• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

A pro copyright, anti piracy stance


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
Personally my view is that copyright is a matter of fundamental morality, though I'd of course agree in the real world there are some grey areas. Let's take a black and white example of a band.

Scenario One
The band play to a paying audience in a closed venue for 70 minutes. Here the band are clearly being paid for their services, there is a clear contract between the audience and the band - and both are free and willing participants.

Scenario two
The band record an album in the studio, and release it for sale to the general public. Here again the band are seeking to be paid for their services and offering a clear (albeit deferred ) contract to their prospective audience - and both are free and willing participants.

If you pirate scenario 2 music you are clearly stealing the band's service and that is immoral. Does anyone disagree ?

cYp
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
Brace yourself cYp, the me feiners and proto-libertarians will be all over this.
 

Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
...anybody else hear the hooves of some strange bee-like creature galloping in this direction?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
Personally my view is that copyright is a matter of fundamental morality, though I'd of course agree in the real world there are some grey areas. Let's take a black and white example of a band.

Scenario One
The band play to a paying audience in a closed venue for 70 minutes. Here the band are clearly being paid for their services, there is a clear contract between the audience and the band - and both are free and willing participants.

Scenario two
The band record an album in the studio, and release it for sale to the general public. Here again the band are seeking to be paid for their services and offering a clear (albeit deferred ) contract to their prospective audience - and both are free and willing participants.

If you pirate scenario 2 music you are clearly stealing the band's service and that is immoral. Does anyone disagree ?

cYp
I disagree. Scenario 2 presumably includes people who otherwise would have purchased the music in question, and people who otherwise would not have. I believe that only the former group are acting unethically since only the former group unnecessarily deprive the band of something that they otherwise would have received (the revenue from the sale of the music).
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,538
Alternative view is that the album is advertising/marketing to get people to attend your shows where you make your living.
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
I disagree. Scenario 2 presumably includes people who otherwise would have purchased the music in question, and people who otherwise would not have. I believe that only the former group are acting unethically.
But scenario 2 has an unethical component, yes? Vested in the individual who actually pirates the IP and those who purchase the pirated IP.
 
B

Boggle

Personally my view is that copyright is a matter of fundamental morality, though I'd of course agree in the real world there are some grey areas. Let's take a black and white example of a band.

Scenario One
The band play to a paying audience in a closed venue for 70 minutes. Here the band are clearly being paid for their services, there is a clear contract between the audience and the band - and both are free and willing participants.

Scenario two
The band record an album in the studio, and release it for sale to the general public. Here again the band are seeking to be paid for their services and offering a clear (albeit deferred ) contract to their prospective audience - and both are free and willing participants.

If you pirate scenario 2 music you are clearly stealing the band's service and that is immoral. Does anyone disagree ?

cYp
It's not stealing, it's duplicating.
It's not immoral either.

It's simply try before you buy.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
I disagree. Scenario 2 presumably includes people who otherwise would have purchased the music in question, and people who otherwise would not have. I believe that only the former group are acting unethically.
So because they had no intention of paying, it is not theft ?

cYp
 
D

Dylan2010

Ill take the other side :D , copyright is not a fundamental right and certainly not a anything akin to a natural right, Its simply a law to benefit producers. There are good examples of where it didnt exist in important parts of Europe so its cant be called a self evident principle
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
So cYp, what about those who bootleg (record) the IP in scenario 1?
They have executed a contract with the band to "consume" the performance, are they not entitled to retain the consumed product?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
But scenario 2 has an unethical component, yes? Vested in the individual who actually pirates the IP and those who purchase the pirated IP.
If you purchase pirated material then I think that's almost certainly going to be unethical (except in a few rare and unusual cases where piracy might be ethically required).
 

emulator

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
10,262
Personally my view is that copyright is a matter of fundamental morality, though I'd of course agree in the real world there are some grey areas. Let's take a black and white example of a band.

Scenario One
The band play to a paying audience in a closed venue for 70 minutes. Here the band are clearly being paid for their services, there is a clear contract between the audience and the band - and both are free and willing participants.

Scenario two
The band record an album in the studio, and release it for sale to the general public. Here again the band are seeking to be paid for their services and offering a clear (albeit deferred ) contract to their prospective audience - and both are free and willing participants.

If you pirate scenario 2 music you are clearly stealing the band's service and that is immoral. Does anyone disagree ?

cYp
Yes.

It is clearly stealing. You are not only paying the band for their services, but also to listen to what they wrote if they indeed did write the music. The playing and recording are streams of income but, so is the composition or writing of the music.

It's actually the bigger slice of the pie....
 
D

Dylan2010

this is wrth a read


No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?

Höffner has researched that early heyday of printed material in Germany and reached a surprising conclusion -- unlike neighboring England and France, Germany experienced an unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the 19th century.

German authors during this period wrote ceaselessly. Around 14,000 new publications appeared in a single year in 1843. Measured against population numbers at the time, this reaches nearly today's level. And although novels were published as well, the majority of the works were academic papers.

The situation in England was very different. "For the period of the Enlightenment and bourgeois emancipation, we see deplorable progress in Great Britain," Höffner states.

Equally Developed Industrial Nation

Indeed, only 1,000 new works appeared annually in England at that time -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900.

Even more startling is the factor Höffner believes caused this development -- in his view, it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom.

Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire.

Höffner's diligent research is the first academic work to examine the effects of the copyright over a comparatively long period of time and based on a direct comparison between two countries, and his findings have caused a stir among academics. Until now, copyright was seen as a great achievement and a guarantee for a flourishing book market. Authors are only motivated to write, runs the conventional belief, if they know their rights will be protected.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
So because they had no intention of paying, it is not theft ?

cYp
If they had no intention of paying then I don't think it's unethical. It might still be theft, but that depends on how you define theft. If theft requires rights violations then no, it's not theft, as no rights have been violated, on my view.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,597
Scenario 1, you pay for a service to be delivered.
Scenario 2, you pay for a service already existing.

If you go to the trouble of pirating a song in scenario 2, then can the market be blamed as the cost for ethical procurement is too high compared to the alternative.
In scenario 2, exclusivity is not impaired and the service is pre-made so the band is not at a loss other than the potential financial loss which I referred to in the market argument.
 

Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
If the band is B*witched, any recording, pirated or otherwise, is defacto immoral.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
Scenario 1, you pay for a service to be delivered.
Scenario 2, you pay for a service already existing.

If you go to the trouble of pirating a song in scenario 2, then can the market be blamed as the cost for ethical procurement is too high compared to the alternative.
In scenario 2, exclusivity is not impaired and the service is pre-made so the band is not at a loss other than the potential financial loss which I referred to in the market argument.
What about if in Scenario 1 the venue was only half full and you snuck in a side door ?

cYp
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
If they had no intention of paying then I don't think it's unethical. It might still be theft, but that depends on how you define theft. If theft requires rights violations then no, it's not theft, as no rights have been violated, on my view.
In Scenario 2: the content creators only intended their music to be heard by those who had paid, they wouldn't have created the music without this expectation.

cYp
 
Top