Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[Phoenix-D]

"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."

PvK, you've got to be kidding me. What you're proposing here is essentially taxing everyone so Joe Schmoe #41445 can watch his porn collection without having to pay for it first. I'll pass; we don't need yet ANOTHER level of government intervention (and there would be abuse of this system on that level as well)

The person who does nothing because he doesn't enjoy that kind of game, or whatever, shouldn't have to pay for those who do..

[Loser]

Well, if I did not have a close connection with this 'friend' I would just direct them to the demo.

However if, for example, they lived with me and I could persuade, pester, and encourage them to purchase the game (on an almost daily basis), then I would probably make the loan. It all depends, really, on whether or not I think they will buy the game once they decide they like it.

Of course, this is an early morning interpretation of half-formed thoughts. Possibly more to follow...

[Slynky]

Perhaps the thread title should be changed ( )

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Also, there is nothing wrong with the tone of that sentence. I guess if you see something wrong with it that is from your particular view on ettiquite which, like morality, is entirely relative.

Correction, ettiquite unlike morality is entirely relative.

You are free to believe how you wish. That may suprise you is one of the most important beliefs in my moral system. But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong. I said it before and I will repeat it because it is fundamental. Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[minipol]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.

So by your definition morality is unaffected by upbringing and culture? I'm not sure i agree with you although i'm trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, in some cultures a man is allowed to have several wifes. It's not considered immoral. Here it is. So how can morality be absolute then?
I'm just trying to see your point of view here.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"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."

PvK, you've got to be kidding me. What you're proposing here is essentially taxing everyone so Joe Schmoe #41445 can watch his porn collection without having to pay for it first. I'll pass; we don't need yet ANOTHER level of government intervention (and there would be abuse of this system on that level as well)

The person who does nothing because he doesn't enjoy that kind of game, or whatever, shouldn't have to pay for those who do..

Well there are plenty of variations and specifics to work out.

For the sake of simplicity, I was trying to express a way to support content creators without also proposing a change to the US tax system, which is awful in itself but seems quite off-topic. The current US system does all sorts of taxing for the purpose of providing services that not everyone uses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I didn't mean to directly endorse that specific system.

As an alternative model, the agency which disburses benefits to artists could be one which people Subscribe to voluntarily (e.g. A non-profit network which charges $200/year for DSL-type access to a huge network of content, and disburses the fees after infrastructure costs to content creators.). Or, it could be a tax, but one which only applies to Users of the media, by means of taxing equipment, network access, etc.). There are plenty of possible methods, as I said.

Even using the tax model I originally mentioned, however, it wouldn't be a case of people having to pay for items they didn't like. The appreciation voting would give people a great amount of control to reward the artists they actually liked, and not just the ones they used. Practically everyone would pay less annually for all media than they would under the current system, but their potential consumption of media would be nearly unlimited. You'd have to be someone who made more than you needed before you'd be paying media taxes, and then your taxes would support all media, which you and everyone could then enjoy without worrying about costs, so you could play all the games, listen to all the music, see all the films, read all the books, TV, radio, etc, that you wanted to, without specifically paying for any of it, and even if you were in a bracket to pay media tax, you'd be paying vastly less than you would if you had to pay for everything you used. Moreover, you could reward the artists you liked, and not get "fooled" by flashy marketting that turned out to be crap - they'd make enough not to starve, but not to roll in dough as they currently do.

PvK

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by minipol:
So by your definition morality is unaffected by upbringing and culture? I'm not sure i agree with you although i'm trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, in some cultures a man is allowed to have several wifes. It's not considered immoral. Here it is. So how can morality be absolute then?
I'm just trying to see your point of view here.

Perhaps Pvk was right all along and it is merely a difference of definitions. When i say morality is absolute, I am not trying to say everything that anyone in the world says is moral or immoral is absolute. Not every facet of human behavior and interaction is something I would define as a moral issue. But I do believe there are certain fundamental issues of right and wrong that are moral issues. Stealing and murder are two of those. There are a few others, but not a lot. My moral code isn't exactly the Code of Hamurabi.

The question at hand was not whether multiple wives is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

That is an evasive answer, but it's the best I can do. I am uncomfortable with the prospect of sitting in judgment of each and every possible rhetorical question about morals anyone wants to bring up.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 02:14: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Fyron]

I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

Again, you have missed my point entirely. Within a culture, moral values tend to be fairly stable, and thus approach absoluteness. The question was not whether it was morally correct or not in other cultures, but within the context of US culture. You made statements about wholely different issues on the relative/absolute nature of morality. This is an entirely separate issue from whether copying the game is morally correct or not. I did not ever once comment on your belief that copying it was immoral, just on the other parts of your post that made the (wrong) claim that morality is absolute.

But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong.

This is a two-way street Geo. Just because you believe something does not make it right. Like your belief about morality being absolute.

Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality.

No, it does not.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.

Measurements of human nature tend to be rather useless.

[ July 12, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[minipol]

Geo,

now i know what you mean. I thought that was what you meant but wasn't sure. Oh, and you aren't being judged, it's just a discussion (wildly out of control )
It's all Fyrons fault

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
LOL, heck Kazz, I'm in a mood tonight. What side of this do you want me to take.

Take whatever side you want.