There is no moral argument for piracy. There are all sorts of moral arguments against big media. There are all sorts of moral arguments for peer-to-peer sharing of content as beneficial to the artists. But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment. Piracy is often the outcome of a costs/benefits mismatch, however. A black-or-gray market for something will develop when the consensus holds that something costs far more than it's worth. We're now arguing consensus, though, not morality... which, after all, trails consensus. It used to be immoral to kiss a person of another race. It used to be immoral to have sex outside of marriage. Thoreau argued that if you disagreed with a law you should break it, but you should also be willing (eager, in fact) to pay the penalty for breaking that law. The penalty for piracy is often nothing. If you get caught, it's whatever you can negotiate. Hey - stick to private trackers and never get a notice? You're morally within the law, at least as far as the guy who wrote Civil Disobedience is concerned.
Telling me I can't read, or watch, or say things is infringing on my human rights. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Counter: but your reading something I wrote without paying me infringes on my rights to information I produce. Reply: You have no "rights" over information, any more than you have rights to the CO2 you exhale, or the river that runs through your land. Producing useful information is invaluable to society. I'm not diminishing that. But it's not something you can practically own, any more than you can own the water cycle, or an emotion, or the right to look at the Moon. My primary argument is more practical than moral. One cannot own information. You can own a book, and take it with you, and hide it away in a box. But you can only 'own' a thought until you speak it. Once spoken, or written, it is no longer physically possible to maintain ownership. Greedy people have been trying very hard for the last 50 years or so. They're failing. They're like the feudal lords of Europe, proclaiming inevitable Divine Right even as the middle class is rising. I'm pragmatic. These people would have you believe I'm an idealistic Commie, and they're the realists. I contend they're the idealists. I work with software. My career is manipulating information. I'm telling you, it can't be stopped. It's like trying to own atmosphere. Three hundred years ago, people decided they could 'own' information. Fifty years ago, technology made sharing information trivial, and people decided they could stop it with more technology. I think they're crazy. Just ask Beyoncé. On the moral side, information, numbers, and algorithms belong to humanity. Just like breathing and watching sunsets. It is a draconian, tyrannical government which infringes on that right and uses force against individuals for learning, teaching, and inventing.There is no moral argument for piracy.
Those sentences don't mean anything. In fact, you didn't address the part of kleinbl00's post that you quoted at all, as far as I can tell. What's the moral argument for piracy? You say: that I have no right to anything I produce. Why? I disagree completely. You can't just say that and expect it to be held as true. You also say: it is impractical. Well, sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with morality. You finally say: information belongs to humanity. That may be a sort of moral argument, but you don't justify it, you just use more similes. Does my bank account belong to humanity?Reply: You have no "rights" over information, any more than you have rights to the CO2 you exhale, or the river that runs through your land.
But it's not something you can practically own, any more than you can own the water cycle, or an emotion, or the right to look at the Moon.
On the moral side, information, numbers, and algorithms belong to humanity. Just like breathing and watching sunsets.
You're reversing the burden of proof. One must prove something is immoral, not the reverse. What's the moral argument for tying your right shoe first? There is none. Clearly it's immoral, you should always tie your left shoe first. I didn't say you have no right to anything you produce. If you print a book, you absolutely have the right that physical book. But no, I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce. If you sell that book to someone, I don't think you have a right to tell them "you can read this, but you can't let anyone else read it, and you can't write these same Latin characters in the same order." A bank account is not information. Information is part of it, but it's more specifically a record kept by your bank. Whether that information is public is an issue of privacy, which is related, but probably ought to be saved for a different post. No, I really didn't, because morality is a lot trickier than practicality. And honestly, I haven't decided what I believe precisely, when it comes to the nuances of Deontology and Teleology and all their ilk. I tried to make a moral defense using Classical Liberalism, but yes, I didn't do a great job. If you really want a balanced reasoning, and a better defense than I can make, I do highly recommend Thomas Jefferson's letter. I know I've already linked it twice, but he does a much better job than I can of weighing the implications, practical and moral, of intellectual property.What's the moral argument for piracy?
You say: that I have no right to anything I produce. Why? I disagree completely.
Does my bank account belong to humanity?
you didn't address the part of kleinbl00's post that you quoted at all, as far as I can tell. What's the moral argument for piracy?
"theft" is not a moral concept. It's a legal one. If Johnny takes possession of rights-managed content legally owned by Jane without according Jane the redress legally accorded her for dispersal of her content, Johnny has committed a crime. Morality has nothing to do with it. All sorts of laws are immoral. Legally Johnny is in the wrong. Let's pretend you live in Colorado. You own a growhouse and are a pot entrepreneur. Because of this, the NSA has all your phones tapped and all your email monitored. You go on a roadtrip to Utah and are arrested in a joint operation involving the DEA, the Utah State Patrol and the FBI. Do you have a problem with this? Because, as you say, "I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce." I dunno, man. I value protection from unlawful search and seizure and the right to privacy a bit higher than the right to read or watch whatever I want. I would really like to see you elaborate on this one. My uncle used to run payroll for Laemmle Theaters back in the late '60s. That's why he knows COBOL. Thermodynamically speaking, by the way, "information" is any signal that isn't pure noise. I'm curious to see how financial data doesn't fit this definition.You're reversing the burden of proof. One must prove something is immoral, not the reverse.
But no, I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce.
A bank account is not information.
Absolutely. I disapprove of the law, but Johnny is undeniably a lawbreaker. flagamuffin seemed to be concerned by my moral argument, so I was trying to address that (admittedly poorly). The public certainly doesn't have the right to manipulate the bank's physical systems, to manipulate the account. Whether the public has access to that information is a privacy issue. Privacy is a conflicting value, just like libel is a conflicting value for Free Speech. Yes, I vehemently oppose warrantless search and wiretapping. And I'll freely admit this is somewhat at odds with my belief in Freedom of Information. I don't have everything figured out.Legally Johnny is in the wrong.
I would really like to see you elaborate on this one.
Do you have a problem with this?
I dunno, man. I value protection from unlawful search and seizure and the right to privacy a bit higher than the right to read or watch whatever I want.
I'd like to note ① I'm aware my opinions are unconventional, and I'm not trying to push them on anyone, and ② I don't actually pirate anything. Moral or practical, our current system is how individual content producers make a living, so I grudgingly participate.
I, on the other hand, am pirating something as I type this. In this thread I am merely trying to distinguish from the moral and the practical. Pragmatically, I am doing no "harm" by torrenting music. Morally, I believe I am in the wrong. It doesn't bother me. I've done worse.
But do you see how specific your wording is now? In order to turn your argument into a useful point, you had to abandon any mention of the word "stealing" or "theft", and it's no longer such a simple, trite, cleat-cut point from the other side to say "thou shalt not deprive an author of royalties for your personal use of their creative works". But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
Nope. I'm arguing that the argument "theft is theft" works because mechanically speaking, something of value is being taken. Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here. Read again: That's a rhetorical elaboration of "theft is theft." "Simply put" "Theft" "Is" "Theft." Listen closely: I am a dues-paying, unionized creative in Hollywood. Prior to that I was an in-the-trenches creative in the music industry. By my rough estimation hundreds of dollars' worth of my dues have been spent directly on lobbying for stricter enforcement against piracy. I am also a member of three private trackers. The situation is complex. Those in favor of preserving the old order at any cost see only simplicity. Those in favor of looser restrictions on intellectual property see nuance. My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument... ...because it isn't there.But do you see how specific your wording is now?
But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
But there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that
failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media
is not the same thing as
depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
I think I see where Falzar is coming from. The way that's worded, I think it's begging the question. The question isn't whether one has the right to property. That's a given. The question is whether information is property. Whether information can be owned at all, practically or morally.there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing that failing to pay royalties for the personal use of media is not the same thing as depriving the rights holder their rightful royalty payment.
theft is theft
Kids these days. Royalties are not new. Royalties for music are over 100 years old. Patents are even older. Information can totally be owned, should be owned and in many cases must be owned. Look up Chamberlen forceps if you need a crash course in the value of intellectual property to the common good.
I think you've mistaken me for an ideologue. I believe in Freedom of Information in general, but I do recognize the need for limitations, such as medical records or nuclear weapons. Just like I believe in Freedom of Speech, while recognizing the need for libel laws.Royalties are not new
I am actually somewhat familiar with the history of intellectual property. As I noted elsewhere, it actually dates back to the Statue of Anne in 1710, the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, or even 14th century guilds, depending on your precise definition :Pin many cases must be owned. Look up Chamberlen forceps
I didn't say "In all cases, no exceptions." So, there are no succinct arguments against your position, and anyone who makes one is a fanatic?there are no simple, trite, clear-cut methods for arguing
Did you, or did you not, say the following:
Telling me I can't read, or watch, or say things is infringing on my human rights. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Holy Hyperbole, batman! I argued that legally speaking, piracy is "theft", where "theft" is "taking something from someone without their permission." I further argued that the issue is much greater than that and people who argue "theft is theft" refuse or fail to see the larger aspects of the issue. I would say that's a pretty dispassionate, bias-free assessment of the crux of the argument. If you wanted to argue with it, you'd have to argue the legal definition of "theft" as well as the typical public interpretation of it. You came out swinging with the argument that nobody has any right to anything lacking a physical form. Sure, you're backtracking in a couple places but the point stands: You argued that intellectual property is a crime against humanity. I'd say you did more than prove yourself an ideologue; I'd say you're acting like a froot loop. So we're clear: there have always been and will always be abuses of intellectual property law. I'm not at all happy with lots of it. But you have no more rights to the labor of a composer than you do to the labor of a bricklayer. Arguing otherwise is... ...well, do your best. I'm honestly curious.
Just because something is a natural right doesn't mean it's on the same level as torture and genocide. I have a friends who believe all speech should be free, including libel and things that get people killed. I think they're wrong, but I don't think they're fruit loops. I kinda did. Heh. Sorry I'm not a better debater. Maybe it's because my position is weak and I'll change my mind in a few years. We'll see. ^_^You argued that intellectual property is a crime against humanity.
Arguing otherwise is......well, do your best.
Well, thanks for elaborating on your motives. I can see what you're getting at now. In my case, I was trying to "get you to see nuance" by pointing out how nuanced "your" line had become compared to the platitudes most people spew. Then you ended up simplifying it afterwards, although I still don't quite see how the simplification holds. It was more inferring that you were taking a side due to your opening thesis statement, "there's no moral argument for piracy". If by that you meant "there is no argument that can posit piracy as a morally virtuous act", then I'd agree with you, in the same way that I believe there's no moral argument in support of capricious abortion. But if you mean "there is no moral argument against anti-piracy", that's where I'd start begging to differ.My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument...
Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here.