Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deimodius" data-source="post: 4915191" data-attributes="member: 14322">I'm going to take a stab at this. Not opining on the actions of any person(s), just attempting to advance the discussion with ideas for all to consider.I've noticed over the past few years a trend in thinking where users/consumers make a distinction between the tangible and intangible. Because you can physically interact with an actual book, you consider it "real" (by you I mean a person, not anyone specific on this board). If you can not physically interact with it, you do not consider it "real". We seem to have developed this literal distinction between the "reality" of the same "thing" in the really real world, and the "digital" world. I think this has led us to a belief that if it's not a tangible object, it can't be "stolen" (or infringed if you prefer).It's a human way of thinking. "It's not a real object, so I didn't steal/infringe anything".So the real question for debate should be; Is it the object, or the idea?Really we're talking about two different kinds of objects when we discuss copyright infringement and piracy. You have real-world objects like pencils, and alarm clocks, and potatoes. The pencil _is_ the pencil, there's nothing more to it. It's purpose is served when it is used to make marks on something like paper.A book, by comparison, is perhaps better described as comprising two separate things; 1. the physical object, and 2. the ideas contained within the object which are relayed to the reader by use of language and symbols. You can have a physical book with blank pages (or with pages covered in symbols that do not actually convey meaning - like Lorem Ipsum), and it is still a book. A book like this, if taken by one person from another person without permission could be described as "stolen". The physical thing was taken.A book with symbols that actually conveys meaning contains a _second_ thing, that is, the idea that is being conveyed. In a more topical example, let's say we have a physical book (object), that includes the Rules for D&D (idea to be conveyed). When you buy the book, you are buying two things, the physical book (object) _and_ access to the rules (idea). For players of D&D, a physical book full of blank pages has no value if the intention in buying it was to have access to the rules so the game could be played. The value is in having access to the idea conveyed by the book.So, what exactly is the "product"? Is it the physical book, or the idea conveyed by the symbols on the pages _in_ the book? I would argue that (unless you wanted a blank journal to write in), the product you are actually intending to buy is the _idea_ in the book. The physical book is just the delivery system for the idea.Now we have computers that are networked together, and the delivery system for the idea has changed.If I remember my Hobbes' "Leviathan" correctly, the idea he promoted was that if you put your labour in to something, the result was owned by you to do with as you pleased. So if you had an orchard of apple trees that belonged to you and no one else (you discovered them first, and no one had claim to the land, trees, or apples) or you planted them on land you owned, then by putting your labour into them by growing them and picking them, you had converted your labour into something of potential value.So you can trade those apples to someone else for a goat, let's say. Or, if you don't need a goat right now, you can trade those apples for money. The money is a representation of your labour. You have turned your labour (planting and picking the apples) into something (money) you can use later to trade for something you need/want.Your labour > your valuable commodity. A man creates an idea. Rules to a game. He put his labour in to it, and the result was an idea that _he_ created. He decides it might have value to others. He needs a way to deliver that valuable idea to others, so he uses symbols to record the idea on pages in a physical book. Now we have the internet, and the idea can be disseminated without the need for a physical book, but the idea was still his. He put his labour into it, so it is his to sell, or not.Are you paying for just the physical book, or are you paying for the idea represented on the pages? (Yes, of course there is value in having a physical object to rely on, carry with, protect from losing data, but as we said if you buy the book to have the rules to play the game, then the same physical book with no words in it would lose its value, so the real value is in the idea conveyed by the text).Do you buy the book, or the idea? The CD, or the music? The DVD, or the movie? The movie theatre is the delivery system for the story displayed visually (idea). If you sneak into the theatre to watch the movie without paying, have you "stolen" something?So if the product is the idea, and not the physical book, then if you take the idea to use without paying the creator of the idea for it (so that he can turn his labour into something else), is that theft? (and yes, I am using theft instead of copyright infringement).I suppose that leads to two different considerations: Moral vs Legal.The moral one is the tricky one, since morality is subjective.The legal one is not so tricky. We, the people, have chosen to live in a society where we elect a government to represent us. Then we give them the power to enact laws on our behalf. Those laws are.. well, laws... you obey them, or break them. Not liking a law because it makes something inconvenient for you is not an excuse to break it, or a means of mitigating your actions. If you don't like the law, work to change the law _legitimately_. Whether or not the law was actually broken will be determined by a court or peers, but if the law says you can't do "x", and you did "x", then you have broken the law.</blockquote>

Verification