Philosophical Quandry: Piracy - Page 5

PvK · #41 July 11th, 2003, 09:31 PM

As for the actual topic of the thread...

in my opinion, cassette recorders and xerox machines were the beginning of the obsolescence of legal control of public media duplication. Affordable CD writers, the Internet, and contemporary computers, as well as audio/visual encoding devices, have made it entirely practical to share almost all forms of media freely with everyone on the planet. The service of location, distribution, and duplication of almost all media can now be trivially and extremely inexpensively performed by computers.

The world's economic and legal systems [are] quite obsolete and extremely counter-productive, compared to technical realities. We've got these megacorporations invested in the old system of ownership desperately trying to keep us from using computers to do what they do naturally - copy data. Our culture as a whole hasn't really figured out what has happened yet, and has no consensus on what to do about it.

However, this situation is an ocean that can't be held back forever by an artificial dam. Or at least, humans will be an even sillier race than they already are if they try to keep themselves from being able to copy data forever.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: PvK ]

Loser · #42 July 11th, 2003, 09:46 PM

True. Change will come. But it may not be a good change. If a good distribution model, one that compensates the artists, is not developed, certain forms of art (ones that are not valued for Live Performances, the way musicians really make their money) may fall back to the sate in which they existed before the birth of Free Artistry in the Renascence.

[broad generalization]

Change will come. Men to not make history. History makes men.

[/broad generalization]

Phoenix-D · #43 July 11th, 2003, 10:12 PM

And, PvK, how would you propose people make -money- off this sharing of data? You know, that funny little concept they need to pay for food or avoid getting a job they don't want, just because others can't be bothered to compensate them for their work.

PvK · #44 July 11th, 2003, 10:20 PM

There are probably thousands of possible alternate economic systems available to open-minded people, and economics is not my favorite subject. However my personal proposal would be that there would be a tax levied which would be somewhat less than the estimated average expenditure on the media which would be made free, based on the person's disposable income. Taxpayers could then voluntarily indicate which content creators they appreciated the most, and these creators would get compensated accordingly.

People creating media would register their works, and there would be a body responsible for validating claims and approval votes, and catching liars. Personally, I would scale the system so that people working steadily creating original content would at least earn enough to support themselves, even without many appreciation votes.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: PvK ]

Fyron · #45 July 11th, 2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

may fall back to the sate in which they existed before the birth of Free Artistry in the Renascence.

As we all know, there was never any form of free astristry before then. Nope, not even in non-European cultures or before the European Dark Ages.

Slynky · #46 July 11th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
As for the actual topic of the thread...

in my opinion, cassette recorders and xerox machines were the beginning of the obsolescence of legal control of public media duplication. Affordable CD writers, the Internet, and contemporary computers, as well as audio/visual encoding devices, have made it entirely practical to share almost all forms of media freely with everyone on the planet. The service of location, distribution, and duplication of almost all media can now be trivially and extremely inexpensively performed by computers.

The world's economic and legal systems [are] quite obsolete and extremely counter-productive, compared to technical realities. We've got these megacorporations invested in the old system of ownership desperately trying to keep us from using computers to do what they do naturally - copy data. Our culture as a whole hasn't really figured out what has happened yet, and has no consensus on what to do about it.

However, this situation is an ocean that can't be held back forever by an artificial dam. Or at least, humans will be an even sillier race than they already are if they try to keep themselves from being able to copy data forever.

PvK

And humans, apparently unable to control themselves, will naturally "steal" something if it's easy to do. Sad commentary, isn't it?

geoschmo · #47 July 11th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Quite the opposite, it seems to me he was saying that each culture has different definitions of morality.

Precisely.

You guys are talking about different cultures, not morality. It's all well and good to have a deep philisophical discusion about various cultures and their own particular way's of doing things. But certain things are basic. They fall under the right and wrong that defines a sense of absolute morality. Find me a culture in today's enlightened world that believes it's acceptable to steal or murder? Even soceities where it happens all the time it's acknowledged that it's wrong.

Fyron asked the question:

Quote:

Yes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal piracy. I am not asking about legality, but about morality. Is it wrong to do this? Why or why not?

If he didn't want an answer, or now he says it's impossible to answer since there is no single definition of morality, why ask the question to begin with? Is it simpy to provoke a semantic discussion about the definition of morality?

If that is what you want Fyron why not be honest and say what you mean? But you asked if it's morally right to copy software without permission and give it away. The answer I give you is that no it is not. If you don't like that answer then do what you want with it.

I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong. For me morality is an absolute issue by definition. Stealing is one of the things my sense of morality says is wrong. Call me archaic, call me whatever you want but I believe what I believe. I can acknoledge that some people don't agree with me and even be civil towards them, but I am not going to accept that stealing is ok just because their "definition" of morality doesn't have a problem with it.

I am all for respecting other cultures. If someones culture says don't eat the meat of animals with split hooves, or they have to build their houses with the door facing west, or they can't wear green on tuesday I have no problem with that. As long as they don't get in my face about doing it I won't object to what they do either. But if someones culture says it's ok to steal or murder then I will unapoogetically say their culture is immoral.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

PvK · #48 July 11th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Theft and murder are not universal absolutes. Taking something and killing someone are. Different laws, different lawyers, different judges, different cultures, and different people, may have different opinions about whether any specific act of taking or killing is theft or murder.

Examples:

Some people consider many actions of the US government to be theft (tax, seizures, etc).

Warring nations often call each others' soldiers murderers.

In India, killing unwanted daughters isn't defined as murder.

Different people, laws, judges, etc in the US disagree about whether acts of euthanasia or abortion are murder or not, or wrong on not.

Discussions of software piracy and fair use of media.

Etc.

PvK

Stone Mill · #49 July 11th, 2003, 10:41 PM

There are a lot of shades of gray out there, yes with stealing and even causing another person's death. That is why laws are interpreted by people. And legal decisions from two officials may be different depending on their views and mood and the facts of the situation and the person in question.

I think it is wise and healthy to have a strong sense of morality and right and wrong, but it is good to relax, too.

A person holding themselves to a standard of obeying all rules at all times would have quite an absurd challenging life.

[edit] Pvk- right on, dude. [/edit]

[ July 11, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Stone Mill ]

Fyron · #50 July 11th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

You guys are talking about different cultures, not morality.

Different cultures have different morality.

Quote:

If he didn't want an answer, or now he says it's impossible to answer since there is no single definition of morality, why ask the question to begin with? Is it simpy to provoke a semantic discussion about the definition of morality?

I never said it was impossible to answer. My question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with the culture in which we live (broad US culture). You seem to be reading things that have not been typed. Again, are you having a bad day today or what?

[ July 11, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]