Moral Basis for copyright and similar laws

[Neil_Anthony]

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

I think it comes down to this from the CCC:

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

So, basically, the governments protect copyrights because they encourage people to produce intellectual goods (which is for the common good) and also they reward the people who produce intellectual property. Your other ideas for regulating intellectual property would possibly be just as moral, but governments are given the authority to decide on how to regulate it.

 

[JimG]

Authors should be employees of publishing houses? Somehow I don’t think John Grisham or Tom Wolfe will agree to give up royalties in return for wages; I also doubt that most movie stars will agree to become strictly employees of a film production company. And of course, first novels would never get written, because without a track record, those writers would never get hired in the first place.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Writers get paid from the sale of their books. That’s why they have contracts with publishers. The publisher buys the right to publish the book from the author by giving him a percentage of sales.

If you have not bought the right to copy (the copyright) from the author, then you don’t have the right to copy the book. If you go ahead and do so anyway, you are stealing not only from the author, but also from the rightful publisher who has purchased the right to copy the book from the author.

Writers don’t get paid like a job for writing books; there is nobody out there hiring writers for a wage job of writing books; the money that they live on comes from a percentage of the sale of the books.

It’s the same with musicians and artists - if you take music and art without paying for it, you are stealing from them, as well.

 

[johnwis]

Authors should be employees of publishing houses? Somehow I don’t think John Grisham or Tom Wolfe will agree to give up royalties in return for wages; I also doubt that most movie stars will agree to become strictly employees of a film production company.

They don’t have to be normal employees, they can be contract employees. Also, an employment agreement could include a share of revenue and not just strict salary or hourly wage. Also, what matters is that people receive just remuneration from their work, not as much remuneration as they can get.

And of course, first novels would never get written, because without a track record, those writers would never get hired in the first place.

A friend of mine is studying art at a university, and she seems to think doing real work without getting paid for it initially is just part of building a portfolio so that people will know that you can do good work. Writing a first novel without getting paid for it to show to potential employers that you can write novels seems analogous.

 

[jmcrae]

They don’t have to be normal employees, they can be contract employees. Also, an employment agreement could include a share of revenue and not just strict salary or hourly wage. Also, what matters is that people receive just remuneration from their work, not as much remuneration as they can get.

Who should get the money from book sales, then, if not the author of the book? (And why should someone with a talent for writing settle for a deal like that?)

A friend of mine is studying art at a university, and she seems to think doing real work without getting paid for it initially is just part of building a portfolio so that people will know that you can do good work.

Most artists never get “jobs” as artists. She will always be “working for free” and then selling her work later; this isn’t a temporary situation (unless she is going to apply to be a commercial artist, of course - but then it will not be her work she is doing; it will be someone else’s).

Hopefully, she will get enough money from last year’s work to support the work she is doing this year.

Writing a first novel without getting paid for it to show to potential employers that you can write novels seems analogous.

It is. If the book you wrote last year sells, you’ll get paid this year, and be able to write another one. If not, you’ll have to take a wage job, doing something that pays reliably.

 

[JimG]

Writing a first novel without getting paid for it to show to potential employers that you can write novels seems analogous.

This is how first novels commonly get written, without pay and without a contract. If it’s good, a publisher might take it on. But they won’t take the author on as an employee.

But let’s say a writer works on a contract or an employment basis with a publisher and there is no copyright law. The publisher somehow pre-arranges to sell a certain number of copies of a book before it is printed. So the publisher now gets paid by selling a predetermined number of books, and the author is paid by the publisher.

Afterwards, the book is in the public domain, so anyone else can copy it freely. Those people who actually paid for it ahead of time may now feel somewhat taken advantage of. The next book that comes out, they will just wait till it’s free. And maybe a book has poor sales this year, but for some reason becomes quite popular next year. That’s good for a publisher who now gets the free content, not so good for the original publisher and author.

 

[johnwis]

Writers don’t get paid like a job for writing books; there is nobody out there hiring writers for a wage job of writing books; the money that they live on comes from a percentage of the sale of the books.

The way things are and the way things should be are not necessarily the same. If copyright law should not exist, and it were to be repealed, there would need to a be transitional period where the law gradually changed to allow the employment arrangements to gradually change, as well.

It’s the same with musicians and artists - if you take music and art without paying for it, you are stealing from them, as well.

Everything I’ve read indicates that any musician who makes enough from royalties to live off of them also makes enough money from performances alone to live off of performance revenue alone. And that most people who make a living as musicians make their money from revenue from performances, and little to nothing from royalties.

Artists tend to either make physical objects that they sell, like paintings and sculptures, or do consulting work, neither of which seem to rely on copyright law for remuneration of the artist’s work.

 

[jmcrae]

The way things are and the way things should be are not necessarily the same. If copyright law should not exist, and it were to be repealed, there would need to a be transitional period where the law gradually changed to allow the employment arrangements to gradually change, as well.

Everything I’ve read indicates that any musician who makes enough from royalties to live off of them also makes enough money from performances alone to live off of performance revenue alone. And that most people who make a living as musicians make their money from revenue from performances, and little to nothing from royalties.

Artists tend to either make physical objects that they sell, like paintings and sculptures, or do consulting work, neither of which seem to rely on copyright law for remuneration of the artist’s work.

Under current copyright law, you would not be allowed to make greeting cards (for example) out of any paintings you have bought, without permission from the artist. (If it were for personal use, they would no doubt give the permission freely, but there is a principle involved.)

 

[johnwis]

Under current copyright law, you would not be allowed to make greeting cards (for example) out of any paintings you have bought, without permission from the artist. (If it were for personal use, they would no doubt give the permission freely, but there is a principle involved.)

If the artist charged enough when selling the painting to get fair remuneration for his work, then current copyright law aside, would you owe him anything further for making greeting cards with the image from the painting on them?

My primary concern in this discussion is what should copyright law say if it should exist at all, not what is acceptable under current law.

 

[jmcrae]

If the artist charged enough when selling the painting to get fair remuneration for his work, then current copyright law aside, would you owe him anything further for making greeting cards with the image from the painting on them?

Sure, since you are profiting from his work; not doing any work of your own. He should get something for the fact that it is his work being used in the greeting cards. (In fact, many artists, such as Robert Bateman, make the majority of their income from greeting cards, calendars, limited edition prints, and posters, rather than from the sale of the actual artwork.)

My primary concern in this discussion is what should copyright law say if it should exist at all, not what is acceptable under current law.

I think that copyright is the most fair way to make sure that creative people get the proper credit and remuneration for their work. If an athlete can sell his talent for millions of dollars a year just on the basis of name recognition, then why shouldn’t talented artists, writers, and musicians/songwriters profit from the popularity of their work?

 

[johnwis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwis View Post
If the artist charged enough when selling the painting to get fair remuneration for his work, then current copyright law aside, would you owe him anything further for making greeting cards with the image from the painting on them?

Sure, since you are profiting from his work; not doing any work of your own.

But in making the greeting cards I am doing work. They don’t just suddenly appear out of the painting because when I decide I want greeting cards.

Are you saying he deserves more than fair remuneration from his work?

And if he deserves money when I benefit from his work, then does that mean the workers who built a UPS truck deserve a cut of the profit with every delivery made with it in addition to their wage for building the truck?

 

[system]

Everything I’ve read indicates that any musician who makes enough from royalties to live off of them also makes enough money from performances alone to live off of performance revenue alone.

Well, you should read more. There are composers, lyricists and arrangers who literally NEVER perform. Should they have to wash dishes to pay their bills, taking away lots of creative time and energy?

I have music published that I may never perform. I expect (and need) to be paid for how many of them sell. If someone xeroxes my arrangments, my family suffers directly.

And that most people who make a living as musicians make their money from revenue from performances, and little to nothing from royalties.

Most? Let’s just say some. And it’s not too easy for them either.

There’s the musician’s union, that can offer you some benefits, and a fair wage, but it’s a very tough life.

 

[jmcrae]

But in making the greeting cards I am doing work. They don’t just suddenly appear out of the painting because when I decide I want greeting cards.

If you had artistic talent, you could make your own paintings, and then make greeting cards out of those.

Are you saying he deserves more than fair remuneration from his work?

I am saying that fair remuneration doesn’t depend on the number of hours worked, but rather, on the value of the product to the marketplace.

If the marketplace wants greeting cards of this artist’s work and is willing to pay for the greeting cards, then the seller of the greeting cards needs to pay this artist some portion of the proceeds of the greeting cards; it can’t just ignore his existence after he’s been paid for the painting itself; otherwise, he will simply cut off their supply of paintings and sell instead to someone else who will pay him something for the secondary use of his work.

And if he deserves money when I benefit from his work, then does that mean the workers who built a UPS truck deserve a cut of the profit with every delivery made with it in addition to their wage for building the truck?

Truck builders aren’t in the same situation as creative people; they have a wage job doing the same thing every day, without having to agonize about whether this truck will work right, or whether it will sell, or what the reviews will be - they have a formula that they follow, with no surprises.

But, if it ever came about that we had to wait for truck builders to be born, and it was rare to get a good truck, then we would probably reward the good truck buiilders, and encourage them by giving them royalties on every delivery made with their truck - sure. Again, it’s about what the market wants from them.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Copying a book would make you indebted to the publisher, not directly to the author, since the publisher pays the author. If the author is getting a cut of the sales, illegally copying a book rips off both.

Also, what matters is that people receive just remuneration from their work, not as much remuneration as they can get. .

I’m not sure what you’re saying…that people should be compensated only so much for their work, and no more? Are we not entitled to ask for a raise i.e. get as much as the employer will pay us for our work, whether intellectual work or not?

A friend of mine is studying art at a university, and she seems to think doing real work without getting paid for it initially is just part of building a portfolio so that people will know that you can do good work. Writing a first novel without getting paid for it to show to potential employers that you can write novels seems analogous.

Your friend is correct, in that’s the way it works. However, the work is still her property, and as long as she legally protects it, is entitled to compensation if it is sold for profit somewhere down the line. It would be immoral, for example, if the first place where she worked took her portfolio work and sold it without an agreement on compensation to her, as it was not conceived or done while in their employment.

If the artist charged enough when selling the painting to get fair remuneration for his work, then current copyright law aside, would you owe him anything further for making greeting cards with the image from the painting on them?

My primary concern in this discussion is what should copyright law say if it should exist at all, not what is acceptable under current law.

Yes, you would owe them for their intellectual work, assuming that their work was protected by intellectual property protection laws, the details of which I’m not familiar. But morally, it’s their idea (intellectual property) and if you don’t get permission or pay for it, it’s stealing.

Stealing intellectual property is no different than stealing physical property, and yes, there is a moral basis for intellectual property laws, whether or not they are written “correctly” or “fairly”.

 

[system]

As a software developer, I can tell you that very few software developers rely on copyright for their income.

As a software developer, you must know the story of VISI-CALC and how in the early days of the PC the creator-designer of visi-calc, naively gave away the code in the spirit of the day.

The recipients created Lotus 1-2-3 and became multi-millionaires. He got nothing.

Is that moral?

 

[johnwis]

As a software developer, you must know the story of VISI-CALC and how in the early days of the PC the creator-designer of visi-calc, naively gave away the code in the spirit of the day.

The recipients created Lotus 1-2-3 and became multi-millionaires. He got nothing.

Is that moral?

I have not seen any reference to the code of VisiCalc’s code being used in Lotus 1-2-3.

But I don’t think it’s immoral to use someone’s work to make a fortune. If there was no employment agreement, I don’t see how wages could be owed, and if no material was lost, I don’t see how they would owe him for materials, due to the Universal Destination of Goods.

On the subject of giving code away, there are successful businesses that due just that, like Red Hat and Sleepycat Software. Copyright isn’t necessary for a successful software business if you run it right.

 

[johnwis]

Well, you should read more. There are composers, lyricists and arrangers who literally NEVER perform. Should they have to wash dishes to pay their bills, taking away lots of creative time and energy?

As long as musicians, movies, and television shows need music, they will need someone to write the music. They can hire songwriters to write the music.

Just because current business models require copyright doesn’t mean that just remuneration for work requires copyright.

 

[johnwis]

Quote:
Are you saying he deserves more than fair remuneration from his work?
I am saying that fair remuneration doesn’t depend on the number of hours worked, but rather, on the value of the product to the marketplace.

If the marketplace wants greeting cards of this artist’s work and is willing to pay for the greeting cards, then the seller of the greeting cards needs to pay this artist some portion of the proceeds of the greeting cards; it can’t just ignore his existence after he’s been paid for the painting itself; otherwise, he will simply cut off their supply of paintings and sell instead to someone else who will pay him something forthe secondary use of his work.

Laborem Exercens states that just remuneration for work derives primarily from the subjective aspect of labor, which is the dignity of the human person working, and only secondarily on the objective value of the labor, which would include things like market value.

If the terms of purchase of the painting are just remuneration for the labor of the painter, then they would take into account things like being able to duplicate the painting.

I’m not sure what you’re saying…that people should be compensated only so much for their work, and no more? Are we not entitled to ask for a raise i.e. get as much as the employer will pay us for our work, whether intellectual work or not?

Getting a raise is not necessarily the same as getting as much as you can for your work. Raises can be necessary if the amount of money it takes for you to provide for your needs and those of your dependents increases, or if your employer’s revenue due to your work increases.

You are not necessarily entitled to the maximum income you could achieve because this could limit access unnecessarily to the products and services your employer provides because fewer people will be able to afford the higher prices required for your higher income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwis View Post
If the artist charged enough when selling the painting to get fair remuneration for his work, then current copyright law aside, would you owe him anything further for making greeting cards with the image from the painting on them?

My primary concern in this discussion is what should copyright law say if it should exist at all, not what is acceptable under current law.

Yes, you would owe them for their intellectual work, assuming that their work was protected by intellectual property protection laws, the details of which I’m not familiar. But morally, it’s their idea (intellectual property) and if you don’t get permission or pay for it, it’s stealing.

First, copyright doesn’t cover ideas, only expressions of ideas, at least in the United States.

In the text you quoted I specifically said that they received just remuneration for their work when the painting was purchased. This work would include the intellectual work, so why would more be owed?

From a moral perspective, why would it matter whether the work was covered by intellectual property laws?

Stealing intellectual property is no different than stealing physical property, and yes, there is a moral basis for intellectual property laws, whether or not they are written “correctly” or “fairly”.

What is this moral basis for intellectual property laws?

 

[jmcrae]

Another way to look at it is, there is money being produced by the sale of the item. Who does the money rightly belong to?

The person who copied and sold the item (but did not create it) alone? Or a fair division between the person who copied and sold it, and the person who originally created it?

(Should non-creative people benefit financially from the hard work of creative people? If so, why?)

 

[johnwis]

The person who copied and sold the item (but did not create it)

If someone is making and selling a copy, that made the object being sold, not the creative person who made the original from which the new object is copied. If the creative person did no additional labor, why does he deserve remuneration for this labor he didn’t do?

When a non-creative person creates an object based on the work of the creative person, the non-creative person is the one doing the work. That’s why copies of Shakespeare’s plays are possible.