Ethics and Piracy

[Agathon]

Intellectual property law is designed to promote the creation of valuable information. When it ceases to do so and companies start hoarding it and bribing the government to extend their rights in perpetuity, it's time to revise the law.

This is especially the case with music, where corporations are making a ton of money and never even paying the composers or performers. What kind of incentive is that?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
And what gives a musician the right to charge me for a recording of his, if it is not completely original.

If it isn't original, then he is probably violating a contract HE signed. If not, then he has the right to charge you because you agree to pay! Otherwise, he won't give it to you. He doesn't HAVE to give it to you.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by skywalker
Well, the only laws that I obey are those of Sauron, which are really quite simple: KILL KILL KILL. Think the judge cares?

No, but why would anyone?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

If it isn't original, then he is probably violating a contract HE signed. If not, then he has the right to charge you because you agree to pay! Otherwise, he won't give it to you. He doesn't HAVE to give it to you.

My point is nothing is completely original. That's not how ideas are formed. Given that fact, it seems ridiculously arbitrary to allow someone to charge for something that they have for the most part freely taken from others.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
I could say that about the jokes I tell, but it is impossible for me to seek compensation from everyone who tells someone else my jokes.

No, you couldn't, because you didn't get the person to agree to a contract beforehand. If you did, they would be violating it by telling the joke. However, you would have trouble proving it to a judge.

Besides, it is simply not true that one can contract to do anything. Some contracts (like those involved in organ selling) are automatically void.

So? Are you saying that a contract not to share the music with someone is on par with selling organs?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


So if you buy a CD and you play it for me is it wrong because you'd shared it with me and I enjoyed the music without paying for it?

If the record companies could find a way to make this work, they would be on you in a flash.

But what they really want is for you to rent music rather than own it. So you'd have a net-connected box that charged you 10 cents every time you listened to your favourite Engelbert track.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.

You don't have to physically sign it with a pen. Your agreement with the terms of the contract is implied by listening to the music. And if you dispute the right to contract, then the ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
Intellectual property law is designed to promote the creation of valuable information. When it ceases to do so and companies start hoarding it and bribing the government to extend their rights in perpetuity, it's time to revise the law.

This is especially the case with music, where corporations are making a ton of money and never even paying the composers or performers. What kind of incentive is that?

Seems to me that its the artists (not the government) that should decide what to do to remedy such a situation. They are the ones that willingly sign their lives away to these corporations.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Besides, it is simply not true that one can contract to do anything. Some contracts (like those involved in organ selling) are automatically void.

Yeah, but if you agree to sell someone one of your organs, you can't take the money and then say "oh wait, I'm not allowed to give you my (insert organ here)". They keep the money and you keep the organ. Same for the music - if the contract is void, then you keep the money and they keep the music.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon I could say that about the jokes I tell, but it is impossible for me to seek compensation from everyone who tells someone else my jokes.

No, you couldn't, because you didn't get the person to agree to a contract beforehand. If you did, they would be violating it by telling the joke. However, you would have trouble proving it to a judge.

You don't get it. Information wants to be free. Attempting to restrict it is basically trying to turn it into something else. Whaleboy is right. You can copy the same piece of information an infinite number of times and it will lose none of its quality.

Information by its very nature resists being reduced to property.

Quote:

Besides, it is simply not true that one can contract to do anything. Some contracts (like those involved in organ selling) are automatically void.

So? Are you saying that a contract not to share the music with someone is on par with selling organs?

No. Merely that your blanket assertion was false.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
My point is nothing is completely original. That's not how ideas are formed. Given that fact, it seems ridiculously arbitrary to allow someone to charge for something that they have for the most part freely taken from others.

You aren't "allowing them to charge for it". They have some music that may or may not be original - it doesn't matter. They are not REQUIRED to give a copy of it to you. However, they agree to do so, PROVIDED you agree to something else. If you don't want to agree to that something else, fine, but you can't say they have to give the music to you ANYWAYS.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


You don't get it. Information wants to be free. Attempting to restrict it is basically trying to turn it into something else. Whaleboy is right. You can copy the same piece of information an infinite number of times and it will lose none of its quality.

Information by its very nature resists being reduced to property.

It isn't being turned into property! People are agreeing to give you certain information, PROVIDED you agree not to do certain things with that information. They are not required to give the information (referring here to software and music) to you.

[Akka]

The old debate ^^

Hard to tell, one way or another.

I do understand the fact that inventing, creating, is as much work as factory or crop field work, and so should be rewarded.
I also do understand that you can't create out of the void, and that each creation is inspired by previous others.

I do agree that someone who has invented something, has a moral right to claim it's his. I recognize the inalienable right for a writer to keep his own world, characters, stories, as his personnal property.
I also see that you can't claim ownership on ideas, as concepts are universals and not just yours.

I do agree that taking benefit from other's work without paying them for it is a kind of theft.
I also see that copying something doesn't make anyone poorer, and make someone richer, so it isn't really a theft.


I see the average guy trying to rationalize why he just enjoy everything he can download, without rewarding anyone, ever. I see how many excuse he can make to justify himself and pretend he's in his own right. I see how he is often just motivated by the "I can get it free, so why should I pay ?".

I also see how the RIAA, major disc companies and so on, swear bad words about their lost money, but take measure to fight piracy that put them even below the pirats, and while they cry for the violation of copyright, they don't hesitate a second to violate the rights of consumers in lenght.
They pretend to be victims, but they twist numbers, statistics, pressure to get laws that basically protect them and f*ck the average guy, and try to milk any penny they can by overpricing products, force marketting down our throat, use license recognition to sell crappy product, cut the budgets for creation in favor of budgets for publicity, etc.
They really don't fit the role of a victim.


Anyway, I can't give a definite answer one way or the other, though my heart lean rather on the average guy than the big company.
So well, I use my own personnal judgement. I download all I'm interested in. I hear the music, I play the games, I see the movies.
Then I try to objectively evaluate if it is worth the price it's sold. If I consider that it's the case, I do buy it. If I don't, I do not buy it.
And trust me, I DO buy quite a lot of stuff.
I know that it's not something that can be translated into laws, but well, I'm in peace with my own conscience, I do know I support the people who do a good work, and that I don't reward overpricing products.

I consider I'm acting all right on this one

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
[q] Originally posted by Agathon

People are agreeing to give you certain information, PROVIDED you agree not to do certain things with that information. They are not required to give the information (referring here to software and music) to you.

Provided I don't reproduce it. That certainly sounds like making it property to me.

[Agathon]

More to the point SW. You are trying to claim that it's only a crime if I violate my contract with him. But Whaleboy has pointed out that this won't be sufficient. I could simply take it and there would be no contract. It is only if it is wrong for me to take it without his permission (i.e. it's property) that you can make a case that taking it is wrong.

I think you lose this one.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Provided I don't reproduce it. That certainly sounds like making it property to me.

Does it matter? Are they obligated to give you the information? (No.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
More to the point SW. You are trying to claim that it's only a crime if I violate my contract with him. But Whaleboy has pointed out that this won't be sufficient. I could simply take it and there would be no contract. It is only if it is wrong for me to take it without his permission (i.e. it's property) that you can make a case that taking it is wrong.

I think you lose this one.

No, I don't lose, and yes, you are right. If you steal the CD from the store, you are obviously guilty of theft, and if you hack into a server or whatever, then you are guilty of hacking (or whatever the legal term is for it), but if you download it from someone you AREN'T guilty of anything. The person putting it up for download is guilty of violation of contract.

I would argue it is immoral because you are taking advantage of someone ELSE doing something illegal, but I would not necessarily say the act of downloading is illegal.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd like to add something (though this is completely SEPERATE from my other arguments): on second thought, (knowingly) downloading music that is provided through a breach of contract should also be illegal, by the same rationale as the law against buying stolen goods. Please note that I am NOT saying music = goods or breach of contract = theft. The rationale behind the law is that you are deriving benefits from someone else's crime (just like how VIEWING child pornography is illegal, even though you aren't the one taking pictures of naked children).

[Agathon]

No, you've missed the point. You said that it is only wrong when I have made a contract with the person not to share it.

But if someone voluntarily leaves a CD on the street and I rip it and share it, I have accepted no contract. The person leaving it has done nothing wrong. My distributing it is only wrong if we assume that the creator or the publisher has a right to prevent it being distributed without their consent irrespective of whether anyone else contracts not to do so. That is equivalent to a property right.

Now you said that it wasn't being turned into property. The fact that this case would be prosecuted shows that it is.

Consider the case of a wallet. Someone drops it by accident and I pick it up. But it's not mine to keep under the law because it's not my property. It's also not mine to give to anyone else because it's not my property. It doesn't matter if I don't have a contract with the wallet-dropper, it's not mine.

If you want to make the CD case the same as the wallet case, you are treating the information as property. It is only if it is a form of property that sharing it when you have no contract with the vendor is considered illegal.

You can either admit that information is considered property by the law, or change your mind on the wrongness of sharing information. You can't have it both ways.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'd like to add something (though this is completely SEPERATE from my other arguments): on second thought, (knowingly) downloading music that is provided through a breach of contract should also be illegal, by the same rationale as the law against buying stolen goods. Please note that I am NOT saying music = goods or breach of contract = theft. The rationale behind the law is that you are deriving benefits from someone else's crime (just like how VIEWING child pornography is illegal, even though you aren't the one taking pictures of naked children).

But if the original buyer leaves his CD on the street (maybe it's a Mariah Carey CD and he hates it) he has done nothing prohibited by the contract, and I by picking it up have not entered into a contract either. Hence your argument doesn't fit this case.

[Agathon]

So does the law treat information as property or not?

[General Ludd]

My contribution: Intellectual property is baloney.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
But if the original buyer leaves his CD on the street (maybe it's a Mariah Carey CD and he hates it) he has done nothing prohibited by the contract, and I by picking it up have not entered into a contract either. Hence your argument doesn't fit this case.

actually, you have. By picking it up and using it, you have become a licensee and are subject to any licensee agreements.

[Whaleboy]

Not in this world

Too bad for this world. Mine's better

why? the point is that if you act according to a rule that makes sense for you ONLY if other people DONT act according that rule, then your action makes sense ONLY if you arbitrarily privilege yourself.

But my rule does not rely on others not following it. Or do you mean the bit where I said that my actions wont impact on their coffers too much? That is true you have a fair point. Kant still sucks arse.

Silly things like intellectual property laws really have no bearing on this discussion. Such laws are only the product of the ego, of people who are too concerned with material things.

This is true.

Well, the only laws that I obey are those of Sauron, which are really quite simple: KILL KILL KILL. Think the judge cares?

Think we care if the judge cares?

This is especially the case with music, where corporations are making a ton of money and never even paying the composers or performers. What kind of incentive is that?

A lucrative one, especially when you consider that in the media you have the views and socialisation of millions of young and old in your fat grubby little hands.

You don't have to physically sign it with a pen. Your agreement with the terms of the contract is implied by listening to the music. And if you dispute the right to contract, then the ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS.

But the contract to me is irrelevant. I buy a cd, god forbid, put it in my player and listen to it. I am paying nearly £15 for a plastic circle. I consider the information on it free and if there is a method to extract a copy of that information and obtain it for free, I shall. No amount of contractual masturbation is going to change my view, quite simply, I am merely paying my money for the material, and an agreement that I do not believe in (and have not signed) is irrelevant to me. I would only agree to buy the disk under the condition that I would not copy it etc if there were consequences should I break that contract. Luckily for me, as of yet, the record companies have not impeded on me.

Put simply, in other words, the small print means nothing to me. The music does. The disk is the means to that end, and if I find a better and cheaper means, I shall use it. I can say this because like Agathon, I make the distinction between information and material resources (infinite and finite respectively).

Seems to me that its the artists (not the government) that should decide what to do to remedy such a situation. They are the ones that willingly sign their lives away to these corporations.

There will always be artists, and in a rut, I can pick up a guitar

Yeah, but if you agree to sell someone one of your organs, you can't take the money and then say "oh wait, I'm not allowed to give you my (insert organ here)". They keep the money and you keep the organ. Same for the music - if the contract is void, then you keep the money and they keep the music.

No, because unless you have a little skywalker farm, your organs are a finite resource.

Information by its very nature resists being reduced to property.

You aren't "allowing them to charge for it". They have some music that may or may not be original - it doesn't matter. They are not REQUIRED to give a copy of it to you. However, they agree to do so, PROVIDED you agree to something else. If you don't want to agree to that something else, fine, but you can't say they have to give the music to you ANYWAYS.

And I quite happily break that agreement. I do so on two grounds: the first that it is a stupid agreement by me, and the second that it is an illogical notion to maintain. I have no puerile sense of honour to the RIAA or BPI, so I'm happy to break it, and admit that in the open. I am happy to take advantage of others that concur via services like Limewire or Kazaa.

It isn't being turned into property! People are agreeing to give you certain information, PROVIDED you agree not to do certain things with that information. They are not required to give the information (referring here to software and music) to you.

See above. They release it into the public, they cannot restrict it, they lose control over it. They release it into the public domain, ideally I should be able to snap my fingers and have it waiting pert and firm on my hard drive.

Provided I don't reproduce it. That certainly sounds like making it property to me.

Agreed. An attempt to exercise control on it I would argue is a definition of property? Any better ones?

More to the point SW. You are trying to claim that it's only a crime if I violate my contract with him. But Whaleboy has pointed out that this won't be sufficient. I could simply take it and there would be no contract. It is only if it is wrong for me to take it without his permission (i.e. it's property) that you can make a case that taking it is wrong.

Absolutely, and no-one here is advocating walking into HMV or Virgin Megastore's and walking out two Cheeky Girl's heavier...

Does it matter? Are they obligated to give you the information? (No.)

I hope I have established that this does not matter. They released it in public. I'll do the rest.

No, I don't lose, and yes, you are right. If you steal the CD from the store, you are obviously guilty of theft, and if you hack into a server or whatever, then you are guilty of hacking (or whatever the legal term is for it), but if you download it from someone you AREN'T guilty of anything.

So far so good.

he person putting it up for download is guilty of violation of contract.

But the premise for that contract has seemingly been demolished by a sociopathic philosophy teacher who sends hatemail to those who dare tinker with the G5, and a stoned philosophy student who spends his spare time writing lesbian erotica. Catch my drift?

The rationale behind the law is that you are deriving benefits from someone else's crime (just like how VIEWING child pornography is illegal, even though you aren't the one taking pictures of naked children).

That is a flawed law, an idiotic attempt to sting those who have the demand, whereas it is those continuing the supply that are perpetrating the crime.

Of course, child abuse is a clear cut crime, aiding the distribution of information most certainly is not and should not be viewed as such.

But if the original buyer leaves his CD on the street (maybe it's a Mariah Carey CD and he hates it) he has done nothing prohibited by the contract, and I by picking it up have not entered into a contract either. Hence your argument doesn't fit this case.

That is a good point. But one does not pick up a Mariah Carey CD. Have I just refuted moral relativism?

Akka has illustrated something useful here. People often download stuff and then buy it, indeed those that download are more likely to buy!! The falling profits of the record companies may well be due to drastically lower singles sales, as albums become more important, and rightly so imo. Also consider that people can shop around, for example, for those in the UK, cd-wow.com will send cd's from Hong Kong iirc, for £9 or thereabouts, instead of £14 or £15.

The RIAA and BPI's primary concern is not copyrights, it is not IP or the fate of the artists, because they know they're safe. Their primary concern is the money going to their shareholders, as is the case with all such companies. They would trample over liberty, logical consistency and what is best for the consumer to that end. Don't fool yourselves as to the motivations at work here.

But yes, do right by your own conscience and you do right by me (and don't push that, the attack there is tired).

[Whaleboy]

So does the law treat information as property or not?

Not sure. This is a thread about ethics, not legality.

My contribution: Intellectual property is baloney.

actually, you have. By picking it up and using it, you have become a licensee and are subject to any licensee agreements.

Well that's just stupid!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

actually, you have. By picking it up and using it, you have become a licensee and are subject to any licensee agreements.

Then the law is obviously absurd. I have signed no contract, nor made any agreement with anyone.

Imagine if someone treated garden implements this way. For example I go down to the dump and find an old hoe. The idea that by picking up and hoeing with it, I magically make a contract with someone else is ridiculous.

Inanimate objects cannot be party to contracts, nor force them on others.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
No, you've missed the point. You said that it is only wrong when I have made a contract with the person not to share it.

But if someone voluntarily leaves a CD on the street and I rip it and share it, I have accepted no contract. The person leaving it has done nothing wrong. My distributing it is only wrong if we assume that the creator or the publisher has a right to prevent it being distributed without their consent irrespective of whether anyone else contracts not to do so. That is equivalent to a property right.

If the person owned the CD and you kept it, you stole it If the person gave you the CD he is either a) violating the contract or b) (if the contract is transferable) giving you the contract along with the CD.

Now you said that it wasn't being turned into property. The fact that this case would be prosecuted shows that it is.

Consider the case of a wallet. Someone drops it by accident and I pick it up. But it's not mine to keep under the law because it's not my property. It's also not mine to give to anyone else because it's not my property. It doesn't matter if I don't have a contract with the wallet-dropper, it's not mine.

If you want to make the CD case the same as the wallet case, you are treating the information as property. It is only if it is a form of property that sharing it when you have no contract with the vendor is considered illegal.

The CD is a PHYSICAL OBJECT. It is not possible to leave vibrations in the air on the ground.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
But if the original buyer leaves his CD on the street (maybe it's a Mariah Carey CD and he hates it) he has done nothing prohibited by the contract, and I by picking it up have not entered into a contract either. Hence your argument doesn't fit this case.

Just remember that is a seperate argument

Though this sort of situation would apply to the other things I mentioned too (stolen goods, child porn) - if someone left pictures of naked children on the ground, would it be illegal? I don't know.

[Agathon]

ideally I should be able to snap my fingers and have it waiting pert and firm on my hard drive.

Now we know what you've been downloading.

[Kuciwalker]

Think we care if the judge cares?

My point is that your personal morality is not a legal excuse for evading the law. You are a relativist - you know arguing actual MORALITY is pointless.