Moral Basis for copyright and similar laws

[johnwis]

I am having trouble understanding how copyright and similar legislation is morally justifiable. I do understand that we are obligated to obey just laws. I am not trying to argue that we should not follow the laws already in place, I am trying to examine whether the laws should be there.

If a friend makes a copy of a book and gives it to me, the original author, the publisher, and the distributors still have the same amount of money and books they had before, so it seems to me the only reason I would owe the author anything is if it were fair wages for the labor the author put in to writing the book. But if there was no employment agreement between myself and the author, why would I owe him wages?

If I do not owe the author for anything he has given up (because he hasn’t, aside from time, whose reparation would fall under wages) or his wages, why do I owe him anything?

 

[kaygee]

The workman is due his hire. It can take months and even years to write a book, plus all the research and expenses entailed. The writer puts his work out to the public at a price that, if enough people BUY his work, the writer will be fairly compensated. If copies are distributed around for free, or, worse, pirated for profit, the writer who toiled and researched is denied his just wage.

 

[JimG]

The laws are there to prevent theft. It takes a lot of work, time and creativity to write a book (or produce a movie). The book is produced to be sold. If it’s copied or plagiarized, or reproduced without permission, the author and publisher are denied income.

Likewise, if a producer spends millions to produce a movie, hoping to make a profitable return, he will fail if the movie is reproduced and distributed for free.

Without copyright protection, there would be no financial incentive for writers, filmmakers, photographers, etc, to produce anything.

 

[johnwis]

Does this mean that if someone mows your lawn without you asking them to do so first, you owe them for the work they’ve done?

 

[cameron_lansing]

I am having trouble understanding how copyright and similar legislation is morally justifiable. I do understand that we are obligated to obey just laws. I am not trying to argue that we should not follow the laws already in place, I am trying to examine whether the laws should be there.

If a friend makes a copy of a book and gives it to me, the original author, the publisher, and the distributors still have the same amount of money and books they had before, so it seems to me the only reason I would owe the author anything is if it were fair wages for the labor the author put in to writing the book. But if there was no employment agreement between myself and the author, why would I owe him wages?

If I do not owe the author for anything he has given up (because he hasn’t, aside from time, whose reparation would fall under wages) or his wages, why do I owe him anything?

Time is the very stuff that life is made of.

The mere possession of an author’s work given to you by a friend would not seem to present any particular difficulty that I can see. The author received compensation upon the original purchase. Copyright protection exists to prevent others from publishing or selling the work in their own name so as to obtain profit or another good. Certain fair usage is permitted. However, if the friend just made a copy and passed it on, apart from certain fair usage, this would be problemmatic in the sense that the two of you benefit unjustly in some way from the intellectual property of another person without compensation. (Most frequently, this sort of thing happens in Catholic circles when liturgical music is reproduced without permission. Many dioceses have policies against this.)

In regard to that very broad question, you may find it helpful to review Catholic Social Teaching in regard to the licit right to private property. There are numerous websites in which you can find the magisterial teaching. Rerum novarum § 6 and Solicitudo rei socialis § 42 might be examined.

In particular, Laborem exercens recognizes the value of intellectual work, for which justice would recognize rights to ownership and to the fruits of such intellectual work.

The matter is also considered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2041 and following.

Perhaps you might wish to review those sources and then consider them in regard to your question.

 

[JimG]

Does this mean that if someone mows your lawn without you asking them to do so first, you owe them for the work they’ve done?

I’m not getting the analogy. If a producer spent his money to make a movie and give it to me free, that’s his business, but it’s not likely. If an author loves to spend his workdays writing for free, that’s his business, but again, not likely. (except, perhaps on forums like this, which get a lot of free content from us, but they hold the copyright!)

 

[johnwis]

The basis of the analogy is that if someone mows your lawn without a pre-existing employment arrangement and then expects to be paid, I don’t see how that would be different from an author writing a book without a pre-existing employment arrangement and then expecting to be paid.

I did not have phrased it right the first time. It was supposed to say was “If someone mows your lawn without you arranging for them to do it for pay, and they ask for payment after they mow the lawn, do you owe them pay?”

 

[johnwis]

cameron_lansing, thank you for the resources. I will look into what they say.

 

[Penitant]

In terms of the arguments above, how is making a copy of the book and giving it to me any different from letting me borrow the original book to read?

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Listener]

I have trouble believing that this would be a sin. I think it would really be wrong if you made photocopies of someone’s book and then started selling them.

What is the difference if you read your friend’s photocopied book or you went to the library and checked out a copy of the book to read? If you have no intention of buying the book, the author hasn’t lost any money.

Many of these laws are so complicated that it would be impossible to determine whether or not you are actually breaking the laws.

Let’s say that you bought a little book, but the print was too small for you to read. You go to Kinko’s and photocopy this little book so each page has print large enough for you to read it. If it is only for your own use, I don’t see any sin involved here.

It may be technically against the law, but who is going to catch you?

This stuff makes me think about what Jesus said about the Pharisees.

 

[johnwis]

cameron_lansing, I noticed nothing in the references that you provided that would justify the concept of intellectual property. When Laborem Exercens mentions property, it refers exclusively to physical objects.

When Laborem Exercens supports the dignity of intellectual labor, but does not separate remuneration from work from employment.

In the particular case of books, it seems to me that if an author is employed by a publisher, whether indefinitely or for the creation of a particular book, it would be the publishers responsibility to provide remuneration for the work of the author.

If I hire someone to write a book, I definitely owe the author a just wage. But if I do not hire the author, I do not see how I owe the author remuneration for work, since I am not employing the author.

 

[johnwis]

As far as ownership is concerned, wouldn’t the Universal Destination of Goods mean that the copying and distribution of non-rival goods should not be restricted because such copying and distribution does not deprive anyone of possession of the copies of that good which they possess?

 

[YACatholic]

It’s simple. You’re taking something that costs money to buy, and not paying for it. Forget whether you agree with copyright laws, it doesn’t matter because infringing on them is illegal. Fight the law if you don’t like it. Don’t break it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As far as ownership is concerned, wouldn’t the Universal Destination of Goods mean that the copying and distribution of non-rival goods should not be restricted because such copying and distribution does not deprive anyone of possession of the copies of that good which they possess?

Hi,
I think you’re confusing physical property (the paper and the book) with intellectual property (ideas). The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property. Of course if you photocopy a book, you haven’t stolen any physical property, the original book is still there. But copyright and patent laws recognize that an idea can also be property, and that the person who came up with the idea (invention, story, movie, song, etc.) has the right to decide who gets to use his idea.
Neil

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

the flaw in your lawn analogy is that you did not solicit the individual to mow your lawn, so he has no expectation of remuneration. When someone produces a work, copyrights it, and makes arrangements for its sale and distribution, then he is soliciting your business. Simply because a copyrighted work can be duplicated without any effort on the part of the creator does not diminish the value of that work- on the contrary, that others are seeking it through duplication speaks to the fact that each individual copy has value. when you purchase a copyrighted item (book, cd, etc.), you have purchased an individual license for that material, specifically, for that particular expression (ideas, laws of nature, among others, cannot be copyrighted, but a unique expression or discussion of them can).

Copyright serves the public interest by providing an incentive for individuals to create quality works. Without it, your entertainment and education would look dramatically different.

 

[johnwis]

YACatholic, I am not trying to advocate breaking the law. I am trying to find out what the law should say.

 

[johnwis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwis View Post
As far as ownership is concerned, wouldn’t the Universal Destination of Goods mean that the copying and distribution of non-rival goods should not be restricted because such copying and distribution does not deprive anyone of possession of the copies of that good which they possess?
Hi,
I think you’re confusing physical property (the paper and the book) with intellectual property (ideas). The copyright laws are there to protect intellectual property. Of course if you photocopy a book, you haven’t stolen any physical property, the original book is still there. But copyright and patent laws recognize that an idea can also be property, and that the person who came up with the idea (invention, story, movie, song, etc.) has the right to decide who gets to use his idea.
Neil

But what is the moral basis for intellectual property, if there is one? Why wouldn’t the Universal Destination of Goods apply?

 

[JimG]

I would say that the moral basis for copyright law is that a person has a right to be paid for the fruits of his labor.

It is technically feasible currently to do instant publishing. One could even have a “book kiosk” which would produce in a matter of minutes a single copy of any book you wanted. Just insert your credit card; get whatever book you want. If no one had to pay for content—i.e. if no copyright laws existed—the kiosk owner could make a pretty good profit, selling instant copies of other people’s work.

But without copyright laws, who would write? Who would produce movies? Who would write and produce songs, music videos, software? Shakespeare didn’t write for free, he wrote for his theater company, and charged admission.

A novelist might spend a year writing a novel, without having an employment contract from anyone—not a publisher, not the public. If a publisher agrees to print it, the author receives royalties on the sales. This means that his income depends on the popularity of the work. Or, the publisher could buy the work outright, and retain all the profits from sales, as well as all the expenses of advertising and printing. In either case, one party or the other retains the rights to the intellectual property. If the intellectual property was free for the copying, a popular work would be adversely affected by lost sales, and less popular works might incur substantial losses.

Take away the copyright law, and the author might as well go to work in sales or marketing or manufacturing or telemarketing–anything that would pay him for the fruits of his labor rather than work for free.

 

[johnwis]

the flaw in your lawn analogy is that you did not solicit the individual to mow your lawn, so he has no expectation of remuneration.

I explicitly stated in my lawn analogy that the person expected to be paid after doing the work:

The basis of the analogy is that if someone mows your lawn without a pre-existing employment arrangement and then expects to be paid

When someone produces a work, copyrights it, and makes arrangements for its sale and distribution, then he is soliciting your business.

But by the time the copyrighted material is available for sale, the author has already done the work, and I did not have an employment agreement with him.

Certainly, if I decide to obtain a book, I owe money to the person from whom I am obtaining the book, if the person chooses to ask for money, but if I obtain a copy from someone that person isn’t losing anything until I agree to pay for it and he gives it to me. The scenario for authorship equivalent to my obtaining a book would be for the author to wait to write the book until enough people have agreed to pay him enough money to make his task worthwhile, or for the author to be employed by a publisher or other entity.

As far as incentives are concerned, people create without monetary incentive all the time. Also, there are viable business models which do not depend on copyright that can provide monetary incentives to those people in the artistic professions.

 

[johnwis]

I would say that the moral basis for copyright law is that a person has a right to be paid for the fruits of his labor.

When Laborem Exercens talks about how people should get remuneration for work, it states that the employer should provide this remuneration.

But without copyright laws, who would write? Who would produce movies? Who would write and produce songs, music videos, software?

As a software developer, I can tell you that very few software developers rely on copyright for their income. Most are employed in large companies writing custom software for accounting, data collection, etc. The numbers I’ve seen for that are 75% and 85%. There are also software businesses, which make profits, who allow their software to be used for free. They charge for distribution, support contracts, and other services. If you would like more information on this, look at the information provided by the Free Software Foundation. The “Free” in the previous sentence refers to freedom for the users, not the cost of acquisition.

Most musicians make most of their money from actual performances. As long as musicians are playing music, they will need songs, which they can hire songwriters to write.

As long as movie theaters exist, they will need movies, so they can contract with movie companies to produce movies.

Television stations will still need programming, including music videos, can hire people to make that programming.

Book authors could be hired by publishers. There are currently publishing companies that make a profit selling mainly books containing information available for free on the internet.

Also, alternative distribution models could be tried, like providing novels online a chapter at a time with advertising. If the novels are cut up into small enough pieces that people can read them in an hour or two, the people who like the material will want to view it as soon as it comes out, giving the original publisher an edge over those that would copy it. Also, the website on which the books are distributed could offer print copies for online ordering and offer other services to drive traffic, such as forums where readers can discuss issues with the actual offer.

In short, viable business models exist to provide remuneration for work without copyright