 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy
I differentiate between material (the actual cd which I won't steal), and the information on it, which is abstract that I will copy. I believe an infinite resource like information or knowledge cannot be paid for, an exchange of resources for an infinite resource seems a perversion on the notion of capitalism. |
so how should artists be supported, if people shouldn't pay for their work? Government? That doesn't seem like capitalism to me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
so how should artists be supported, if people shouldn't pay for their work? Government? That doesn't seem like capitalism to me.
|
People can if they want, for example, CD is a better format undoubtably than mp3, due to convenience, quality and the feeling of something in your hand. One can also provide mechandise with it, or information, booklets, movies etc etc you get the idea.
And yes, it will mean changes in business practices, but in such an ambiguous field as this, indeed in most of the digital arenas, there is money to be made. And frankly, the survival of music companies does not register in my mind compared to the value of free information.
And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV
Laws are there to protect the interests of a group or section of society (often a large majority). In this case the law is being applied to protect the financial interest of the people who make money from selling a product. |
Well, actually, this isn't a "law", it's breach of contract. Are you saying breach of contract is OK when one of the parties is rich?
quote: The problem is that they are seeking to charge more for that product than the market will willingly pay, or in some cases can pay. So substantial numbers of people choose to break that particular law. |
If I charge $5,000,000 for a beat-up car, does that make it OK for you to steal it? If you aren't willing to pay the price, don't buy it.
quote: There are alternative methods of distributing this material, such as on-line stores, which do encourage people to purchase it legitimately. Much of the problem is in fact criminal piracy on a large scale yet individual consumers are being targeted as a softer touch.
So the law is being applied to protect the position of a minority which could be protected in other, more widely acceptable, ways at the expense of the majority. Such application of the law is unjust and usually fails from a historical perspective. I do not consider it unethical to break an unjust law. Therefore piracy for personal and home use is not unethical. If the material were available at a more affordable and reasonable cost (and the people who originated it actually got rather more of the profits) then it would be unethical. |
So? Just because the companies aren't doing it the most effective way doesn't mean you can steal from them. It's their choice.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
I'm a Commie so I'm quite happy to share the material I write with others although I favour using a GPL style copyright. |
Pardon my ignorance, what is GPL?
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
There are precious few original ideas in any work since culture is largely a communal enterprise. Why should I claim sole ownership over ideas? Why shouldn't other people be free to use them and alter them to suit their own needs? After all, that's what I do when I write a paper or translate some Greek. Why shouldn't I bestow the same freedom upon others? |
I agree with the lack of originality. Do you get paid solely to write papers and translations? Would quality in writing and music and everything else deteriorate if those artists had to find day jobs? I think it would. Some would be able to continue through concerts etc, but I think many people would be turned away due to lack of capital.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:33
|
|
It may be that the law is more restrictive than morality is and that, morally, it should be.
Kant - act in such a way that you can generalize it to a universal law.
Proposition = If everyone DL's intellectual property, this will eliminate the market for intellectual property, and will result in the end of production of most of it. The DLer is a parasite on the "suckers" who pay for the stuff - if all adapted his moral rules, then there would be nothing to DL. The moral rule hence contradicts itself, and is not moral. QED.
Response from "moral" DLer - "I" dont DL everything I want. I DL some songs to get a feel for a group, etc. But I also buy large amounts of music, games, etc. At least as much (or at most negligibly less) than i would if DLing didnt exist. Ergo, I do NOT reduce the market for intellectual property, and my rule IS consistent with EVERYONE else doing the same thing. Hence it is moral. QED.
Social policy fact - many DLers do not buy intellectual property, and there is (empirical question) real impact on production of intellectual property. It is not possible for the legal system to accurately discern who would have purchase the same amount of int prop and who would not have, so the system must ban all legally. However the degree of public resources placed into enforcement should vary to the extent of real decline of intell property production. However unlimited private action must be allowed, since once we establish a property right, it is not possible to limit its private enforcement.
However given the above, those who DL and get away with it, and KNOW for sure that they would not buy any more records, games etc if they didnt DL, can DL with a free conscience.
Is this a Straussian arguement????
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy
And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them. |
so you consider music and games and movies to be "information" and thus they cannot be owned by an individual? Do you feel the same way about patents?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy
But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.
|
Ever heard of receiving stolen property?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|