Copyright Infringement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 11:15 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
Would it be immoral for someone to tell you EVERY minute detail of a movie that they purchased a ticket to see? And I mean every detail... So that the understanding of the movie you get is the same as if you had watched and heard it yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(08-10-2013 11:15 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Would it be immoral for someone to tell you EVERY minute detail of a movie that they purchased a ticket to see? And I mean every detail... So that the understanding of the movie you get is the same as if you had watched and heard it yourself?

Sorry, but that's stupid.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
The problem isn't that you have seen a movie, or listened to a song. Hell, whenever I want to listen to a song I want to hear that I don't have in my library, it takes me about 17 seconds to look it up on youtube and have it streaming right to my computer legally.

I'll be honest, I've streamed a movie or eight. Though I never have downloaded anything to have and to hold and share.

To say that it isn't stealing is dishonest. You can justify it however you want to, at the end of the day it still is what it is. If there is a law against it, it's illegal. And there's a good reason for it. Yes, I've broken this law, and I'm likely to break it again. But if it's something I truly appreciate and want to support, I pay for it. It's no longer a matter of convenience, it's a matter of respect and courtesy to the artist.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
It's also a matter of old laws protecting old business models. Considering the law a source of morality is a serious mistake, too often the best thing to do is to break the law.

Don't forget the right to access cultural and scientific works.

There is an unbalance between the right to profit and the right to access these stuff. And polarizing the debate screaming THIEF is not going to solve anything.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
09-10-2013, 12:05 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2013 12:09 AM by ELK12695.)
RE: Copyright Infringement
(08-10-2013 07:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 07:08 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  @Chas, What's your point?

I am appalled that people think that they have a right to other people's property without payment.

Well, that means you break the law every time you listen to a song on Youtube that isn't Vevo.

Your ideas on this issue stopped working ten years ago.

Were taking over this town




[Image: 9f6.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 12:05 AM)nach_in Wrote:  There is an unbalance between the right to profit and the right to access these stuff. And polarizing the debate screaming THIEF is not going to solve anything.

True enough. So where do we draw the line?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 12:30 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 12:05 AM)nach_in Wrote:  It's also a matter of old laws protecting old business models.

The old business models at least gave the artist some protection. We have moved so fast into the information age that giving the artist what is due has been dropped by the wayside and run over. It is what it is, I agree. I just happen to think it's bullshit.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:33 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(08-10-2013 11:26 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 11:15 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Would it be immoral for someone to tell you EVERY minute detail of a movie that they purchased a ticket to see? And I mean every detail... So that the understanding of the movie you get is the same as if you had watched and heard it yourself?

Sorry, but that's stupid.

Yes... Because its improbable? Yup. But if it happened I couldn't call it immoral... And if you then conveyed with 100% accuracy the movie to someone else, would that be immoral? How about swapping the brains in this scenario for computers? Why is it suddenly immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:10 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
The key social contract question here is: What system maximises both the production of creative works and enables their consumption? Which system offers the creator fair compensation for their time and energy, while also minimising the cost to potential consumers of the work?

A piracy-only model entirely displaces the rights and interests of the content creator with the rights of the consumer. A classical create-and-recoup model based on copyright sales in many cases unfairly limits access to creative works. I like a "subbable" model where those who can pay and choose to pay fund the creative process, while those without the means or inclination are still able to access the work.

That said, I prefer competition to drive the market to rights-balancing business models. I prefer consumers who are unwilling to abide by the terms offered to them go another producer of material. Piracy ends up just propping up the existing model rather than robbing them of an audience. In order to adequately support those who are building the new business models it is necessary for a significant portion of the consumer base to withdraw from traditional copyright markets - not just withdraw from paying but to withdraw from consuming.

So is it immoral to pirate? Yes, if:
1. The content producer is not being adequately compensated, for example a high cost work is not able to deliver competitive return on investment compared to alternative asset classes.
2. An unfair and rights-imbalanced system is allowed to continue longer than it should

We have already seen this transition happen with software. We now depend on free and open source software either directly or as components of commercial works. A big part of that successful transition has been a customer base that stepped away from piracy to embrace a more competitive and rights-balanced marketplace. The same thing is happening with music and film assets with creative commons and with more innovative business models. In order for the transition to be successful it's important that a significant subset of consumers transition from consuming traditional works either legally or by piracy and switch to supporting the new marketplace.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
09-10-2013, 04:30 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 12:05 AM)nach_in Wrote:  It's also a matter of old laws protecting old business models. Considering the law a source of morality is a serious mistake, too often the best thing to do is to break the law.

Don't forget the right to access cultural and scientific works.

There is an unbalance between the right to profit and the right to access these stuff. And polarizing the debate screaming THIEF is not going to solve anything.

It's not about business models, and there is no right to other people's creations.

You can disagree with the details of the laws, but to assert a non-existent right is disingenuous.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: