All this talk about unanswered posts are BS. I've personally answered half of them, and my responses have gone ignored. I shall now ask a simple question, for at least the fourth time in this topic alone...
Does Nina Paley have the right to earn a living off of her magnum opus, Sita Sings the Blues? Does she have the right to ask for any sum of money in exchange for this work?
http://blog.ninapaley.com/
http://sitasingstheblues.com/
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 11. (Read 105837 times)
If you've got arguments that address the issues highlighted in this post, please use them. Otherwise,
Wait, what? That was a serious post? Do you have issues with the multiple meanings of English words?
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP?
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws.
The above paragraph is an obvious contradiction. The enforcement of IP laws implies the use of force. The NAP is in direct contradition of the initiation of use of force. Harm avoidance is a practical goal, it is not a principle. The use of government force to avoid harm to a subset of the population necessarily increases harm on some other subset of the population. So the question then becomes, who is initiating force in this 'harm avoidance' situation? Does the teenager who downloads a bootleg copy of a film via bittorrent threaten or attack the copyright owner in any meaningful way? Obviously not. He doesn't even prevent the copyright owner from doing with the data what he intended to in the first place, nor is he likely to spend money that he doesn't have on a copy, so he can't even be causing the copyright holder a loss of revenue. So who is initiating the use of force?
...snip...
The moral foundation is well established. We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm. If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.
The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.
The moral foundation is well established. We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm. If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.
The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
What is society? Is it the entire population that resides within a particular set of imaginarly lines on a map?
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP?
No.
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
It doesn't matter why, because the motives are personal. It's provablely true that a large number of people will pay money for a game available free of charge, legally and without consequence. The Humble Bundle series are evidence enough that people will contribute millions of dollars toward quality, independent game development without even an expected minimum donation.
Exactly! There is no need to change the law for people to make free games.
Some of us choose to make proprietary programs. If you don't like that, stick with the freebies.
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws...
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
You really like this society concept. Could we not say that at a minimum, society is comprised of at least 2 people? It's small I know, but still true. Can we not also say that it only requires one person to create law? Now given the above, it would seem obvious that the law(s) created shouldn't favor the one person over the other, because by doing so, the one individual could gain an economic advantage over the other.
This advantage could eventually lead to the other person eventually losing his property to the other individual due to his cunning manipulation of the law. This typically results in different classes of individuals. Now I ask you, should the one individual be esteemed higher than the other, under the law? No doubt the individuals are unique and have different skill sets, but should there be privileges bestowed via force of law?
...snip...
Fred - try to stick to one point per post. I feel bad snipping stuff you spent time on.
Any law favours one person over another. One guy says "All property is theft." Another says "Stop stealing my car." The law must choose between them. Now you may feel that it gets the balance wrong but a choice must be made and someone is going to end up feeling hard done by.
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
It doesn't matter why, because the motives are personal. It's provablely true that a large number of people will pay money for a game available free of charge, legally and without consequence. The Humble Bundle series are evidence enough that people will contribute millions of dollars toward quality, independent game development without even an expected minimum donation.
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others.
It doesn't matter that you do it or many others. You and many others may in fact be two percent of what sales might be.
Or why, if intellectual property really was just like physical property, that it should have an expiration date? That would be like the government deciding from one day to the next that your ownership of your house, isn't for life (or transferable to your heirs and assigns), but could expire next week. I mean seriously, how would you feel if your "representative" sent an agent to confiscate your property because they decided the expiration date was in a few days? What makes them so important to decide this matter? From whence comes their privilege? I surely wouldn't give it to them. Oh yeah, the majority thought it was a good idea. Why is the majority deciding what to do with my property again? Why should the majority be voting on what to do with my property in the first place?
Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it?
Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated?
Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it?
Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated?
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others.
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws...
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
You really like this society concept. Could we not say that at a minimum, society is comprised of at least 2 people? It's small I know, but still true. Can we not also say that it only requires one person to create law? Now given the above, it would seem obvious that the law(s) created shouldn't favor the one person over the other, because by doing so, the one individual could gain an economic advantage over the other.
This advantage could eventually lead to the other person eventually losing his property to the other individual due to his cunning manipulation of the law. This typically results in different classes of individuals. Now I ask you, should the one individual be esteemed higher than the other, under the law? No doubt the individuals are unique and have different skill sets, but should there be privileges bestowed via force of law?
Is there a logical reason why there should be any inequitable application of law? Should one man's property be given any greater privilege than the other man? Remember, the property is just combinations of atoms or molecules in an infinite number of configurations. Why should any specific interpretation of that property obtain special privilege and status? Should not the division of property be one of a physical nature? To wit, shouldn't the property you have, be of any configuration you choose?
Should we also not want to violate or invade any individuals physical property or person? If property can be defined beyond the physical and chemical characteristics, then by mere interpretation, one individual can obtain the property of another by description alone. If it is to be assumed that the composition of matter is what determines property, then any combination or permutation could gain favored status and confiscatory powers; and why should some compositions gain privilege and not others?
Or why, if intellectual property really was just like physical property, that it should have an expiration date? That would be like the government deciding from one day to the next that your ownership of your house, isn't for life (or transferable to your heirs and assigns), but could expire next week. I mean seriously, how would you feel if your "representative" sent an agent to confiscate your property because they decided the expiration date was in a few days? What makes them so important to decide this matter? From whence comes their privilege? I surely wouldn't give it to them. Oh yeah, the majority thought it was a good idea. Why is the majority deciding what to do with my property again? Why should the majority be voting on what to do with my property in the first place?
Don't you find it just a bit disconcerting, that an individual should have to fear losing his property because millions of "sanctioned" compositions might in some way resemble what others have created? Should I as an individual, have to research these millions of compositions before I proceed to modify what is in my possession? Does it not also seem a bit odd that I could be completely unaware that I'm breaking a law at any moment in time whilst in the privacy of my abode? How does one break a law without being able to measure it, or being aware of it?
Why should describing and registering a composition automatically put me in the precarious situation of law-breaker? Is law really this complicated?
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)
In our case, its because our stuff has online elements that require a server. With commercial software, its because the cracker wants to appear legit.
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
Considering the continuing increase of illegal downloading, and more and more people not considering downloading or copying music/movies a crime (especially among the youngest/future generation), I think society disagrees with you.
Indiciduals copying movies or games is not a huge issue. In most countries, that's covered by laws allowing back-ups. They are mostly people who would never have bought the movie or game in the first place.
Its individuals who make copies and sell them that are the more serious problem. If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game. I don't see people supporting that. Same applies to movie theater owners charging the public for access to a movie but not paying royalties. That would kill the movie industry. And I don't see people supporting that either. Its the profiteering from copying that the law makes hard and I think that's fair.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
Considering the continuing increase of illegal downloading, and more and more people not considering downloading or copying music/movies a crime (especially among the youngest/future generation), I think society disagrees with you.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP slavery ANY laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP slavery ANY law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
I can use strikethrough too. Does that prove anything?
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP slavery laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP slavery law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP?
Its NAP done properly. People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm. If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws.
...snip...
The moral foundation is well established. We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm. If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.
The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.
The moral foundation is well established. We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm. If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.
The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.
That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it. Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question. It's a practical question. But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?" The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes. So which is the moral cause? Neither. Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
I don't wish to debate the nuances of how plagiarism is a subset of copying.
You don't even understand the difference between copying and plagiarism, do you? There are no nuances here, they are completely different things.
Also, you better not demand anyone respond to your "arguments" (I literally lol'd typing that) anymore, or else I will arrive quickly to call you out for being a hypocrite.
I made some posts. They went unanswered. Rather than make new posts, I pointed to them, indicating that they could be addressed. You then did make some posts addressing my posts. Then you demanded I answer them. I opted to answer them in a way I saw fit given my current level of mental energy, time and desire.
Take it as you will.
Jump to: