Intellectual Property morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoveGod102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thewanderer said:
I have read some on this topic, I am just not yet sure exactly what I think of it. So I like to try and get more (name removed by moderator)ut of other peoples opinions. But I like to make sure that they are actually addressing my question rather than saying things that are entirely unhelpful. As far as I can see, “theft” of IP doesn’t really come down to theft as it is traditionally understood, but rather to the fact that every person is due a just wage. I already suggested this earlier in this thread, but that line of thought didn’t really take off. If you have any treatises in particular that you think would be helpful then feel free to give a link for them here. I am sure I am not the only person who would love to give them a look.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I can find a better sourced article than the wikipedia entry for intellectual property. the footnotes and references are substantial and give both pros and cons from economic and even ethical perspectives.
 
Taking IP stuff illegally is against the law. That’s why Demonoid was shut down. The only reason The Pirate Bay is still open is because of where their servers are.
 
Fairwinds said:
I don’t think I can find a better sourced article than the wikipedia entry for intellectual property. the footnotes and references are substantial and give both pros and cons from economic and even ethical perspectives.
Click to expand...
Not a just wage (although employees ARE entitled to be paid a just wage also).

To me it stems from the fact that people are entitled to the full fruits of their labours, including whatever profits the market brings, consistent with neither depriving others of necessary goods or services nor underpaying nor otherwise mistreating employees or consumers.

As I keep saying, charging even hefty prices for music is neither depriving anyone of a necessary good or service nor otherwise mistreating them in any way.
 
Fairwinds, I give up. You say,
I am not trying to define property however I want to. I am trying to understand reality. Words are just tools that we use to understand reality.
Click to expand...
But, you don’t try to understand. You just keep repeating your words, without responding to ours, or showing that you’ve even thought about them.

I’ve already wasted enough time on this. I’ve run out of charity. I’m out of here.
 
LilyM said:
Not a just wage (although employees ARE entitled to be paid a just wage also).

To me it stems from the fact that people are entitled to the full fruits of their labours, including whatever profits the market brings, consistent with neither depriving others of necessary goods or services nor underpaying nor otherwise mistreating employees or consumers.

As I keep saying, charging even hefty prices for music is neither depriving anyone of a necessary good or service nor otherwise mistreating them in any way.
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure about that… I mean, music and art is a cultural good which ought to be available to everyone. Now, I am not saying that that means that everyone should have access to every piece of music for free. But everyone, even the poor, ought to have access to good music for the sake of society.

I am not saying that that is not the case in our world, afterall, we have radio and plenty of ways to legitimately listen to music for free. But its just that the way you phrased it makes it sound as though you would be totally ok if in a community the only way to access music was at an astronomical price. And that is just not ok, a society is more than just the sum of its parts. And while of course communism is wrong, it is also wrong to say that people are justified in only looking out for themselves.
 
Ruthie_again said:
Fairwinds, I give up. You say,

But, you don’t try to understand. You just keep repeating your words, without responding to ours, or showing that you’ve even thought about them.

I’ve already wasted enough time on this. I’ve run out of charity. I’m out of here.
Click to expand...
??

I think that was me. Not Fairwinds. 🤷
 
Ruthie_again said:
Fairwinds, I give up. You say,

But, you don’t try to understand. You just keep repeating your words, without responding to ours, or showing that you’ve even thought about them.

I’ve already wasted enough time on this. I’ve run out of charity. I’m out of here.
Click to expand...
no, you messed up your quotes. I didn’t say what you quoted. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say…
 
LilyM said:
…To me it stems from the fact that people are entitled to the full fruits of their labours, including whatever profits the market brings …
Click to expand...
If this is the principle behind copyright, why would it ever expire?
 
mwic said:
If this is the principle behind copyright, why would it ever expire?
Click to expand...
copyright lets the artist exploit his or her own work. they expire so the public can benefit from them (public domain) after the protection period expires. just public policy.
 
Fairwinds said:
copyright lets the artist exploit his or her own work. they expire so the public can benefit from them (public domain) after the protection period expires. just public policy.
Click to expand...
But if there is a natural-law based entitlement to enjoy the full fruits of one’s labor, then this process would violate that.

To put it another way: is there any copyright term that would not be in accord with natural law? 250 years? A million years? 5 hours?
 
mwic said:
But if there is a natural-law based entitlement to enjoy the full fruits of one’s labor, then this process would violate that.

To put it another way: is there any copyright term that would not be in accord with natural law? 250 years? A million years? 5 hours?
Click to expand...
life of the author plus 70 I think. that let’s the author get max benefit for himself and his or her heirs. after he’s dead, his interest is dead as well.

Tolkien complained in the foreword to LOTR about a US publisher’s theft of his work. this was before copyright laws were reformed.

I don’t know about natural law, or why it would apply to IP law by treaty or statute.
 
Fairwinds said:
life of the author plus 70 I think. that let’s the author get max benefit for himself and his or her heirs. after he’s dead, his interest is dead as well.

Tolkien complained in the foreword to LOTR about a US publisher’s theft of his work. this was before copyright laws were reformed.

I don’t know about natural law, or why it would apply to IP law by treaty or statute.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I phrased the question wrong. I know what the current copyright term is.

The question is: is there any term shorter than this that violates an author’s right to enjoy the fruits of her labor? Is there any term longer than this that would violate anyone’s rights?
 
mwic said:
Sorry if I phrased the question wrong. I know what the current copyright term is.

The question is: is there any term shorter than this that violates an author’s right to enjoy the fruits of her labor? Is there any term longer than this that would violate anyone’s rights?
Click to expand...
life + 70 seems optimal to me, but congress could set a shorter period. seems like this is an area of a lot of discretion. longer periods? I’d like to see some practical justification, and even then it might depend on what’s being protected. but if we’re veering into patent protection, the protected term is much less. there’s always going to be a balance between public interest and private rights. the lifespan of the patent on that green powder that mixes with water to make gasoline is a lot more important to the public than a copyright on my latest space opera.
 
mwic said:
Sorry if I phrased the question wrong. I know what the current copyright term is.

The question is: is there any term shorter than this that violates an author’s right to enjoy the fruits of her labor? Is there any term longer than this that would violate anyone’s rights?
Click to expand...
Such things are really a matter of prudential judgement for legislators and public servants - and the voters who put them into office - rather than natural law.

Rather like setting an appropriate speed limit for different roads, or an appropriate age of consent for sex, or an appropriate rate of income tax.
 
Fairwinds said:
he or she confused us, and thereby paid you an enormous compliment.
Click to expand...
Wow. While your other posts to me only had the appearance of condescension, in this one you are coming straight out with it. I certainly hope you did not mean this intentionally, but I really do not see how else to read your posts. Please stop it with the condescension, it is against forum rules to be rude to other members.
 
thewanderer said:
Wow. While your other posts to me only had the appearance of condescension, in this one you are coming straight out with it. I certainly hope you did not mean this intentionally, but I really do not see how else to read your posts. Please stop it with the condescension, it is against forum rules to be rude to other members.
Click to expand...
lighten up, it was a joke.

but I do see where this is going.
 
mwic said:
If this is the principle behind copyright, why would it ever expire?
Click to expand...
What I think is an even more pertinent question is why is there such a thing as fair use? Even in our current copyright laws the originators of an idea/piece of art/whatever do not have complete control over their works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top