So, let's say that the time has come when, like that fed-ex ad a while back, you can copy actual objects through a printer. As in being able to photograph, scan, and print your Nissan. So, if you could copy your car for your poor friend in need, and then print it (by spending $1000 or whatever for the printer), would you? Mind you, this is NOT selling, but giving. You are not makling a profit from this, just "sharing".
Your morals on duplication (a question)
- Thread starter The549
- Start date
I think people should respect authors wishes as to the usage of their work. I have no problem with open source, and encourage business models based on alternative recovery methods (subscriptions, live performances, support contracts, consulting, etc)
For me it's not simply an issue of copyrights, it's one of respecting artists.
Now, I agree with people that the RIAA sucks, they're a cartel who control the price of music for example, but if they were out of the equation, and someone said "You can listen copy my song, but please send me 50 cents for the right to listen to it an infinite number of times", you really think it's moral to take their work, agree to their terms, then violate them?
For me it's not simply an issue of copyrights, it's one of respecting artists.
Now, I agree with people that the RIAA sucks, they're a cartel who control the price of music for example, but if they were out of the equation, and someone said "You can listen copy my song, but please send me 50 cents for the right to listen to it an infinite number of times", you really think it's moral to take their work, agree to their terms, then violate them?
Huh? :? :|
You do realize that the artists are getting nowhere near 50 cents per album, don't you? It's more like 0.5 cents if they are lucky. Fact is, pirating music makes more money for the *artist* because then more people hear their music and go to concerts which is where the artists get their money from. Does that make it right? Not any more than what the RIAA is doing to the artists.DemoCoder said:
Right, so pretty much some agree that there is a universal moral on the copying of *any* material, whether or not the entity being "unfairly taken advantage of" is a good/moral one.
I think I'm leaning more to; if you can do it with your means (ie, your own pc/car copier/steak copier), and if it is not harming anyone (like burning your own house down, and consequently, your neighbors, + smoke etc), then it's your right.
I think I'm leaning more to; if you can do it with your means (ie, your own pc/car copier/steak copier), and if it is not harming anyone (like burning your own house down, and consequently, your neighbors, + smoke etc), then it's your right.
DemoCoder said:
Good point. About the money, well, since money is pretty much a government guarrantee, I think that's different than a car. You don't drive yourself to work on a paper; you drive to work to get the paper. If it's art, then of course, that's different again. But as for any music on a big label company being art.....well......is what plumbers do art as well? Plumbers fix things to make a living; bands make music for a living. If they made the music to be art, and then sold the art, then that's different, and it gets complicated. Which is why I asked about copying a car. no art there, I think.
umm.... well..... if you can just go round willy nilly copying everything you want then noone would have to ever work because you just shove whatever you want in the copier and make a few billion copes for everyone.... of course, you'd still have to have people having jubs but then they would be doing it because they enjoy what they are doing and not because they have to make money. so, then, they aren't getting paid for the job and dont need to get paid for it then what's wrong with copying it? if an artist wants something public then it really means PUBLIC, otherwise it's PRIVATE and you wouldnt have a chance to copy it unless you stole the oriinal work. The only reason there is an in between is because it costs money to produce and artists have to have money to live off of.The549 said:
well, if we had a post-scarcity economy, but we don't. We are in transition. That means the people who produce the most valuable products -- information -- need to be compensated until we can get to a point where people don't need money to buy things.
The point I illustrated with the money counterfeiting example, is that copying things cannot be said to be "harmless" . In the case of money, it is a standard of exchange that lets us have economic relationships between ourselves over time. It allows us to store value, and use it later as well. Allowing people to "cheat" that system undermines it for all of us. How would you feel if suddenly your life's savings were worthless because millions of people started copying money and inflated it to nothing? Money is like traffic lights. If we all mostly obey them, it benefits all of us. If a significant fraction ignore them, we are in trouble. Most of society's rules are like this: our stability depends on most people not being disobedient.
With respect to other forms of information, you can have the same effect. If it takes me 18 months, and $5 million to pay a team of 40 people to work on the next video game (say, Half Life 2), because these programmers have lives, car loans, mortgages, children, and other things they are responsible for, then I need to sell 100,000 copies of this software to make back the money I used to pay the programmers. If 50,000 people pirate, then I need to sell the remaining 50,000 copies at $100. If 75% of the people pirate, I need to sell for $200. What's that look like? Inflation.
Of course, this won't happen because people are sensitive to price, and less people will buy Half-Life2 for $200, for example.
The problem with the band theory is that painters and bands are 1-5 people, operating on somewhat chaotic schedules. In order to get a larger group of people to work together, say, 30 people, over an extended period of time (say, 2 years), you need to shelter them from risk, and that means paying them up front while developing. But the person who supplies this money (i.e. the capitalist) won't do it if he can't get a return on his investment.
The result is a reduction in goods produced by larger groups of people.
Now, I love individual art and bands myself, but I have seen awesome things that a large group of dedicated humans can do over 2+ years if they are managed and kept together effectively (Lord of the Rings trilogy for example). I'd hate to lose that form of art, just because some immoral people can't understand that they can harm people, even if they can't see it.
The alternative is government *FORCING* you to pay artists, by taxing everyone, and paying artists to produce things. You're going to pay, even if it means the government has to subsidize movie studies and game companies. Isn't it better to have a free society and choice, rather than have the government take that choice away from you and force you to pay for art you don't like?
The point I illustrated with the money counterfeiting example, is that copying things cannot be said to be "harmless" . In the case of money, it is a standard of exchange that lets us have economic relationships between ourselves over time. It allows us to store value, and use it later as well. Allowing people to "cheat" that system undermines it for all of us. How would you feel if suddenly your life's savings were worthless because millions of people started copying money and inflated it to nothing? Money is like traffic lights. If we all mostly obey them, it benefits all of us. If a significant fraction ignore them, we are in trouble. Most of society's rules are like this: our stability depends on most people not being disobedient.
With respect to other forms of information, you can have the same effect. If it takes me 18 months, and $5 million to pay a team of 40 people to work on the next video game (say, Half Life 2), because these programmers have lives, car loans, mortgages, children, and other things they are responsible for, then I need to sell 100,000 copies of this software to make back the money I used to pay the programmers. If 50,000 people pirate, then I need to sell the remaining 50,000 copies at $100. If 75% of the people pirate, I need to sell for $200. What's that look like? Inflation.
Of course, this won't happen because people are sensitive to price, and less people will buy Half-Life2 for $200, for example.
The problem with the band theory is that painters and bands are 1-5 people, operating on somewhat chaotic schedules. In order to get a larger group of people to work together, say, 30 people, over an extended period of time (say, 2 years), you need to shelter them from risk, and that means paying them up front while developing. But the person who supplies this money (i.e. the capitalist) won't do it if he can't get a return on his investment.
The result is a reduction in goods produced by larger groups of people.
Now, I love individual art and bands myself, but I have seen awesome things that a large group of dedicated humans can do over 2+ years if they are managed and kept together effectively (Lord of the Rings trilogy for example). I'd hate to lose that form of art, just because some immoral people can't understand that they can harm people, even if they can't see it.
The alternative is government *FORCING* you to pay artists, by taxing everyone, and paying artists to produce things. You're going to pay, even if it means the government has to subsidize movie studies and game companies. Isn't it better to have a free society and choice, rather than have the government take that choice away from you and force you to pay for art you don't like?