Six-Strike Copyright Alert system now in place (1 Viewer)

[dparker713]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.

[ . . . ]

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest.

By the way, it's not like I'm out on a limb by myself here. I'm pretty much following Justice Stevens's reasoning in his Eldred v. Ashcroft dissent.

I'm familiar with the argument. He was saying that the patent monopoly should not be extended forever (or even arguably at all) because reward to the author was secondary to the benefit to the public that is created after the expiration of the monopoly period. But during the period of protection, that intellectual property is clearly treated like a property interest, regardless of the fact that its genesis lies in what can be twisted into a contractual construct between the government and the author/inventor. My point was that during the protected period, you better believe it's a property interest that confers rights on the holder. And it's not much of a stretch to go from there to the concept of infringement as theft, since deprivation of the expectations associated with the property interest is an element common to both concepts.

Except the protection and rights conferred upon sale to a consumer of a digital copy is merely a license, and the violation of a license is a breach of contract.

 

[Zasada]

Music piracy basically forced the creation of iTunes and Amazon's MP3 service. Since the latter became available, I haven't pirated a single song. Amazon's service is convenient and fairly priced.

The problem with the entertainment business is that the pirates' distribution system is not just free, but better. Commercial-free, easy to access and move between devices, etc, etc.

Once the industry comes up with a distribution system that is just as high quality, flexible, and easy to access as the pirates' version, the "free" part won't matter nearly as much. Some will still pirate the content, but I'll start buying it. This has already been proven with music, and now needs to transition to books, movies, and TV.

 

[culdeus]

Just started snatching Call The Midwives S02xS03 on piratebay and the XTO World Championships on Cyclingtorrents. I expect black helicopters any second now.Pray for me.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Music piracy basically forced the creation of iTunes and Amazon's MP3 service. Since the latter became available, I haven't pirated a single song. Amazon's service is convenient and fairly priced.

The problem with the entertainment business is that the pirates' distribution system is not just free, but better. Commercial-free, easy to access and move between devices, etc, etc.

Once the industry comes up with a distribution system that is just as high quality, flexible, and easy to access as the pirates' version, the "free" part won't matter nearly as much. Some will still pirate the content, but I'll start buying it. This has already been proven with music, and now needs to transition to books, movies, and TV.

The distribution is there (torrents!), they just aren't taking advantage of it. I'd happily pay to download the shows I want to watch and not pay for all the other garbage... but until then, downloading it is.Example: http://takemymoneyhbo.com/

 

[bostonfred]

Im sure this has been brought up, but if comcast told me they were dropping my internet speed to 256k for 2 months, id tell them to go #### themselves and get the dish.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Im sure this has been brought up, but if comcast told me they were dropping my internet speed to 256k for 2 months, id tell them to go #### themselves and get the dish.

Do that in any case.

 

[bostonfred]

Im sure this has been brought up, but if comcast told me they were dropping my internet speed to 256k for 2 months, id tell them to go #### themselves and get the dish.

Do that in any case.

Im willing to pay a huge premium to have my wife understand the remote control. She called me once at 11pm while I was in chicago on business to ask me how to get to the on demands with the tv shows. No way I want to start that cycle again.

 

[Quez]

The future is Bluray disc!mobile.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.

[ . . . ]

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest.

By the way, it's not like I'm out on a limb by myself here. I'm pretty much following Justice Stevens's reasoning in his Eldred v. Ashcroft dissent.

I'm familiar with the argument. He was saying that the patent monopoly should not be extended forever (or even arguably at all) because reward to the author was secondary to the benefit to the public that is created after the expiration of the monopoly period.

It's not that the author's reward is secondary. It's that both sides are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they struck.When the government promised 50 years of monopoly and the author accepted by producing a work, the deal was 50 years. To change the deal afterward without additional consideration would be unfair. To shorten the term would deprive the author of the benefit of her bargain, and to lengthen the term would deprive the public of the benefit of its bargain. A deal's a deal.

That's how things look from a contractual point of view, and it's perfectly sensible, IMO. Much more sensible than looking at things from a quasi-property point of view. (After all, the whole idea of property rights expiring for non-abandonment reasons [e.g., adverse possission] is pretty strange.)

 

[gandalas]

The future is Bluray disc!

mobile.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet

"We're already delivering 1 gigabit, 10 gigabit-per-second to our business customers, so we certainly have the capability of doing it." The executive claims that residential customers have thus far shown little interest in TWC's top internet tiers. "A very small fraction of our customer base" ultimately choose those options, she said.

Yeah, $320.00 per month for speeds less than google's lowest tier sure should entice consumers...

 

[Slapdash]

The future is Bluray disc!mobile.theverge.com/2013/2/27/4036128/time-warner-cable-no-consumer-demand-for-fiber-gigabit-internet

#### TWC.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I think "intellectual property" is a misnomer that fogs people's thinking about this stuff. Intellectual property isn't really a type of property; it's more a type of contractual arrangement. What's being diluted isn't the copyright owner's property interest; what's being diluted is his benefit under his implied contract with the government.

[ . . . ]

But I think using words like "stealing" and "theft" detract from the argument. They're not really accurate, and inaccurate arguments are less convincing than accurate arguments.g

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

Wait, so we're going to reconceptualize IP as some sort of breach of contract, but you resist the extension of the label of theft to copyright infringement, which is a form of property deprivation and is punishable civilly and (in certain circumstances) even criminally?

Interference (a tort) rather than breach, and not property deprivation. Otherwise, yes."Not property deprivation" is the salient point. When I download your song without paying for it, I am not depriving you of any property. I may be depriving you of income, but that income is not, and never was, your property. (If being entitled to a monetary damages award makes it your property, then pretty much every legal wrong qualifies as property deprivation; but that's language abuse.)

You're way off here. There's a reason why it's called "intellectual property" and not "intellectual right to income." And of course an expectation of compensation for one's goods or services is a property interest.

By the way, it's not like I'm out on a limb by myself here. I'm pretty much following Justice Stevens's reasoning in his Eldred v. Ashcroft dissent.

I'm familiar with the argument. He was saying that the patent monopoly should not be extended forever (or even arguably at all) because reward to the author was secondary to the benefit to the public that is created after the expiration of the monopoly period.

It's not that the author's reward is secondary. It's that both sides are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they struck.When the government promised 50 years of monopoly and the author accepted by producing a work, the deal was 50 years. To change the deal afterward without additional consideration would be unfair. To shorten the term would deprive the author of the benefit of her bargain, and to lengthen the term would deprive the public of the benefit of its bargain. A deal's a deal.

That's how things look from a contractual point of view, and it's perfectly sensible, IMO. Much more sensible than looking at things from a quasi-property point of view. (After all, the whole idea of property rights expiring for non-abandonment reasons [e.g., adverse possission] is pretty strange.)

At this point I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Taking your argument to its extreme, most or all property rights are a creature of contract. So?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

v

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.

how much have you kicked to apple for clearly using their trademark as your avatar?

 

[Worm]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

 

[Quez]

We are one of the most developed countries yet have nowhere near top internet speeds. Yet, big time corporations like Time Warner and other monopolies over telecom have no interest in making strides to catch us up unless it fits in their price model. They are probably also on board with all of the other big players besides Google, to make tiered bandwidth plans the norm. As mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[Sheriff66]

v

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media I see no problem with this legislation. Piracy is theft.

how much have you kicked to apple for clearly using their trademark as your avatar?

 

[Slapdash]

We are one of the most developed countries yet have nowhere near top internet speeds. Yet, big time corporations like Time Warner and other monopolies over telecom have no interest in making strides to catch us up unless it fits in their price model. They are probably also on board with all of the other big players besides Google, to make tiered bandwidth plans the norm. As mentioned earlier in this thread.

Same story for mobile phones too. Everywhere you look in the telecom/entertainment space you see these industries acting like cartels.

 

[bostonfred]

I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it.

No we don't. We learn it. You did not intuit that you owned things when you weren't there. Little kids have to be taught incessantly that they can't take other peoples things. The idea that you shouldn't take something out of someone elses hands while they're using it may be intuitive, but the idea that you can set a toy down and another kid can't come over and play with it? Not intuitive at all. This is one of the earliest concepts you have to be indoctrinated to understand, because it is the law of the land, and yet it is so counterintuitive. If you want to make the claim that people have inherent morals, and that the morals are different from the law, then you should use a different example.

 

[Todd Andrews]

While I agree to an extent about the hypocracy of the subject, I recognize that his example is awful.

Everything, posted to youtube that is not a 1:1 representation of an actual digital product is considered art and is thus free from copyright infringement.

This is an absolutely incorrect statement of the law.

This is how it was presented to me in my E-commerce course, if you can find something that refutes this I would gladly concede.From what I understood when it comes to youtube, the content uploaded if it was made by someone is considered art. There was a couple of cases a year or so ago I believe where a guy was doing full length film commentary but the footage uploaded was not captured directly, he did it using a camcorder with which he did a perfect in frame shot of his television.

Simply producing a "transformative work" that is not identical to the previous work does not insulate you from a copyright infringement claim. For one famous example, we could look to Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp 177 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 1976). In that case, it was claimed that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord used two short musical motifs from the Chiffons' He's So Fine. Anyone listening to the songs can hear that they are not 1 for 1 reproductions of one another. But the court found that the two motifs incorporated into Harrison's chorus represented copyright infringement. There is a level of copying that courts will sometimes find de minimus, but that standard is difficult to quantify, and in any case, no court would find that anything that wasn't a 1 to 1 representation would meet the de minimusstandard. There are also fair use defenses available. It's complicated. But please don't ignore that DMCA take down notice just because you didn't copy an entire song or show. That would be a bad move.

Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs also gave us the wonderful theory of "subconscious copying."

 

[B-Deep]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

Often when i am in some ludicrous thread (think raptors or something) i think it would be fun if Maurile came in and dropped some of his knowledge like this on completely inane topics

 

[Slapdash]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

Often when i am in some ludicrous thread (think raptors or something) i think it would be fun if Maurile came in and dropped some of his knowledge like this on completely inane topics

He probably has so much knowledge because he doesn't waste time on as much inane information as the rest of us. Besides, isn't that what he is doing when he posts his FF information?

 

[LittleLarry]

Can anyone recommend a VPN they have experience with?

 

[Aerial Assault]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

Often when i am in some ludicrous thread (think raptors or something) i think it would be fun if Maurile came in and dropped some of his knowledge like this on completely inane topics

Meh. I happen to love Maurile but other than some warmed-over wankery about whether calling infringement theft is sensible, he really didn't offer much in this one. Of course, this hasn't been a particularly remarkable thread. The real knowledge-dropper, bfred, came in a few posts up and effectively dismissed MT's main point. Again, I love Maurile and find him quite smart, but this thread won't be on his greatest hits album.

 

[Slapdash]

seems like a whole lotta nothing. hey only target 'up loaders' and I'm guessing those up loaders/torrentfreaks will just use VPN etc.

from someone's link above

Gesture CancelledGesture CancelledGesture Cancelled

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Meh. I happen to love Maurile but other than some warmed-over wankery about whether calling infringement theft is sensible, he really didn't offer much in this one. Of course, this hasn't been a particularly remarkable thread. The real knowledge-dropper, bfred, came in a few posts up and effectively dismissed MT's main point. Again, I love Maurile and find him quite smart, but this thread won't be on his greatest hits album.

You would see Maurile's post in this thread quite differently if you were able to see the forest from the trees.

 

[bonesman]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

Often when i am in some ludicrous thread (think raptors or something) i think it would be fun if Maurile came in and dropped some of his knowledge like this on completely inane topics

Meh. I happen to love Maurile but other than some warmed-over wankery about whether calling infringement theft is sensible, he really didn't offer much in this one. Of course, this hasn't been a particularly remarkable thread. The real knowledge-dropper, bfred, came in a few posts up and effectively dismissed MT's main point. Again, I love Maurile and find him quite smart, but this thread won't be on his greatest hits album.

Says the guy with nearly twice as many posts as anyone.Aerial Assault 31

Slapdash 18

dparker713 17

Christo 15

Cliff Clavin 10

Maurile Tremblay 9

Ramsay Hunt Experience 8

Run It Up 8

NCCommish 7

Bonzai 7

Quez 6

12punch 5

 

[Aerial Assault]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

Great post.

Often when i am in some ludicrous thread (think raptors or something) i think it would be fun if Maurile came in and dropped some of his knowledge like this on completely inane topics

Meh. I happen to love Maurile but other than some warmed-over wankery about whether calling infringement theft is sensible, he really didn't offer much in this one. Of course, this hasn't been a particularly remarkable thread. The real knowledge-dropper, bfred, came in a few posts up and effectively dismissed MT's main point. Again, I love Maurile and find him quite smart, but this thread won't be on his greatest hits album.

Says the guy with nearly twice as many posts as anyone.Aerial Assault 31

Slapdash 18

dparker713 17

Christo 15

Cliff Clavin 10

Maurile Tremblay 9

Ramsay Hunt Experience 8

Run It Up 8

NCCommish 7

Bonzai 7

Quez 6

12punch 5

I posted 31 times in this thread? Well, then it really wasn't remarkable. Thanks for making my point.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it.

No we don't. We learn it. You did not intuit that you owned things when you weren't there. Little kids have to be taught incessantly that they can't take other peoples things. The idea that you shouldn't take something out of someone elses hands while they're using it may be intuitive, but the idea that you can set a toy down and another kid can't come over and play with it? Not intuitive at all. This is one of the earliest concepts you have to be indoctrinated to understand, because it is the law of the land, and yet it is so counterintuitive. If you want to make the claim that people have inherent morals, and that the morals are different from the law, then you should use a different example.

I disagree.First, little kids don't have a fully developed moral sense, but that doesn't mean that they learn morality only through indoctrination. Lots of things that aren't fully developed in little kids are nonetheless biological rather than social constructs. Think about boobs. (We'll wait.)Second, I suspect that the difficult concept for children who want to play with unoccupied toys is not that stealing is wrong, but that playing with unoccupied toys is stealing. It's not obvious that anyone owns the exclusive right to play with a toy that is unoccupied. I'm not contending that arcane customs for distinguishing between possession and ownership are intuitive.Third, having to convince a kid not to do something is not the same as having to convince a kid that doing something is wrong. Kids will naturally experiment to see what they can get away with.

 

[bostonfred]

I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it.

No we don't. We learn it. You did not intuit that you owned things when you weren't there. Little kids have to be taught incessantly that they can't take other peoples things. The idea that you shouldn't take something out of someone elses hands while they're using it may be intuitive, but the idea that you can set a toy down and another kid can't come over and play with it? Not intuitive at all. This is one of the earliest concepts you have to be indoctrinated to understand, because it is the law of the land, and yet it is so counterintuitive. If you want to make the claim that people have inherent morals, and that the morals are different from the law, then you should use a different example.

I disagree.First, little kids don't have a fully developed moral sense, but that doesn't mean that they learn morality only through indoctrination. Lots of things that aren't fully developed in little kids are nonetheless biological rather than social constructs. Think about boobs. (We'll wait.)Second, I suspect that the difficult concept for children who want to play with unoccupied toys is not that stealing is wrong, but that playing with unoccupied toys is stealing. It's not obvious that anyone owns the exclusive right to play with a toy that is unoccupied. I'm not contending that arcane customs for distinguishing between possession and ownership are intuitive.Third, having to convince a kid not to do something is not the same as having to convince a kid that doing something is wrong. Kids will experiment to see what they can get away with.

Your first and third points are basically arguing that it could be intuitive, without arguing that it is. That's fine, I suppose, but not really evidence of anything one way or the other. But your second point - that possession and ownership are different - is right on target. We do intuit that taking things people possess is wrong. But we don't intuit that taking things people own is wrong. The concept of ownership isnt unique to any specific society, but it isn't shared by all cultures, either. Plato argued that we were worse off because of the concept of ownership, and there are solid arguments on both sides of the ledger. What it really comes down to is, if you want to take a chew toy from a dog, good luck. But once he sets it down and walks away, he doesn't get mad if you pick it up. That is the natural order of things (the concept, not that we should all act more like dogs). Ownership as we know it is really a concept of force. If you have things, and someone takes them, you use force to get them back. It is the threat of force that keeps you from taking other peoples things, because you know they may defend their property. If a bully steals a little kids lunch money, they are, in effect, saying that there's no threat of force keeping them from taking it. We put laws in place, we put police in force, all to protect ownership. And we indoctrinate people from an early age that that's the right way to view things. But there is no universal moral code which states that the use of force to protect things that you want is correct. That is (at least arguably) an immoral concept.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was at starbux a little bit ago and read a couple things in a paper that was left out on a table.just wanted to check in with the basement dwelling internet trolls to see if I should be including that in my confessional this sunday, and what is the proper etiquette on this --- send the publisher 50 cents, or destroy the newspaper to keep it out of the hands of other shoplifters?

 

[B-Deep]

One time in a FFA Werewolf game I tried to fake Maurile, i thought it was a great fake, but I had no idea how to spell his strange name (no offense Maurls, i dig the moniker) so I looked it up on his profile. Unfortunately Preds was a damned cheater and he checked Maurile's profile and saw i and visited it and announced it in the thread.I did not survive till night

 

[culdeus]

One time in a FFA Werewolf game I tried to fake Maurile, i thought it was a great fake, but I had no idea how to spell his strange name (no offense Maurls, i dig the moniker) so I looked it up on his profile. Unfortunately Preds was a damned cheater and he checked Maurile's profile and saw i and visited it and announced it in the thread.I did not survive till night

when the hell is this going to happen again here?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We do intuit that taking things people possess is wrong. But we don't intuit that taking things people own is wrong. The concept of ownership isnt unique to any specific society, but it isn't shared by all cultures, either.

To my knowledge, the following idea is universal among all human cultures: if you spend the day gathering berries, it's wrong for me to take those berries without your permission.That's not just a matter of force. It's a matter of morality. Force may be used to enforce the custom. But if you and I are fighting and a neutral bystander asks why, and we tell him it's because I stole the berries you gathered, the bystander should side with you.

 

[Mr. Ected]

Can anyone recommend a VPN they have experience with?

 

[bostonfred]

We do intuit that taking things people possess is wrong. But we don't intuit that taking things people own is wrong. The concept of ownership isnt unique to any specific society, but it isn't shared by all cultures, either.

To my knowledge, the following idea is universal among all human cultures: if you spend the day gathering berries, it's wrong for me to take those berries without your permission.That's not just a matter of force. It's a matter of morality. Force may be used to enforce the custom. But if you and I are fighting and a neutral bystander asks why, and we tell him it's because I stole the berries you gathered, the bystander should side with you.

I don't think that's true at all. Hunter gatherer cultures have hunters who go out and bring back meat. Are you suggesting that they keep everything the kill, and never share it with the gatherers? And that the gatherers tell them to pound sand if they want some berries after an unsuccessful hunt? There is no exchange of currency, and no concept of "my berries" or "my meat". There's just a communal need to make sure everyone gets fed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We do intuit that taking things people possess is wrong. But we don't intuit that taking things people own is wrong. The concept of ownership isnt unique to any specific society, but it isn't shared by all cultures, either.

To my knowledge, the following idea is universal among all human cultures: if you spend the day gathering berries, it's wrong for me to take those berries without your permission.That's not just a matter of force. It's a matter of morality. Force may be used to enforce the custom. But if you and I are fighting and a neutral bystander asks why, and we tell him it's because I stole the berries you gathered, the bystander should side with you.

I don't think that's true at all. Hunter gatherer cultures have hunters who go out and bring back meat. Are you suggesting that they keep everything the kill, and never share it with the gatherers? And that the gatherers tell them to pound sand if they want some berries after an unsuccessful hunt? There is no exchange of currency, and no concept of "my berries" or "my meat". There's just a communal need to make sure everyone gets fed.

There was generally a division of labor. The females would gather roots, berries, insects, and other small foods. The men would hunt larger game.The men were sometimes successful in their hunts and sometimes unsuccessful. When they were successful, the meat was shared among the community. If there was a particular hunter who made the kill, his family and close friends might get a larger share of the meat, or the most prized parts such as the liver, but in general the meat was widely shared. When they were unsuccessful, when there was no meat, people ate what the females had gathered.But the foods gathered by females were not communal like meat was. What an individual female gathered was for her and her immediate family, not for the community at large. It was wrong to poach berries without the gatherer's permission.I'm far from an expert on this topic, but according to what I've read, this general arrangement was and is universal in all modern-day hunter-gatherer cultures that have been observed, and it's suspected that ancient hunter-gathers operated the same way.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

We do intuit that taking things people possess is wrong. But we don't intuit that taking things people own is wrong. The concept of ownership isnt unique to any specific society, but it isn't shared by all cultures, either.

To my knowledge, the following idea is universal among all human cultures: if you spend the day gathering berries, it's wrong for me to take those berries without your permission.That's not just a matter of force. It's a matter of morality. Force may be used to enforce the custom. But if you and I are fighting and a neutral bystander asks why, and we tell him it's because I stole the berries you gathered, the bystander should side with you.

I don't think that's true at all. Hunter gatherer cultures have hunters who go out and bring back meat. Are you suggesting that they keep everything the kill, and never share it with the gatherers? And that the gatherers tell them to pound sand if they want some berries after an unsuccessful hunt? There is no exchange of currency, and no concept of "my berries" or "my meat". There's just a communal need to make sure everyone gets fed.

yeah, and who are they taking the meat from in the first place ---- dinosaurs.

 

[Charlie Frown]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

There's always an excuse for piracy. Always. One rarely reads a pirate admit that they are a cheap ******* and like to steal stuff lol.

I am a cheap ******* and have no problem stealing tv shows. Sorry if this offends anyone sensibilities.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I still can't believe people go through the hassle of hunting down and downloading pirated media

In the past year or two I think enough legal alternatives have emerged that are starting to make it kind of pointless. That's the way piracy will end, not by force.

Piracy is theft.

This thread's going 10+ pages now.

It's really no different than shoplifting. Well except shoplifters actually have the balls to do their crime in person.

It's really very different than shoplifting.

There's always an excuse for piracy. Always. One rarely reads a pirate admit that they are a cheap ******* and like to steal stuff lol.

I am a cheap ******* and have no problem stealing tv shows. Sorry if this offends anyone sensibilities.

it doesn't offend me, but I don't think you'll get any peace of mind until you return every tv show you stole.

 

[LittleLarry]

I love that you guys are arguing morality against Maurile...who I think has a degree in Theology. good one

 

[James H. Brown]

It's supposed to be an educational tool, but really what they are doing is creating data banks of violations and a trail of evidence. We'll be forced to acknowledge we've seen the notice in later steps of what is supposed to be a six step process. People are suggesting using VPN when downloading files through P2P, but can you really trust your VPN provider (read the hidemyass and Lulzsec's case: http://vpnverge.com/truths-about-hidemyass/)? The only viable solution I can think of is using a offshore VPN company which is not subjected to the law enforcement in U.S. I would suggest only use non logging VPN, VPN that does NOT recoard your real IP addresses.

 

[NCCommish]

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

You pretty much took cash out of their wallet. Isn't that still a crime?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I discourage calling copyright infringement "theft" not because I want to justify copyright infringement, but because I support reasonable copyright restrictions and I want to see the case for such restrictions solidly made — without the gaping holes of overstated metaphors.

And I don't find it a metaphor. You took something of value from someone without their permission. Isn't that pretty much the definition of theft? The wrongful taking of property?

What did I take from you? What did you used to have that, by taking it, I caused you to no longer have?

You pretty much took cash out of their wallet. Isn't that still a crime?

All the cash that was in his wallet is still there.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it.

No we don't. We learn it. You did not intuit that you owned things when you weren't there. Little kids have to be taught incessantly that they can't take other peoples things. The idea that you shouldn't take something out of someone elses hands while they're using it may be intuitive, but the idea that you can set a toy down and another kid can't come over and play with it? Not intuitive at all. This is one of the earliest concepts you have to be indoctrinated to understand, because it is the law of the land, and yet it is so counterintuitive. If you want to make the claim that people have inherent morals, and that the morals are different from the law, then you should use a different example.

I disagree.First, little kids don't have a fully developed moral sense, but that doesn't mean that they learn morality only through indoctrination. Lots of things that aren't fully developed in little kids are nonetheless biological rather than social constructs. Think about boobs. (We'll wait.)Second, I suspect that the difficult concept for children who want to play with unoccupied toys is not that stealing is wrong, but that playing with unoccupied toys is stealing. It's not obvious that anyone owns the exclusive right to play with a toy that is unoccupied. I'm not contending that arcane customs for distinguishing between possession and ownership are intuitive.Third, having to convince a kid not to do something is not the same as having to convince a kid that doing something is wrong. Kids will experiment to see what they can get away with.

What it really comes down to is, if you want to take a chew toy from a dog, good luck. But once he sets it down and walks away, he doesn't get mad if you pick it up. That is the natural order of things (the concept, not that we should all act more like dogs).

I wish that were true of my dog. It's not. He'll walk away from something or just not care about it at all, but the moment you pick it up, he wants it back.That's actually been true of all dogs I've ever had. Maybe mine are just #######s.

 

[cstu]

it doesn't offend me, but I don't think you'll get any peace of mind until you return every tv show you stole.

 

[cstu]

In any case, we're having a sideshow discussion about labeling things that does not seem pertinent to the larger points. At all.

I think the difference between stealing stuff and copying stuff is morally relevant.I think stealing stuff, as a general matter, is always wrong. It doesn't take a convoluted argument to show that stealing is immoral. We all intuit it. The cases where stealing isn't immoral are exceptions to the general rule.

With copying stuff, it's the reverse. It's generally fine to copy other people's innovations; the cases where it's immoral to do so are exceptions.

For example, stealing is immoral whether or not it's against the law. Stealing is inherently immoral. But for the most part, I think copying stuff is immoral only if it's against the law. It's only contingently immoral. Absent any laws to the contrary, it's okay for me to copy your method of cracking coconuts, even without your permission, but it's not okay for me to swipe your actual coconuts.

I think obeying copyrights is in the same category, in that respect, as paying taxes. It's not immoral for me to refuse to pay taxes to the Iranian government, in part because there's no law requiring me to do so. It's also not immoral, IMO, for me to refuse to respect Iranian copyrights, again because there's no law requiring me to do so. (There's no international agreement along those lines between the U.S. and Iran.) But it would be immoral for me to go to Iran and steal somebody's car regardless of whether doing so were illegal. That's because stealing is inherently wrong, but copying isn't.

For copying to be morally wrong, IMO, it has to violate a reasonable law — a law that serves the common good. (Violating laws is not inherently immoral; those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, acted virtuously.) I think reasonable minds may differ on whether current copyright and patent laws, as applied in any given situation, serve the common good. But calling copyright infringement "theft" seeks to bypass that discussion and paint it as inherently (rather than as contingently) immoral. I think that's cheating.

If you believe a law is unjust then is it immoral to break it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think that depends on the circumstances, and in a lot of circumstances it's a very hard question, at least in jurisdictions that are forces for good on the whole. In Nazi Germany, I'd have no moral qualms about breaking the law by refusing to turn in my Jewish neighbors. But in the U.S., it's often better to play by the rules even if a particular rule will lead to moderately bad results, as long as the overall system of rules leads to mostly good results, and the overall system depends on people going along with it.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think that depends on the circumstances, and in a lot of circumstances it's a very hard question, at least in jurisdictions that are forces for good on the whole. In Nazi Germany, I'd have no moral qualms about breaking the law by refusing to turn in my Jewish neighbors. But in the U.S., it's often better to play by the rules even if a particular rule will lead to moderately bad results, as long as the overall system of rules leads to mostly good results, and the overall system depends on people going along with it.

so, you'd turn in your black neighbor hiding in the basement?

 

[Quez]

Anyone get any strikes yet?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Anyone get any strikes yet?

I haven't gotten any strikes, but in years past I got a couple e-mails regarding alleged d/l'ing of 30 rock.