L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
I don't really have a position regarding this specific website you're talking about, as I'm not familiar with it. It sounds like it's doing both legal and illegal copying and isn't bothering to figure out which is which, which ain't perhaps the best way of going about things.The question Lanefan and I are asking is: "Does this particular website cause harm to the copyright holder?" We don't think it does. Yes, technically they are violating copyright (which you keep referring to as "theft" or "stealing"). But we don't think a technical violation itself makes it wrong. (@Lanefan: please correct me if I've mischaracterized your position.)
I'm not saying that is a technical violation and therefore also an ethical transgression. I'm saying it's an ethical transgression and a legal transgression.And unless I'm getting your position wrong, you (Lord Entrails) seem to be saying that a technical violation is also an ethical transgression, and is "theft", regardless of whether or not any harm is done, because A might lead to B which might lead to C, etc.
If I've got that right then I think maybe we're done, because I don't think either of us is going to budge from our mutually exclusive positions.
Well said. And I will say the whole, "you can't prove you were harmed or lost sales" so you can't prove it's wrong. So many things wrong with that philosophy to me. But not worth getting into.So, that's not how it works. You can argue about whether copyright violations are malum in se or malum prohibitum, but they are definitely malum. Right?
...
But in the end, the point of all of this is that you, the person taking, doesn't get to make that determination. That would be a little too ... well, easy, right? We don't let the criminal be the judge of their own crimes.
Yes. Agreed. And I see things very similarly.because I know in my life that artists have gotten the raw end of the deal when their work isn't protected.*
*This is complicated, of course, but I'm discussing my general experience, not patent trolls and the like.
I see no way that any of the content (other than SRD content) can be said to have been put online legally, therefore their is little no argument I can see that says, hey, it's already online, so distribution is now a free for all.From my position as a content producer, my angle is this: if it goes online it might as well be considered public domain. Then again, I feel the internet should have been entirely public domain all along, and might have been if business hadn't found ways to monetize it...and wreck it at the same time.
So, that's not how it works. You can argue about whether copyright violations are malum in se or malum prohibitum, but they are definitely malum. Right?
The only interesting thing is the type of justification we make for ourselves. Because ... well, there is actual harm that happens. We try to minimize it, because ... it's just big corporations, or maybe "I wouldn't buy it anyway," or whatever are internal excuse is. And almost everyone with even a little computer savvy has done it at some point; I'm not getting on my high horse about this, because I have engaged in similar mental gymnastics (it's fine to download Doctor Who, because I have BBC America, I just don't want to wait).
But in the end, the point of all of this is that you, the person taking, doesn't get to make that determination. That would be a little too ... well, easy, right? We don't let the criminal be the judge of their own crimes.
Anyway, there's a lot more to this- issues of morality, and IP law, and all sorts of other fascinating things that don't have a lot to do with IP. In the end, you have to make the decisions about morality that you are comfortable with. And I know, for me, I'm much closer to where Lord Entrails is coming from, if only because I know in my life that artists have gotten the raw end of the deal when their work isn't protected.*
*This is complicated, of course, but I'm discussing my general experience, not patent trolls and the like.
So, in today's world where just about anyone can convert a printed product to a digital product either for free (using a civic source like a library) or purchasing a multi-function printer for less than $100 how do you 'provide sufficient incentive for creators to create' without controlling distribution of said product and/or their format conversions?1) As I mentioned above, I believe that the role of copyright (and patent) laws is to provide sufficient incentive for creators to create, an activity for which society has an interest. I do NOT believe that the purpose of those laws should be to protect any kind of "natural right" to creative works, regardless of whether or not such a natural right exists. I think the latter interpretation, now common, is the result of a long term strategy by content companies to persuade us of it. The phrase "Intellectual Property" is, itself, an example of that campaign.
So, in today's world where just about anyone can convert a printed product to a digital product either for free (using a civic source like a library) or purchasing a multi-function printer for less than $100 how do you 'provide sufficient incentive for creators to create' without controlling distribution of said product and/or their format conversions?
Let me introduce you to this amazing thing called Control f.