Moral Basis for copyright and similar laws

[jmcrae]

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.

Yes, but he is gaining profit from the attractiveness of the item that the creative person made. (And let’s face it; there are a lot of people who think they own The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, when what they actually own is a hologram, or a rug, or a print. The non-creative copyist is never going to get the credit for his work, and I’m betting he doesn’t even want it; he’d rather that people think they are buying a da Vinci, while he just takes in their money.)

If the creative person did no additional labor, why does he deserve remuneration for this labor he didn’t do?

Because additional money is being generated by the same work.

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.

It’s not the same level or degree of work to make a copy (especially nowadays, when all you need is a scanner or a digital camera and the right kind of software) as it is to come up with the original, which has to be conceived and organized in the mind and then at least mocked-up by hand, before creating the final piece (which likely is also made by hand).

Shakespeare and his heirs are dead; his work is in the public domain. (I think. That’d be something to check on, if you ever actually wanted to copy it.)

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

returning briefly to the lawn analogy, let me clarify that “expectation” does not refer to the lawn mower’s subjective expectation, but a contractual right to compensation. Since you did not solicit his service, he does not have a legal expectation to payment, whether or not he believes he does. Since you did not solicit, consent, or misrepresent yourself, you have not been “unjustly enriched” by his service. Conversely, when someone secures a copyright for a work, and you duplicate it without license, you have unjustly enriched yourself by acquiring a work without paying for it. Since you desired that work enough to acquire it, it obviously has value. (you can probably google “unjust enrichment” to find a fuller explanation).

turning now to the morality of such an arrangement, it seems that a lot of the participants in this discussion are talking past each other. You have predicated your objections to secular IP rights on the UDG. While this clearly is a possible, if not superior, alternative to current secular property protection regimes, IP rights nonetheless are moral in that they protect the creators of unique works. Even if an artist is paid at large by a label or publishing house, how is the label or publisher then supposed to derive revenue from those works if there are no protections on it?

 

[johnwis]

Another issue with justifying copyright laws is the primordial nature of the Universal Destination of Goods. Everything is a gift to the whole of humanity.

In 2408 the CCC states “There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods”

Making a copy of a book or other product of intellectual labor does not deprive anyone of the copies they hold.

 

[jmcrae]

Another issue with justifying copyright laws is the primordial nature of the Universal Destination of Goods. Everything is a gift to the whole of humanity.

In 2408 the CCC states “There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods”

Making a copy of a book or other product of intellectual labor does not deprive anyone of the copies they hold.

I could see this being a good argument if the book was out of print and the copyright holder was not willing to sell you a copy, but if there are copies available for sale, the expectation is that you will buy one of the copies that is available for sale, rather than make your own copy.

 

[johnwis]

Even if an artist is paid at large by a label or publishing house, how is the label or publisher then supposed to derive revenue from those works if there are no protections on it?

Lack of copyright does not necessarily mean loss of sales The Canadian Recording Industry recently released a study indicating that file-sharing had very little negative impact on CD sales. The study is available at http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant/docs.aspx?pn_ph_no=2006-1&call_id=29786&lang=E&defaultName=Canadian%20Recording%20Industry%20Association%20(CRIA)

 

[johnwis]

the expectation is that you will buy one of the copies that is available for sale, rather than make your own copy.

What about the billions of people in the world who either do not have enough money to purchase books or would have to go without food or other necessities to do so?

 

[johnwis]

Or what about anyone who could benefit from more materials they can afford with copyright law in place. If I can make beneficial use of 10 books, but can only afford five, and make copies of the five I can’t afford, no one lost sales, and more people have the book. Some people would be better off, and no people would be worse off.

 

[johnwis]

returning briefly to the lawn analogy, let me clarify that “expectation” does not refer to the lawn mower’s subjective expectation, but a contractual right to compensation. Since you did not solicit his service, he does not have a legal expectation to payment, whether or not he believes he does. Since you did not solicit, consent, or misrepresent yourself, you have not been “unjustly enriched” by his service. Conversely, when someone secures a copyright for a work, and you duplicate it without license, you have unjustly enriched yourself by acquiring a work without paying for it. Since you desired that work enough to acquire it, it obviously has value. (you can probably google “unjust enrichment” to find a fuller explanation).

While unjust enrichment might explain why violating copyright law is unjust, I do not understand how it explains whether copyright law itself should be on the books, other than that retroactively abolishing copyrights on previous works could be wrong.

 

[johnwis]

The CCC in 2405 states “Goods of production–material or immaterial-- such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number.”

In 2404 it states “‘In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.’”

These two statements taken with the Universal Destination of goods mean that an author or other intellectual worker should not expect more than required to maintain for himself and his dependents a reasonable standard of living if the expectation of this higher material gain would reduce the benefit of his work to others.

 

[system]

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

pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html

transcripts to the PBS documentary “Triumph of the Nerds”
Interesting history

But I don’t think it’s immoral to use someone’s work to make a fortune.

I’m certainly getting that impression from you.

Is there some reason you are so against laws that protect people’s creations? I don’t see the motivation.

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.

Sorry to say I don’t know what the universal destination of goods is, but when you say this in another post:

These two statements taken with the Universal Destination of goods mean that an author or other intellectual worker should not expect more than required to maintain for himself and his dependents a reasonable standard of living if the expectation of this higher material gain would reduce the benefit of his work to others…

You are describing exactly what the communists did to their composers throughout the 20th century. Shostakovich, Prokoffiev, the whole group. That is currently being rectified.

So anyway - based on your ideas, it would be OK for one person to buy a copy of music I arranged, and then give away xerox’s to his heart’s content?

 

[johnwis]

pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html

transcripts to the PBS documentary “Triumph of the Nerds”
Interesting history

The information at the link you provided does not say that Lotus 1-2-3 was used code from VisiCalc. “Based-on”, in this sense could just mean they started out trying to make a product that acted like VisiCalc.

Is there some reason you are so against laws that protect people’s creations? I don’t see the motivation.

I am against restricting the benefit of the fruit of human labor when such restrictions violate the Universal Destination of Goods.

The Universal Destination of Goods is part of Catholic Doctrine and is discussed in CCC 2402-2406. Basically, the whole of creation is a gift to the whole of mankind, and private property is allowed so that we can defend our freedom and dignity and provide for ourselves and our dependents. But the Universal Destination of Goods is primordial.

So anyway - based on your ideas, it would be OK for one person to buy a copy of music I arranged, and then give away xerox’s to his heart’s content?

If copyright law is just, then violating copyright law would not be OK. However, if copyright law did not exist, I do not think it would be wrong for someone to buy a copy of your music, make photocopies, and give them away, nor do I think it would be wrong for them to distribute copies of software that I, as a software developer, write.

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Lack of copyright does not necessarily mean loss of sales The Canadian Recording Industry recently released a study indicating that file-sharing had very little negative impact on CD sales.

without having read it yet, i am going to assume this study shows that infringement of copyright, not the lack thereof, does not impact CD sales. That is an extremely important distinction. Canada does have include copyright in its IP regime.

johnwis:

Making a copy of a book or other product of intellectual labor does not deprive anyone of the copies they hold

when make a copy of a work for no or reduced cost, you are depriving the creator out the value of the sale of that copy. It cannot be posited that there is no value in the copy, if one goes to the trouble of duplicating it to possess its content. You are also diluting the value of other copies properly purchased by others, albeit in an extremely small amount.

 

[johnwis]

when make a copy of a work for no or reduced cost, you are depriving the creator out the value of the sale of that copy. It cannot be posited that there is no value in the copy, if one goes to the trouble of duplicating it to possess its content.

The use value, which is the real reason for acquisition whether through purchase or otherwise by someone who will use the copy, is not zero.

If the copy goes to someone who would not have purchased it or had someone else purchase it for them, then the sale value of that copy is 0.

You are also diluting the value of other copies properly purchased by others, albeit in an extremely small amount.

The copy does not reduce the use value, and in many cases, for example, with word processing software, the copy can increase the use value of the other copies, because that means one more person will be able to send and receive documents in a common format.

The monetary value of the copies already in existence does not diminish any more than it does every time the publisher who has permission to make more copies, prints more copies. Also, the decrease in monetary value may be less because the copy may not be of the same quality, making the copies published by the authorized printer more monetarily valuable.

 

[system]

If anyone is interested in how the copyright laws work in PRINTED music, check out this resource from the Music Publishers Association.

mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/

It may help with questions on the subject.

The recordings of music are a different animal entirely.

I’m interested in the many views on this subject because it says something about who were are as a nation. And since I didn’t know the terms used, I might have learned some chatechism!
(which seemed to fit communism)

I think it is important to note that our government, and many, many private institutions give huge grants, loans, gifts, schorlarships etc to promote the arts.

In Ireland, it is possible for a work of art, book, poem, songs, etc, to make the author lots of money, and then, that money MAY qualify to be a non-taxable bunch of money, because it is seen as an addition to their culture and country.

 

[johnwis]

(which seemed to fit communism)

Actually, in a true capitalist system, there would be no copyright, because copyright prevents publishers from competing in the production and distribution of copyrighted works.

In a real capitalist system, any publisher could pick up a book printed by another publisher and start making copies of that book and competing with the original publisher on the production and distribution of copies of that book.

 

[system]

Actually, in a true capitalist system, there would be no copyright, because copyright prevents publishers from competing in the production and distribution of copyrighted works.

In a real capitalist system, any publisher could pick up a book printed by another publisher and start making copies of that book and competing with the original publisher on the production and distribution of copies of that book.

That just doesn’t make sense.

With that logic, that would mean any ketchup company, could compete with every other ketchup company, simply by stealing their recipe and and bottling it faster than the original company.

The real competition between publishers is in getting the best possible writers - not how fast they can print, or if they can get UPS to come earlier in the morning than the other guys.

In a true capitalist system, the consumer would drive the market (as it does) and the better composer should make more money for selling more copies of music. Right?

 

[johnwis]

With that logic, that would mean any ketchup company, could compete with every other ketchup company, simply by stealing their recipe and and bottling it faster than the original company.

That’s exactly what capitalism as practiced in the United States before government intervention would allow.

The real competition between publishers is in getting the best possible writers - not how fast they can print, or if they can get UPS to come earlier in the morning than the other guys.

The competition between publishers is in getting sales, which may or may not involve getting the best possible writers.

In a true capitalist system, the consumer would drive the market (as it does) and the better composer should make more money for selling more copies of music. Right?

In the theoretical free market system where the producers actually produce what the consumers want instead of convincing the consumers that they want what the producers want to produce, which is not the same as capitalism, and is also not the system actually in use in the United States, the consumer would drive the market.

In such a free market system, the better composer, where better only refers to the composers ability to cater to the desires of consumers and has no relation to artistic merit, would make more money for composing more and better music. He would not make money directly through sales of copies of music because he is a composer and not a publisher or sheet music store.

 

[johnwis]

On the subject of culture, copyright interferes with the functioning of culture. People, when not prohibited by law, will change or add verses to songs to adapt them to their circumstances. Stories get changed, and new stories using the same characters and lands get created by people who did not originally invent the characters and lands.

These processes have occurred for millenia, but are violations of copyright law. In previous centuries, giving credit where credit was due meant giving credit for the works you’ve written to the people by whom they were most inspired. So if an author wrote a book based on the teachings of an individual, credit for the work would frequently go to the person who did the teaching, not the author.

 

[johnwis]

What matters more than whether copyright and similar laws fit capitalism or communism is whether they fit the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[system]

That’s exactly what capitalism as practiced in the United States before government intervention would allow.

Yeah - those were the days. We also had slavery, legal opium, (with lots of addicts) cocaine, no consumer protections at all, no child labor laws, kids dying in factories, no unions to protect immigrants dying in mines, building bridges…

surely you know all this.

The competition between publishers is in getting sales, which may or may not involve getting the best possible writers.

there’s no “may not” involved.

In the theoretical free market system where the producers actually produce what the consumers want instead of convincing the consumers that they want what the producers want to produce, which is not the same as capitalism, and is also not the system actually in use in the United States, the consumer would drive the market.

So it seems your problem is with advertising? I can only guess since you never answered my question about WHY you are against people’s creative works beign protected.

In such a free market system, the better composer, where better only refers to the composers ability to cater to the desires of consumers and has no relation to artistic merit, would make more money for composing more and better music. He would not make money directly through sales of copies of music because he is a composer and not a publisher or sheet music store.

excuse me? so who prints the music? Who advertise it? Who distributes it?

That “agreement of employment” you kept discussing is between the composer and the publisher. Are you seriously saying a composer would have to do all of the above?