Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

I just don't think the law should help him convince those people by illegalizing file sharing. We should be able to configure our computers however we want, and we should be able to make copies of anything we buy and distribute those copies in a non-profit fashion if we so desire. I value the right to do that more than I value any book written purely for profit (or song made purely for profit, etc). Don't you?

I certainly agree that my rights as a consumer, computer-owner, and internet-user are more important than anyone's desire to fairly blatantly violate the fourth amendment, but I also feel it's obvious that a good majority of digital entertainment being shared is done so with no intention of ever compensating the creators, making it in every way equivalent to theft. Do you disagree?

I disagree. True musicians create their music not for profit but from an inner need to create. If they can earn a living out of it, well then that is just icing on the cake. What you are really trying to protect are record company executive whores who leech off of their creations.

Some artists have even gone so far as to go "anti-copyright," actively supporting fans sharing their music for free.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Fox wrote:

Yes, I disagree. Theft requires you to lose something from your possession.

This is why I feel the traditional definition of theft is antiquated in a society where goods and services can be copied and transferred electronically. I see no good reason for theft to be anything less than taking into possession or using something belonging to someone else without permission. If not theft, then some other term to cover this moral wrong.

Quote:

If I copy a file onto my computer, you've lost nothing you ever possessed. And no, the old, "But he's lost a sale!" line doesn't work, both because he never possessed the sale, and because many file-sharers would never under any circumstances have paid the outrageous asking prices for the material in question anyway.

Whether a direct sale has been lost is irrelevant, as the use of downloaded digital entertainment inevitably leads to a loss of value traded. This may make it inappropriate for any one individual to claim restitution for an 'illegally' downloaded file, but a theft of value has occurred nonetheless.

Quote:

Protesters who turn away customers could be legitimately accused of theft!

Protestors employed by a competitor for the purpose of diverting sales? Yes. Otherwise, no, as they have taken possession of nothing.

Quote:

This conceit that artists, writers, singers (and the companies that they ultimately work for) are somehow entitled to compensation [...] is not something I think stands up to analysis, but is rather just a dubious notion that modern industry has used to justify laws that allow them to more effectively "fleece the flock."

I see very little worth in a moral code that asserts that I can freely use anything created by anyone without providing any compensation so long as I have not physically transferred property into my possession. That makes sneaking into movies, jumping the fences at ballparks and zoos, swimming in a neighbor's pool, etc* permissible so long as my presence does not in any way disturb anyone else.

*Yes, these are all examples of trespassing, but the wrong is not simply stepping onto someone else's property without permission.

Quote:

(especially whatever compensation they arbitrarily deem a given work is worth)

We're talking about entertainment products here. If the asking price is too high, then don't use it.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Space Bar wrote:

I disagree. True musicians create their music not for profit but from an inner need to create.

No, a musician is anyone who creates or plays music. The dictionary agrees.

Quote:

What you are really trying to protect are record company executive whores who leech off of their creations.

I'm not trying to protect anyone. I said in my first post here that I disagree with any limitations on file sharing, but for reasons other than merely sticking it to The Man. Also note that not all records are sold through "record company executive whores who leech off of their creations." At least that's not how I would describe Trent Reznor.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject:

Solution: outlaw copies.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

Yes, I disagree. Theft requires you to lose something from your possession.

The idea you're supporting here is exactly what modern corporations want the average person to come to accept, and it will cause more social harm than good if accepted by the population at large. In fact, it all ready is, while simultaneously bringing about no social good.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

Whether a direct sale has been lost is irrelevant, as the use of downloaded digital entertainment inevitably leads to a loss of value traded.

No one has a right to "value." It's time for our society to stop worrying itself so much about "value" and start worrying more about the unlivable hellhole we're creating, where we aren't even allowed to use things we purchased in the way we'd like. Where we aren't even allowed to share our property with our friends, because it was merely "licensed" to us. Where every product we buy comes with an agreement the size of a small novel which can essentially be distilled into "Go to Hell, we the company can do what we want," in legalese.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

Protesters who turn away customers could be legitimately accused of theft!

Protestors employed by a competitor for the purpose of diverting sales? Yes. Otherwise, no, as they have taken possession of nothing.

So it's not theft as long as you yourself gain nothing? So a person who buys a copy of your music and distributes it isn't stealing, because although he's "diluting value," he's gaining nothing? And in turn, a person who receives the song but doesn't distribute it isn't stealing, because although he's gained something, since he's not perpetuating distribution, he's not himself "diluting the makers value," and thus not personally costing the maker anything?

I'm sure you won't accept that, but let's be realistic: the intellectual hoops one has to jump through to turn a person downloading something he'd never have considered purchasing and then not sharing it with anyone else into theft simply aren't worth the trouble, and all you get at the end of the process is an abusive social system which hurts most of society and benefits a small set of elite, most of whom didn't even create the artistic work in the first place.

No thanks.

geldedgoat wrote:

In what sense are you using the term "worth" here? In terms of social benefit, it provides a lot of worth. It discourages -- however mildly -- the creation of trashy "culture for profit," it prevents millions of people from being classified as criminals, it allows for more overall creative expression (since you're free to utilize the work of others in your own work), and it causes no real harm at all to anyone except a tiny elite who we have no real reason to reward so excessively anyway.

What's the downside? Maybe I'm being too utilitarian in this, but the capitalistic principles which you're seemingly invoking to attempt to defend the makers "right to value" are honestly somewhat repugnant to me, so they aren't going to find much purchase in my thoughts.

geldedgoat wrote:

That makes sneaking into movies, jumping the fences at ballparks and zoos, swimming in a neighbor's pool, etc* permissible so long as my presence does not in any way disturb anyone else.

*Yes, these are all examples of trespassing, but the wrong is not simply stepping onto someone else's property without permission.

Yes, actually, the wrong is simply stepping onto someone else's property without permission. In order for a system which incorporates private land ownership to work, one must have sufficient dominion over said land to determine who does or doesn't enter it. As such, trespassing laws clearly work towards social benefit, since at least some private management of land is socially beneficial.

By contrast, nothing about art, music, books, or so forth require anti-file sharing laws. No social benefit is acquired by outlawing file sharing, and said laws have social drawbacks as well, including, but not limited to:

1) Additional, needless litigation which wastes valuable court time and serves to only further enrich the all ready rich.
2) The needless use of taxpayer funds and government employee time combating "piracy."
3) The criminalization of a huge percentage of our society.
4) The progressive stripping of property rights from consumers, first by banning sharing and copying of our own goods, and then by removing ownership entirely and replacing it with "licenses."
5) Fewer people gaining enjoyment from products they'd like to use.

And all in return for what?

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

(especially whatever compensation they arbitrarily deem a given work is worth)

We're talking about entertainment products here. If the asking price is too high, then don't use it.

Who does that benefit, exactly? It doesn't benefit me, it doesn't really benefit the creator. It benefits no one. I find this attitude impossible to empathize with.

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

geldedgoat wrote:

Space Bar wrote:

I disagree. True musicians create their music not for profit but from an inner need to create.

No, a musician is anyone who creates or plays music. The dictionary agrees.

Note I said "true musicians," not just anyone playing muzak for profit.

Apparently you have never known any. I have known some to whom it was more important than food, drugs, or sex.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

What social harm has been caused by the belief that people should be compensated for their work? I see harm caused by the belief that the pursuit of said compensation is more important than any consumer rights, but that's not the argument I've made.

Quote:

No one has a right to "value."

How do you defend this? I own X, but I have no right to the value of X?

Quote:

It's time for our society to stop worrying itself so much about "value" and start worrying more about the unlivable hellhole we're creating, where we aren't even allowed to use things we purchased in the way we'd like. Where we aren't even allowed to share our property with our friends, because it was merely "licensed" to us. Where every product we buy comes with an agreement the size of a small novel which can essentially be distilled into "Go to Hell, we the company can do what we want," in legalese.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that a good bit of our disagreement here stems from the mistaken assumption that I support the prosecution of consumers that have 'illegally' downloaded electronic entertainment. I do not. I believe you should have every right to download whatever music, video, or game file you want with impunity. However, the use (not just storage) of these files as anything other than backup copies or demos for the consideration of future purchase, is immoral. My argument is one of morality, not legality.

Quote:

So it's not theft as long as you yourself gain nothing? So a person who buys a copy of your music and distributes it isn't stealing, because although he's "diluting value," he's gaining nothing?

If you distribute copies for the express purpose to have others use them with no intention of ever compensating the author, then you are an accomplice to theft.

Quote:

And in turn, a person who receives the song but doesn't distribute it isn't stealing, because although he's gained something, since he's not perpetuating distribution, he's not himself "diluting the makers value," and thus not personally costing the maker anything?

If you use a copy with no intention of ever compensating the author, you have gained entertainment value without paying for it. This example shows how your position does social harm. An individual who would otherwise have to pay for entertainment (or work to eventually have enough to pay) has either directly deprived the creator of compensation (assuming the music, video, game, etc would have been purchased) or has deprived the entertainment community as a whole of compensation (assuming the individual prefers to be entertained, which, considering he has downloaded and used some form of entertainment, is a safe assumption to make).

If we assert that this is morally permissible, then everyone can and will act similarly. Why pay for something if you don't have to, according to both law and morality? We would then have a universal population that refuses to compensate creators of any entertainment for their work. What do you think will happen next?

Quote:

In what sense are you using the term "worth" here? It discourages -- however mildly -- the creation of trashy "culture for profit,"

I'd rather not adhere to a moral code that attempts to universally define aesthetics.

Quote:

it prevents millions of people from being classified as criminals

It's perfectly possible to hold both the belief that using someone else's work without compensating him is wrong and the belief that our consumer rights stand in the way of any agency pursuing said compensation.

Quote:

it allows for more overall creative expression

No, it does immeasurable harm to overall creative expression, as many artists would no longer be able to pursue their work as a wage-earning trade.

Quote:

(since you're free to utilize the work of others in your own work)

Doesn't the doctrine of fair use already allow this anyway? The only people I see this helping are advertising execs who would be able to use even more Beatles songs in their commercials.

Quote:

and it causes no real harm at all to anyone except a tiny elite who we have no real reason to reward so excessively anyway.

Again, if you don't want to reward them, then don't. Spend your money on other forms of entertainment. But I still don't see why you feel entitled to all electronically copyable entertainment.

Quote:

Yes, actually, the wrong is simply stepping onto someone else's property without permission.

Legally, yes, but, again, my argument is not one of legality.

Space Bar wrote:

Note I said "true musicians," not just anyone playing muzak for profit.

Sorry, but no.

Quote:

Apparently you have never known any. I have known some to whom it was more important than food, drugs, or sex.

So the only music you listen to is that of street performers who refuse any and all donations?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:28 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

What social harm has been caused by the belief that people should be compensated for their work?

1) Erosion of consumer property rights via ridiculous "licensing" systems.
2) Legal harassment of average citizens by the ultra-wealthy in order to attempt to further enrich themselves and scare the populace.
3) The criminalization of millions of average citizens to no one's benefit.
4) The illegalization of sharing things you enjoy with your friends.
5) The massive enrichment of non-creators and their subsequent use of that wealth to further engineer the law in their favor.

I could go on, but why? It's fairly obvious after some basic consideration the idea you're expressing, while it seems innocuous and even common-sensical on the surface, leads to social problems -- while solving none -- when applied to computer data, written words, or anything else intangible.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

No one has a right to "value."

How do you defend this? I own X, but I have no right to the value of X?

Value is an intangible, abstract quality that we as humans attribute to objects, not properties of objects in themselves. It says something about us, not something about objects in-and-of themselves. As such, claiming someone has a right to "value" is silly; how much value you place on something is 100% at your discretion, and how much value others place on it is 100% at theirs, and you have no right to a say with regards to the latter.

If distribution of songs, books, or so forth reduces the value other people place on your work, that's just tough luck, because you don't have any right to others placing a certain amount of value on your work.

geldedgoat wrote:

I'm arguing for both the morality and legality of these simultaneously. One cannot truly separate the two; if the average person considers it immoral, companies will utilize that belief to convince legislators to make it illegal. Further, I don't think it is immoral, because I don't appeal to abstract, set in stone principles to derive my morality, but rather the end results brought about by holding certain ethical notions. I've seen the results of people holding the notion that file sharing is ethically wrong, and I don't like them. They make the world a worse place in some ways, while doing nothing to improve it in other ways.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

So it's not theft as long as you yourself gain nothing? So a person who buys a copy of your music and distributes it isn't stealing, because although he's "diluting value," he's gaining nothing?

If you distribute copies for the express purpose to have others use them with no intention of ever compensating the author, then you are an accomplice to theft.

And presumably that's because you've reduced the author's "value" in the process, yes? Then we're back to picketing being ethically equivalent to theft: even if you don't benefit from it yourself, the person or corporation in question loses "value."

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

If you use a copy with no intention of ever compensating the author, you have gained entertainment value without paying for it.

And if I walk down the street and see a beautiful woman, I've gained aesthetic value without paying for it. So what? This idea that anytime we derive value, we should compensate someone isn't something I subscribe to. My advice to an author is the same as my advice to the pretty woman who paints herself with makeup to look nice: if you don't want people benefiting, don't do what will benefit them. If the woman doesn't want people freely benefiting from her aesthetic value, then she shouldn't use makeup. If the author doesn't want people freely benefiting from his entertainment value, he shouldn't write. That's ultimately what it comes down to.

Yes, this makes writing, song-writing, and so forth less lucrative. I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

geldedgoat wrote:

This example shows how your position does social harm.

No it doesn't, it shows how my position gives social benefit. The author (presumably) did something he enjoyed: writing a book. The reader also did something he enjoyed: reading a book. Everyone gained.

Now let's use your proposed ethical model. The writer still writes his book, but the reader, not wanting to pay, doesn't read it. Another reader does pay to read it, but because he used his money on that book, he can't read another one. This is a purely worse outcome. By following some abstract, inhuman, value-worshipping principle, you get a worse result.

Now, the natural response is, "But if we don't compensate authors and their publishers to the degree we do now, we'll have fewer books being written!" That's probably true, but we currently have more books than any human could ever hope to read in several lifetimes, and more being produced every day. Further, humans have a history of writing even when it's not especially profitable. In short, I think the consequences are neutral or positive; competent authors will still write out of passion, middling authors will still write out of hope to become competent (though less often than they do now), and genuinely terrible writers won't get anywhere.

geldedgoat wrote:

If we assert that this is morally permissible, then everyone can and will act similarly.

I want everyone to act the way I'm describing. I don't want people paying for books, music, and so forth, at least beyond any compensation they choose to willingly give (such as, for example, attending a live-performance concert).

geldedgoat wrote:

What do you think will happen next?

I think talented people with passion will still create, and some other people will still create, and we'll have nearly as much -- if not just as much -- good work with far less bad work.

If a person isn't writing a book to enrich humanity and share an idea, I'm happy to live without that book. I'm happy to see an end to bullshit like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush's ghost written books. I'm happy to see an end to the endless sea of romance novels. I'm happy to see an end to endless seas of self help books. It disgusts me.

The same goes for music, movies, and so forth. Hell, movies could vanish off of the face of the Earth and I wouldn't be especially sad. I mostly just watch them because my wife enjoys watching them together, but I promise, we'd find other ways to pass the time.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

In what sense are you using the term "worth" here? It discourages -- however mildly -- the creation of trashy "culture for profit,"

I'd rather not adhere to a moral code that attempts to universally define aesthetics.

Well, that's a personal choice. I personally think there's room for aesthetics in ethics, and just like I think ethics can be universal, I think aesthetics can too, at least to the extent that one can create a bounded range of acceptability.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

it prevents millions of people from being classified as criminals

Maybe in some abstract sense, but in reality, if most people assert something is ethically wrong, and there are monied interests who would benefit from something being illegal, that something is going to end up illegal, and because of its illegality, agencies will in fact end up able to sue for compensation. Like it or not, this is the reality we've seen borne out.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

it allows for more overall creative expression

No, it does immeasurable harm to overall creative expression, as many artists would no longer be able to pursue their work as a wage-earning trade.

I don't think this is anywhere near as true as you believe. Any artist paid to make physical work is going to be able to work totally unhindered by this. Website designers can continue to work just fine; companies generally want unique, aesthetically pleasing websites, not some copy of someone else's source code pulled from their page. Live performers of all varieties -- and those who create live performances -- will still be fine.

The creative industries most hit by this would be:
1) Literature.
2) Movies.
3) Music.

To which I say: sounds good, for reasons I've all ready stated.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

(since you're free to utilize the work of others in your own work)

Doesn't the doctrine of fair use already allow this anyway?

My understanding of this is that it's incredibly vague and ultimately relies on the discretion of the judge overseeing the case. As you can imagine, ethical ideas like those that you're espousing can't help but affect it's implementation, and not for the better.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

and it causes no real harm at all to anyone except a tiny elite who we have no real reason to reward so excessively anyway.

Again, if you don't want to reward them, then don't. Spend your money on other forms of entertainment. But I still don't see why you feel entitled to all electronically copyable entertainment.

As I've said, this creates an overall worse situation in the world. The creator still doesn't get his money, and I don't get entertainment which, while I didn't value it enough to pay his asking price, I might still enjoy to some extent. I'm not going to happily support that kind of outcome. I'm going to oppose it.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

Yes, actually, the wrong is simply stepping onto someone else's property without permission.

Legally, yes, but, again, my argument is not one of legality.

The ethical justification here is the same as the legal one: the results are what matter, and deeming trespassing unethical has some positive results of which to speak. Trespassing laws benefit all of us. The ethical propositions you're supporting actively make things worse for the majority.

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Space Bar wrote:

Note I said "true musicians," not just anyone playing muzak for profit.

Sorry, but no.

Sorry you are incapable of grasping this key distinction.

Quote:

Apparently you have never known any. I have known some to whom it was more important than food, drugs, or sex.

So the only music you listen to is that of street performers who refuse any and all donations?

How the hell did you go from what I wrote to what you wrote? And you have the nerve to criticize my logic?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:31 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

[
Now let's use your proposed ethical model. The writer still writes his book, but the reader, not wanting to pay, doesn't read it. Another reader does pay to read it, but because he used his money on that book, he can't read another one. This is a purely worse outcome. By following some abstract, inhuman, value-worshipping principle, you get a worse result.

.

I just wanted to respond to this one point. I'll get around to others in due time.

What makes you think this will be the likely scenario...how many people spend all their money on one book instead of food for example?

Let's look at your proposed model. The writer writes his book. The readers not wanting to pay don't. The author then realizes that his writing will not pay the bills and stops writing. So not only those readers but also future generations may be deprived of all the future enjoyment.
and they end up not being able to read another one from that author.

Which would ultimately end up in a situation that only people who can support themselves through other means than writing would write.

So you'd have books and songs mostly or wholly written and published by a wealthy elite.

For example: The author of those Harry Potter novels likely would not have wrote all those sequels to the first book if she hadn't been paid for the first one. As I recall she was struggling to make ends meet as it were. If she hadn't received a penny she'd have likely done something else and then millions of children (and some older people) would be deprived of all that enjoyment.

Now you may say so what, I don't like Harry Potter. Fair enough neither do I. But we are not the arbiter of taste. And this may impact authors that we DO enjoy.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:51 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Let's look at your proposed model. The writer writes his book. The readers not wanting to pay don't. The author then realizes that his writing will not pay the bills and stops writing.

Here's where you go off tracks. Any writer is who is writing only for the profit is someone who, as far as I'm concerned, we can do without. Creative, talented writers will still write; we have thousands of years of history showing this is true.

What you and Geldegoat are so sternly warning me that we'll lose, I'm saying I'm happy to do without.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Which would ultimately end up in a situation that only people who can support themselves through other means than writing would write.

So you'd have books and songs mostly or wholly written and published by a wealthy elite.

The latter assertion does not follow from the former assertion. There's nothing stopping people working normal jobs from also writing, if they want to. You're correct that many writers would have to support themselves through other means than writing, but I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

For example: The author of those Harry Potter novels likely would not have wrote all those sequels to the first book if she hadn't been paid for the first one.

Okay, it's time to shut down this nonsense that full, free file sharing would reduce compensation to zero (I'd be content if it did, but it won't). Let's pretend full, free file sharing is a reality (which realistically it is, but let's ignore that to give maximum generosity to the pro-corporate case, and make no mistake, you and geldedgoat are acting as corporate footsoldiers here, whether you realize it or not):

1) Some profits will still be realized through paper book sales. Some people simply like paper books, believe it or not. Hell, I'm one of them. Some people will continue to buy these books.
2) Some profits will still be realized through electronic book sales due to the technicalities of ebook readers; even if you can find a free ebook copy of a given book, the copy sold by amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, etc will look quite a bit better, and be delivered quickly and easily to your device. Some people will continue to buy these books.

So we can dispense with the myths that suddenly she's earning no money right there; it's just a silly notion, and not worth taking seriously. And all this assumes she does nothing differently at all; she just releases her books like normal.

But here's the thing: business people often have a certain cleverness to them (shocking I know). It's entirely possible -- and in fact, easy -- to design business models that can thrive even in free file sharing conditions.

Let's pretend I'm the head of the publishing company that distributes Harry Potter books. What could I do to ensure a profit continue to flows in? An obvious answer immediately springs to mind: after the first big initial book sale, when popularity is achieved, instead shift to a monthly release format, sending out thin volumes instead of huge ones all at once. Real fans will happily pay a small price to get the book bit by bit, and they'll likely prefer it right away instead of waiting for a scan to be distributed on the internet simply in order to save a few dollars a hit.

I thought this up in about ten seconds. I'm sure it can be optimized further. My point is that it's not hard to design business models that would continue to function in such an environment, so long as a given author is producing work of sufficient quality that fans can't wait for the next installment.

In short, I'm not worried about it. Phenomenon like Harry Potter will still likely exist (though I'd happily sacrifice Harry Potter on the altar of my freedom to do what I want with things I purchase).

Space Bar

Joined: 20 Oct 2010

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:52 pm Post subject:

Here are just some books you can get for free from the Amazon store that I found on a single random page: Every Word (A Free Game for Kindle) by Amazon Digital Services (Kindle Edition - Sept. 15, 2010) - Kindle Active Content Buy: $0.00 6. Product Details The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Kindle Edition - Mar. 1, 1999) - Kindle eBook Buy: $0.00 8. Product Details A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (Kindle Edition - Dec. 1, 2010) - Kindle eBook Buy: $0.00 11. Product Details Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (Kindle Edition - June 1, 1998) - Kindle eBook Buy: $0.00 12. Product Details Blackjack (Play the Popular Casino Game on Kindle) by Amazon Digital Services (Kindle Edition - Dec. 7, 2010) - Kindle Active Content Buy: $0.00 By some people's logic here, Amazon and/or the "purchasers" are stealing from these authors. Just how do they get away with it?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:33 am Post subject:

Space Bar wrote:

By some people's logic here, Amazon and/or the "purchasers" are stealing from these authors. Just how do they get away with it?

In fact, based geldedgoat's principle regarding the immorality of enjoying an author/musician/etc's work without compensating them, it's actually immoral to enjoy free public domain material despite it's legality! Surely the author's estate would demand compensation if they could after all; they make no demands only because they have no legal basis to.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:11 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

What social harm has been caused by the belief that people should be compensated for their work?

1) [...] - 5) [...]

I could go on, but why?

...because none of what you said has anything to do with the belief I espoused. I think it's better to address this with the following:

Quote:

No, no, no, no. The 'slippery slope' argument is fallacious for very good reasons, an example here being: me. We both agree that consumer rights should not be abused for the RIAA's (and others') pursuits of compensation. That immediately eliminates every valid claim of social harm you have made.

Quote:

Value is an intangible, abstract quality that we as humans attribute to objects, not properties of objects in themselves.

This doesn't define value out of existence. Value exists, and it is essential in our modern economy and society. As such, it's ludicrous to claim for yourself any non-physical commodity created by someone else by simply saying you value it at zero. You can't walk into a restaurant, eat your fill, and then refuse to pay anything more than material expenses plus a tip. But that's exactly where your logic leads.

Quote:

how much value you place on something is 100% at your discretion, and how much value others place on it is 100% at theirs, and you have no right to a say with regards to the latter.

Right, and if the seller and buyer can't agree to an appropriate value, then one or both should simply walk away. One can't force his value claim on the other, even if no physical property would be lost.

Quote:

And presumably that's because you've reduced the author's "value" in the process, yes?

...to help someone else increase his own, yes.

Quote:

And if I walk down the street and see a beautiful woman, I've gained aesthetic value without paying for it. [...] If the woman doesn't want people freely benefiting from her aesthetic value, then she shouldn't use makeup.

You answered yourself perfectly there. If a woman believes she should be compensated for people enjoying her beauty, then she should cover herself up or not make herself up. However...

Quote:

If the author doesn't want people freely benefiting from his entertainment value, he shouldn't write.

If an author doesn't want people to freely enjoy his books, he shouldn't enter into agreements that allow that to happen. <== That is correct. But simply writing a book does not give the world free access to his work.

Quote:

Now let's use your proposed ethical model. The writer still writes his book, but the reader, not wanting to pay, doesn't read it. Another reader does pay to read it, but because he used his money on that book, he can't read another one. This is a purely worse outcome.

How? An author receives compensation and is thus able to pay bills and continue to write more books. If neither reader (worse yet, none at all) had bought his book, he would likely be forced to give up writing, either entirely or as a full-time endeavor, to pursue other lines of work to make basic ends meet, thus reducing the amount of art in the world. If your care nothing for art, then I suppose that would be a positive result. In that case, a separate thread should probably be created for the discussion of art itself.

Quote:

Now, the natural response is, "But if we don't compensate authors and their publishers to the degree we do now, we'll have fewer books being written!" That's probably true, but we currently have more books than any human could ever hope to read in several lifetimes, and more being produced every day.

I already answered this above, but I also wanted to add that more choices is a good thing. Moving in the opposite direction just leads towards only one book being available, and I think we both know which one that would be.

Quote:

I think talented people with passion will still create, and some other people will still create, and we'll have nearly as much -- if not just as much -- good work with far less bad work.

The system we have now (in addition to the approach I support) would lead to more total work, both good and bad, with the market helping to burn the chaff. Your approach would lead to less total work (including less total good work), with no verifiable system in place to differentiate between the good and bad, as passion does not equal excellence.

Quote:

The ethical justification here is the same as the legal one: the results are what matter

The results of what you suggest here would likely be that people who hold different aesthetic values than yourself will decide what stays and what goes, as, like you stated in another thread, you have difficulty persuading others to your view. On the other hand, allowing everyone's tastes to be catered to leads to an incredible amount of good and almost no bad (reviews limit this to the best of their ability).

Quote:

The creative industries most hit by this would be:
1) Literature.
2) Movies.
3) Music.

To which I say: sounds good, for reasons I've all ready stated.

As a lover of all three of those, there are many things I could say, but I'll limit it to just one that should appeal to you and your approach to morality and ethics: of all the societies and communities in the world, which are the freest in terms of available entertainment (whether that be by wealth or lack of government interference) and how do you think that affects their peace and prosperity?

Quote:

My understanding of this is that it's incredibly vague and ultimately relies on the discretion of the judge overseeing the case.

Fair use should only be vague in a broad sense, but on a case-by-case basis there's little reason for any ambiguity.

Quote:

As you can imagine, ethical ideas like those that you're espousing can't help but affect it's implementation, and not for the better.

No, I can't imagine. How would my approach negatively impact it?

Space Bar wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Space Bar wrote:

Note I said "true musicians," not just anyone playing muzak for profit.

Sorry, but no.

Sorry you are incapable of grasping this key distinction.

Sorry you can't recognize your argument for what it is, but I already provided a link that can help you.

Quote:

How the hell did you go from what I wrote to what you wrote?

A true musician, according to you, cares not for compensation of his craft. Therefore, true music would only come from those who shun petty things like money, i.e. crazed street performers with no hat to throw cash into.

Quote:

And you have the nerve to criticize my logic?

Yes.

Last edited by geldedgoat on Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:20 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Space Bar wrote:

By some people's logic here, Amazon and/or the "purchasers" are stealing from these authors. Just how do they get away with it?

Copyright law should protect the creator for the duration of his life and the life of whomever he leaves control to, so on through the ages, in the exact same manner as other physical forms of property. If it's left to no one, it's as good as abandoned to the public.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe