests her time, energy and money into producing digital content. Yes, we have the technology to create essentially unlimited copies of that work, but just because you can doesn't mean it is ethical to do so, any more than it is ethical to drop $10,000 on the Chevy salesman's desk and take the keys to a brand new ZR1 over his objections.
What makes you think that copying is a natural right? Furthermore, you claim that you should have the right to something intangible (content), but state that your boss should compensate you for taking something intangible (time) from you?
Also note that I do not in any size, shape or form disagree with your statement, "Feel free to ask, and be prepared for me to say no to compensating you if I want." I do, however, disagree that you still have a right to a copy of work that I have created if you say no. You are not entitled to the fruit of my labor. If it has value, then I expect to be compensated for it (after all, it took my time, and quite often, my money, to create it); if it does not have value and if you therefore choose not to compensate me for it, then you have no right to help yourself to the fruit of my labor. Period. I may choose to grant you the right to it anyway (and in fact, I have chosen to do that with most -- but certainly not all -- of my creative works, by releasing them in a CC-NC-SA license), but that is my choice to make, not yours. Why do you think that you are entitled to the benefit of my labor unless either we enter into a mutually consensual contract?
I wasn't calling him(?) ignorant, I was answering the question (s)he posed. His argument was ignorant. I could perhaps have made the distinction a little more clear, and for that I apologize. But no, I am not trolling, although I have very little patience for the self-absorbed, entitlement mentality coupled with extremely poor reasoning skills that so many people in this discussion are displaying. Radres then followed it up by being snotty ("How's that for you?"), and perhaps I got a little testy as a result. Again, I apologize.
However, saying that a content creator shouldn't release content to the public if he doesn't want it posted on file-sharing sites is every bit as absurd a statement as the counter-examples I provided. And if you want to say that file-sharing is okay because "that's the world we live in," then I guess you are okay with the **AA's doing what they do because "that's the world we live in" too?
If you would like to provide a logical argument to rebut the points I have made, I am all ears. See Capt. Kangarooski's counter-arguments for a good example of how to debate someone -- I don't entirely agree with him (her?), but (s)he has certainly earned my respect for far, far above average reasoning and logic skills.
What makes you think that is ethical? Did the rich take their money by force? Are they robber barons who use unfair business practices to force the "little guy" into bankruptcy and then jack prices through the roof once they have a monopoly? Once you have not paid for music, what are doing to raise the poor to a better standard of living (or are you just helping yourself, as I suspect)?
Nick Mason, the drummer for Pink Floyd (my all-time favorite band, FWIW) owns a Ferrari Enzo -- that's a car that is so expensive that you can't just go to a Ferrari dealer and buy one. Ferrari has to invite you to buy one. Me? I probably can't even afford an oil filter for Mason's Enzo (okay, I probably can, but you get my point). Nick Mason is clearly far, far richer than I most likely ever will be. My response to that, is "Good on ya', Nick!" He is a very talented musician, he worked hard for his success, and I wish him nothing but the best of luck for the rest of his life.
You are not acting ethically. You are cheating a professional musician (and recording engineer, and mastering engineer, and...) out of the just reward for work they have done, and trying to wrap that in some noble-sounding B.S. to rationalize your unethical behaviour. If you believe the Bono or Justin Bieber or Janet Jackson or Jerry Garcia (yes, I know he is no longer with us -- RIP, Jerry) already have enough money, and you truly believe it is unethical to pay them more money for the right listen to their music, then you have an ethical option: don't consume the product (music) that they produce. But you are not legally or ethically entitled to consume their content and refuse to pay them any more than your employer would be ethically or legally justified to decide that you are already rich enough, so he is going to withhold your wages for the past several weeks and give it to the poor, instead. You worked for that income, you had a reasonable expectation of receiving that income, and your employer would be in the wrong to take it from you and give it to someone less well off than you.
Ignorant.
Let's just get rid of all property laws then. If you don't want someone living in your house, you shouldn't own a house. If you don't want someone driving your car, you shouldn't own a car. That's the world we will live in if we follow your ideals. How's that for you?
You assumed that copyright is ethically good. This may not be true, however, certainly not for all possible permutations of copyright.
Agreed. As it exists today, copyright certainly may be abused in ways that are clearly unethical.
I'd be very interested to know why you think it is good to restrict people's liberties so as to allow a subset of people to make a living in their chosen profession.
Now we are getting down to the point: is it ever ethical to restrict peoples' liberties? If you stop and think about that question for more than about five or ten seconds, then you will realize that the answer has to be, "yes." Any time two or more people live in reasonably close proximity to each other (with "reasonably close" being a term that can only be defined in each particular circumstance), then it is impossible to coexist without impacting each other. If I buy a plot of land, should I be allowed to do whatever I want on it? The Libertarian in me says, "yes." But practical reality says otherwise. If I dump my raw sewage into a river that crosses my property, then that can make people downstream ill. Is it ethical for me to dump raw sewage into the river anyway? Should I be allowed to shoot guns on my property? What if someone builds a house or a school at the border between my property and theirs, near where I am shooting? What if the house or school was there first? All of these things involve placing a restriction on my liberty, but I would argue that all of these restrictions are good. Even though it might prevent me from doing something I might want to do, it is better for society as a whole, and truthfully, it is good for me too, because it prevents other people from placing me in harm's way as well.
In regards to the argument at hand, copyright creates an incentive for people who want to create content to do so. That, in my opinion, is beneficial to society. There are certainly cases where copyright can be abused, and that is, of course, detrimental to society. We've all heard of patent trolls who stifle innovation by filing frivolous lawsuits involving an overly broad patent, of the **AA's using unconscionably heavy-handed tactics to enforce copyright restrictions, etc. I would like to see IP laws changed to address those problems, but the underlying principle of copyright isn't the problem, any more than the underlying principle of society creating laws to safeguard the well-being of others by restricting the rights of landowners to do as they please on their property is an inherently bad idea.
Should we control people in such a way that I can make a living at it? If not, why not?
You are missing the point. It is not about controlling others so that you can make a living at whatever you want. However, society clearly values content, as can be witnessed by the effort people go through to obtain content. However, they are not willing to compensate those who have footed the bill (both in time and in real money) to provide that content. It seems reasonable to me that if one creates content that others desire to consume, then they should be compensated for their efforts and expenses in creating that content. That is what copyright is meant to protect: the right to restrict a created good to those who have compensated the creator for that good.
If you want to convince me that copyright is inherently evil and that intellectual property is an artificial construct which therefore should be free, then you first have to convince me that you have an inherent right to that content and that all the costs of production and distribution are the responsibility of the artists rather than the consumer. Since it seems to me that the consumer is the one who benefits from the consumption of content, then, well, good luck with that.
There's a bridge for sale somewhere, I'm sure. What makes you think they only do ELINT?
I used to work there.
IME, whenever you have a situation like this, the truth is often found somewhere in the middle.
Like you, I abhor a closed, locked-down Internet. That would truly be a tragedy of epic proportions. However, it would also be tragic if we were to instantly lose all concept of intellectual property. The framers of the Constitution were wise enough to see that it is a good thing to protect the intellectual property rights of creative types, and that doing so* provides incentive to continue creating things. The trick now is to find a way to provide reasonable IP protections to the creative types without unduly restricting the single greatest communications medium since the printing press.
*One could argue that we have strayed quite a ways from what the authors of the Constitution envisioned and that our current copyright and IP protection situation is anything but conducive to creativity. I would have to agree. However, as the saying goes, "don't throw out the baby with the bath water." The concept was good; the implementation needs to be tweaked, however.
Huh. I though Lowery was arguing against the greedy people who want content, but don't want to pay for it. My bad.
Using the law to keep your outdated economic model working is far more immoral than me copying your music.
Upon what basis do you make that claim? What is immoral about using protections afforded to me under the law? What is moral about deciding that 1) you don't like the terms for using something that I created (tangible or otherwise), but 2) continuing to use my creation even though you have refused my terms? Do you not understand that if it takes time and money to bring content to you (and it does), then it is reasonable to ask to be compensated for that effort?
Would you still show up at work tomorrow if your boss decided he didn't want to compensate you for your time and effort on his behalf? After all, time isn't property either...
Cool -- so if you hire an architect to design your house, you hire a structural engineer to make sure that it is structurally fit to occupy, and you hire an interior decorator to make the inside beautiful, then you have no problem with me duplicating all of that engineering work so I can build an exact copy of your house?
I take it you've never had to foot the bill for the engineering and design work that goes into building a house before...
Wrong.
Why does your employer pay you to work for him (or her)? The simple answer is, "Because your time is valuable." If your employer wants you to give up some of your time to accomplish her (or his -- you get the picture) goals, then you should be compensated for the loss of your time. Likewise, if a content creator spends his time creating content for your viewing, listening (or whatever) pleasure, then he should be compensated for that time as well. Furthermore, musical instruments cost money to acquire. Strings, drum heads, drum sticks, saxophone reeds, and other gear wear out and need to be replaced, which costs money. Studio time costs *lots* of money. Then there is post-processing, marketing costs, distributing... Do you seriously think that it's fair for content creators to pay out of pocket to create the music and movies that you enjoy? Whether or not the media is or ever was physical property is entirely irrelevant; it costs content creators real money to get content to you, and therefore if you want to continue to enjoy content, it is only fair (and ethical) for them to be rewarded for their efforts.
Are there problems with the current system? You bet. But that in no way invalidates the fact that artists should be compensated for the work they have expended to create content.
I don't agree with everything Lowery said, but his overarching point is valid: a content creator gets to set the terms of use for the content. A content consumer has the choice of complying with those terms or doing without the content. Any alternative choices are unethical.
The fact that the **AA's frequently act unethically in an attempt to enforce those terms has absolutely no bearing on that argument.
Logic fail.
Simply because one has the ability to do something does not mean it is right to do that. If people acted ethically all the time, there would be no need for copyright. However, people clearly do NOT act ethically all the time, and thus copyright was created so that content creators would be able to make a living from the content they create (assuming that it was, in fact, good enough content for people to desire it). If you want content creators to continue producing content, then it is only fair to compensate them for the work (yes, it IS work, even if it's enjoyable work) they went through to create said content.
You can attempt to rationalize your desire to obtain content without paying for it if you choose, but no amount of pseudo-intellectual rambling about "[other people's] rights...[being]...subservient to those of the creative classes..." and "controlling [creative content becoming]...a matter of restricting the liberties of others" will change the fact that if the contract creator releases content under the condition that content consumers will compensate them for their efforts and you choose to obtain that content by ripping tracks from someone else's CDs or copying their digital media, then you are acting unethically.
HREF that somehow ended up missing from my original post: ELINT, sigh...
They won't disappear his family. NSA is tasked strictly with ELINT.
They might, however, provide the intel to CIA to disappear his family, mind you...
On most desktops and some laptops, that's no problem. On other laptops, it's a real PITA to get to the hard drive. If I were worried about this, I'd just use dd to image the drive, myself.
By that logic the only OS we can ever use is Windows.
Not quite. By his(?) logic, the only OS we can ever use is the *EXACT COPY* of Windows sold with the machine.