Moral Basis for copyright and similar laws

[johnwis]

In the case of an artist or other creative person, it’s not a contract for labour: it’s a contract for a finished product. Hiring an artist is not like hiring a secretary or a delivery boy.

It may not be like hiring a secretary or delivery boy, but the reason remuneration is required is because the artist has done labor or supplied materials.

Also, software developers are frequently paid by the hour for contract work.

 

[jmcrae]

It may not be like hiring a secretary or delivery boy, but the reason remuneration is required is because the artist has done labor or supplied materials.

Not really - the important thing is the product; not the hours of labour, or the materials. For example, Picasso was once paid something like a million dollars for five minutes’ work that he did on a pencil drawing. (He also got paid an astronomical sum of money one time to erase a Kandinsky drawing.)

 

[johnwis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwis View Post
It may not be like hiring a secretary or delivery boy, but the reason remuneration is required is because the artist has done labor or supplied materials.
Not really - the important thing is the product; not the hours of labour, or the materials. For example, Picasso was once paid something like a million dollars for five minutes’ work that he did on a pencil drawing. (He also got paid an astronomical sum of money one time to erase a Kandinsky drawing.)

So if you do no work and supply no materials, you still deserve remuneration?

 

[Hastrman]

So if you do no work and supply no materials, you still deserve remuneration?

An artist is not paid for his materials or labor, anymore than a carpenter or plumber is. Like the carpenter or plumber, an artist is paid for the good (in the case of arts like painting and sculpture) or service (in the case of arts like dance and drama) that he provides–but he sets his prices to reflect his materials-cost and labor.

If the only standard for renumeration were having expended materials or labor, than anyone who broke something or jumped up and down could demand payment. Those two factors simply determine how much we pay someone who provides us with a good thing, whether it be a painting or a symphony.

 

[markomalley]

((shakes head VIOLENTLY at some of the responses read on this thread))

As to the subject of authors, in the VAST majority of the cases, an author is an independent contractor. He signs a contract and receives a royalty for each copy of a book sold. If you skirt that, and make a copy of that book, you have just deprived that author of his royalty. That is called THEFT…pure and simple.

If you make an unauthorized copy of a piece of software, you have deprived that software author of his royalty. That is called THEFT…pure and simple.

I personally don’t care too much about whatever kind of rationalization you choose to apply to it, it is still theft.

The fact that somebody chooses to pervert the teachings of the Church in order to rationalize theft is unbelievable.

 

[johnwis]

If you make an unauthorized copy of a piece of software, you have deprived that software author of his royalty. That is called THEFT…pure and simple.

How is it theft if the royalty would not have been paid if the copy were not made, as would be the case if someone would not have purchased the software or had the software purchased for them?

CCC 2408 states “The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.”

What has been stolen if the software developer has no fewer copies of the software?

 

[markomalley]

How is it theft if the royalty would not have been paid if the copy were not made, as would be the case if someone would not have purchased the software or had the software purchased for them?

CCC 2408 states “The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.”

What has been stolen if the software developer has no fewer copies of the software?

How in the world can you apply CCC 2408 to justify theft of another’s property? (Intellectual Property, in this case, but property nonetheless).

If you use the software, it is reasonable to expect that the author would get renumeration for granting you a license to use the software. If you do not wish to pay the license fee (or comply with some other terms of the license), don’t use the software.

If you don’t use the software, then the owner of the software IP should not expect a royalty. True enough. However, that cannot be justification for stealing the software in order to use it surreptitiously.

How can you presume consent??? Do you have a letter, e-mail, published statement from the owner of the IP that he has consented to your use of it without payment of license fees for that use?

Is it somehow unreasonable to assume that the IP owner should receive benefit for the risk that he took in investing the time and the capital in developing the software?

Give me a break.

 

[johnwis]

How in the world can you apply CCC 2408 to justify theft of another’s property? (Intellectual Property, in this case, but property nonetheless).

I’m not using it to justify theft, I’m saying it isn’t theft because denying someone access when no royalty is lost(because it would never have been paid in the first place) is “contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods”, unless you assume copyright law already exists, which can not be assumed for the purpose of determining whether it is morally licit.

As a computer science grad student who intends to make a living developing software, proprietary licensing is not required for a successful business model. In 2405 CCC states “Goods of production–material or immaterial–such as land, factories, and practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number.” That obliges me, and everyone else who possesses any of the things mentioned above, to use them in ways that benefit the greatest number, which means picking business models that provide benefit to the greatest number so long as we receive fair remuneration for work.

In determining fair remuneration for work, we should look at CCC 2434 “‘Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.’”

 

[Newbie2]

How is it theft if the royalty would not have been paid if the copy were not made, as would be the case if someone would not have purchased the software or had the software purchased for them?

CCC 2408 states “The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.”

What has been stolen if the software developer has no fewer copies of the software?

The money he would have made if the other person had legally bought a copy of the software.

 

[system]

((shakes head VIOLENTLY at some of the responses read on this thread))

As to the subject of authors, in the VAST majority of the cases, an author is an independent contractor. He signs a contract and receives a royalty for each copy of a book sold. If you skirt that, and make a copy of that book, you have just deprived that author of his royalty. That is called THEFT…pure and simple.

If you make an unauthorized copy of a piece of software, you have deprived that software author of his royalty. That is called THEFT…pure and simple.

I personally don’t care too much about whatever kind of rationalization you choose to apply to it, it is still theft.

The fact that somebody chooses to pervert the teachings of the Church in order to rationalize theft is unbelievable.

AMEN!

Since this poster is new, I couldn’t decide if he was joking or not, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Later, when I was trying to picture this utpoian world he is describing where the creator makes the same fee whether he sold ten copies or ten million, I thought “no, this guy is just kidding us, or at least just trying to wind people up”

 

[Hastrman]

That still does not address access by people who can not afford whatever cost the art gallery decides to charge.

Many places the art museums are free on Tuesdays.

What has been stolen if the software developer has no fewer copies of the software?

Um…the opportunity to profit by the sale of their product. Thus, they have been deprived of its use.

 

[davidv]

What is this moral basis for intellectual property laws?

The moral basis for intellectual property laws arethe Commandments

You shall not steal, Lev 19:11
You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. Lev 19:13

 

[PaulinVA]

I

As a computer science grad student who intends to make a living developing software, proprietary licensing is not required for a successful business model. I

As someone who HAS been working in the computer science industry for a couple of decades, I can only shake my head. You can try any business model you want - but, then, so can I.

If a mechanic fixes my car, I pay him the bill. No one else can ever use the “fixes” to my car. That transaction lives in a moment of time.

If I create a software program (I being me or my company), it has a life that is determined by the market. People might buy it for months, for years, or, sadly, for only a few days. I charged what I thought was a good price point. However, as you know, I have only granted them a license to use the software. I have not licensed them to distribute my software, for which I would have charged them more and they would have to pay me a royalty of some sort.

Why do I only license software (you can put music, musical performance, or whatever here)? Because I have no idea what the earning potential is of this work. I don’t know what it’s worth, so I don’t know how much to charge for an outright sale of the work. I only let you use it. It looks the same to you as you use it, but it protects me and my business.

I use the revenue stream from this product to pay the people who developed it, the secretaries, the parking lot attendant. Those are the people benefiting from the protection of my intellectual property. This is our livelihood. Why would we give it away?

If someone down the road wants to use my product in their product, then they have to license it for that use, and pay me. It would not be fair to my employees to give their work product away.

A commissioned work is a little different. For a set price, I create a work for someone. They own the copyright. They can decide what to do with the work. If they want to sell it for more than I was commission for, that is fine. I got my price for the work. If they want to give it away, fine. If they want to start a business with it, fine as well.

You need to remember that in the copyright world you are only granted a use license.

I am under no obligation to set a price point for my work that allows anyone to buy it. That price point would be – FREE – and that is not my business model.

 

[jmcrae]

What has been stolen if the software developer has no fewer copies of the software?

Say you come up with what you think is kind of a dumb idea for a game. You play around on the computer with it until it works without any serious bugs.

You make one copy of a game, let’s say, and sell it for $25.00, and then the person you sold it to likes the game, copies it, and gives it away for free to all his friends.

A couple of months later, you’re flipping through the TV channels and discover a TV show with characters based on your game: the game has become so popular that all the kids in your city and all their Internet friends know the story line, and advertisers are lining up to support the new TV show.

But hey - you got your $25.00, so shut up; it’s not your idea, anymore - it belongs to the whole world?

You’d really think that was okay? People could just copy your software and profit from your idea, and you’d be okay with your $25.00?

 

[PaulinVA]

In 2405 CCC states “Goods of production–material or immaterial–such as land, factories, and practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number.” That obliges me, and everyone else who possesses any of the things mentioned above, to use them in ways that benefit the greatest number, which means picking business models that provide benefit to the greatest number so long as we receive fair remuneration for work.

Are you somehow equating “Dude, your game ROCKS” as a benefit of your work product with “Thank you for the paycheck this week - the mortgage is due”?

 

[markomalley]

I’m not using it to justify theft, I’m saying it isn’t theft because denying someone access when no royalty is lost(because it would never have been paid in the first place) is “contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods”, unless you assume copyright law already exists, which can not be assumed for the purpose of determining whether it is morally licit.

If your livelihood is based upon collecting royalties, then you are not getting renumerated for your efforts. As others have said, neither are your employees.

As a computer science grad student who intends to make a living developing software, proprietary licensing is not required for a successful business model. In 2405 CCC states “Goods of production–material or immaterial–such as land, factories, and practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number.” That obliges me, and everyone else who possesses any of the things mentioned above, to use them in ways that benefit the greatest number, which means picking business models that provide benefit to the greatest number so long as we receive fair remuneration for work.

In which case, you can do what a number of publishers do, make academic licensing available, provide licenses gratis to suitable nonprofits, have different license schemes for third world countries or for people in a state of poverty, or whatever.

You can also work in the open source community…but, my experience in that is that open source software development is usually like a law firm having a pro-bono attorney…they hire him and staff him to help them with their public image…

But if you have people who count on you for their livelihood, they will expect to get paid on payday…or you will be the evil manager who uses slave labor and violates Rerum Novarum.

In determining fair remuneration for work, we should look at CCC 2434 “‘Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.’”

If you have an employer/employee basis, then you’re right. But in the business model, it’s a matter of risk versus return. You risk capital and labor hours on a project that may or may not show return. If you are successful, you will have enough projects that show a return to justify taking the risk on projects that don’t ever have a return.

But you’ll learn about that soon enough when you are out in the real world and have to justify not having your employees laid off because there was insufficient return to justify their salaries…or, perhaps, yours.

 

[johnwis]

First of all, this is not some kind of joke to me, and I am not just trying to agitate people.

Um…the opportunity to profit by the sale of their product. Thus, they have been deprived of its use.

The software developer loses the opportunity to profit by the sale of their product every time someone a product to fill the same role from a competitor. By the line of thinking quoted above, competitors are thus depriving them of its use. Wouldn’t that make competitors who developed their own software just as wrong because they still deprived the original author of its use?

A couple of months later, you’re flipping through the TV channels and discover a TV show with characters based on your game: the game has become so popular that all the kids in your city and all their Internet friends know the story line, and advertisers are lining up to support the new TV show.

In that case, I wouldn’t be the one who put in the work to make the television show, so I do not see why I should profit off of it.

Are you somehow equating “Dude, your game ROCKS” as a benefit of your work product with “Thank you for the paycheck this week - the mortgage is due”?

If I wanted I pay check for the work, I shouldn’t have done it without being hired.

 

[johnwis]

You need to remember that in the copyright world you are only granted a use license.

What I am trying to determine is not how things are, but how things should be.

 

[jmcrae]

First of all, this is not some kind of joke to me, and I am not just trying to agitate people.

It seems like you are trying to justify a theft that has already occurred.

The software developer loses the opportunity to profit by the sale of their product every time someone a product to fill the same role from a competitor.

So, the competitor is being rewarded for being more popular. This is a good thing.

By the line of thinking quoted above, competitors are thus depriving them of its use. Wouldn’t that make competitors who developed their own software just as wrong because they still deprived the original author of its use?

No, unless they actually stole the idea from the original author. But if they were solving the same problem in a different (and better) way, then they are well within their rights to make and sell their own software.

In that case, I wouldn’t be the one who put in the work to make the television show, so I do not see why I should profit off of it.

Even though they are your characters, and your ideas?

If I wanted I pay check for the work, I shouldn’t have done it without being hired.

Okay. So, there we have it. Nobody should ever do anything creative. We should all just take waged jobs doing safe, predictable work. Nobody should write books, paint paintings, sculpt scultures, or write music. We should just steal from that which already exists, and never do anything new.

 

[johnwis]

If I buy a book, do I own that physical object?