Major Copyright Judgement

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who cares if it's a social construct ? Laws are social constructs. Why the hell are you even mentioning this idiotic truism ?

I'm asking you if you think that artists should have a right to their works ? I'm not asking you if you think that right descends from God or Gaia, I'm asking you if, in OUR society, YOU think they SHOULD.

Do I think it's overall socially beneficial to accord them the rights that they currently have to control performance and reproduction of their creations, and to sell that right on to others? No.

I've just asked you to forget about society for that question. Are you completely unable to debate within specified guidelines ?

Forgetting about society for that question, your question is utterly meaningless.

Do you think the police should collect physical property stolen from someone, or are you going to argue from egalitarianism again ?

This is not analogous and so is irrelevant.

And is ANOTHER flaming strawman. I didn't say it's necessary. I said that it doesn't encourage someone to do something if that person has no right to that thing or any benefit from it whatsoever.

Yet people did it anyway. I think they would still do it without the encouragement of the existing copyright regime.

I wasn't aware that the argument was entirely based on revenue. Hey! No, I remember, now! I specifically said it wasn't.

I have no idea what you are on about at this stage, and I suspect you don't either.

For most of human history, these things were generated by patronage -- wealthy folks would pay artists to compose works and provide entertainment.
Record companies provide much the same role.
What do you propose replacing them with?

Patronage from wealthy folks works fine. Government sponsorship of the arts works fine. Successful artists could pay composers to compose tunes that suited their voices, instruments or whatever. Other people would do it as a hobby. Music would still get made, without the need to spend public money on courts and police to enforce existing copyright laws.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, it's time for a history lesson.

Copyright originated in 1709 (300 years ago). Snagging straight from Wiki:


So for the bulk of human history, there existed no method to reproduce something someone else had done.

For the bulk of human history there was no way to listen to someone else's song, and sing it for your supper the next night? I think your grasp of history is not what you make it out to be.

 

[GreyICE]

For the bulk of human history there was no way to listen to someone else's song, and sing it for your supper the next night? I think your grasp of history is not what you make it out to be.

Care to answer the questions, Kevin? Or make up more ridiculous parallels between 10 million people downloading a song and playing it on speakers that if not perfect, almost perfectly replicate it versus a peasant having to rely on their own singing voice and a perfect memory for notes and words?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Care to answer the questions, Kevin? Or make up more ridiculous parallels between 10 million people downloading a song and playing it on speakers that if not perfect, almost perfectly replicate it versus a peasant having to rely on their own singing voice and a perfect memory for notes and words?

You've got the answer to your questions already: I don't think the existing system of copyright is socially beneficial when everything is taken into account.

The only ridiculous parallel is the one you just made up, because you're incapable of arguing honestly. A far better parallel would be between one fellow musician hearing your song and singing it for profit the next night in 1710, and one fellow musician hearing your song and singing it for profit the next night in 2010. Back in 1710 there was no law to stop such behaviour that I am aware of, yet people still made music.

That's one example of copyright law as it exists today which I do not think is socially beneficial.

Similarly I don't think society benefits overall from music sharing on the internet being illegal. The evidence appears to show that the effect on musicians is not disastrous, and certainly does not merit spending public money on courts and police to prevent it.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The record companies might view the tours as promotional material for the records, but for the artists they are their main source of income due to the way contracts are set up with the record companies.

Thus, piracy nails the record companies, but isn't a huge damage to the artists (and may even be a net benefit). Since many of them have a love/hate (or just plain hate) relationship with record companies, this is not a terrible thing for them.

Record sales are important to the artist in indirect ways, though. Many expenses that the record companies advance the musicians (studio fees, paying for producers, etc.) are recoupable -- that is, they are repayed by the band through their portion of the record sales. If a band doesn't sell enough records, the record company is unlikely to provide advances on these expenses for future albums. Which leaves the artists with self-financing future recordings.

Similarly, record labels often provide "tour support" (money for touring expenses), which they are unlikely to provide if the record sales don't warrant it. And financing a tour can be too expensive for mosts artists on their own.

Further complicating touring, is that for acts that are not established in their region, concert promoters often use record sales for a band to determine whether they should book them for concerts.

So, just because a band doesn't make very much money directly from record sales, doesn't mean those sales aren't important to the band overall. These are just a few examples, I'm sure there are other areas I'm overlooking.

 

[GreyICE]

You've got the answer to your questions already: I don't think the existing system of copyright is socially beneficial when everything is taken into account.

The only ridiculous parallel is the one you just made up, because you're incapable of arguing honestly. A far better parallel would be between one fellow musician hearing your song and singing it for profit the next night in 1710, and one fellow musician hearing your song and singing it for profit the next night in 2010. Back in 1710 there was no law to stop such behaviour that I am aware of, yet people still made music.

That's one example of copyright law as it exists today which I do not think is socially beneficial.

Similarly I don't think society benefits overall from music sharing on the internet being illegal. The evidence appears to show that the effect on musicians is not disastrous, and certainly does not merit spending public money on courts and police to prevent it.

How about copyright on books, video games, and movies, since you apparently missed the question again?

 

[Belz...]

Do I think it's overall socially beneficial to accord them the rights that they currently have to control performance and reproduction of their creations, and to sell that right on to others? No.

Forgetting about society for that question, your question is utterly meaningless.

In other words you refuse to answer my question, or you deny that individuals have rights.

This is not analogous and so is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. I'm trying to determine if you think property is a right. Stop dancing around.

Yet people did it anyway. I think they would still do it without the encouragement of the existing copyright regime.

Fascinating. So if someone composes a song, but can't sing it, and someone else can, then the singer gets the money from concerts but not the author ? And you think people will write songs for a living, under those conditions ?

I have no idea what you are on about at this stage, and I suspect you don't either.

The second doesn't follow from the first. You routinely don't understand what people post.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In other words you refuse to answer my question, or you deny that individuals have rights.

Of course I deny that individuals have rights. Rights are a silly idea.

It's not irrelevant. I'm trying to determine if you think property is a right. Stop dancing around.

Why would anyone think that?

Fascinating. So if someone composes a song, but can't sing it, and someone else can, then the singer gets the money from concerts but not the author ? And you think people will write songs for a living, under those conditions ?

If they can't get someone to pay them to do so they won't, and I'm completely relaxed about that.

The second doesn't follow from the first. You routinely don't understand what people post.

You routinely are so confused that what you post makes no sense to anyone outside your own head.

How about copyright on books, video games, and movies, since you apparently missed the question again?

What about them? Didn't I already post that in the absence of modern copyright law we might not have hugely expensive "blockbuster" games and movies, but that there would still be games and movies?

Books on the other hand I think provide significant social benefit in return for copyright protection, although the 50+ years of protection currently afforded is manifestly absurd.

 

[Belz...]

Of course I deny that individuals have rights. Rights are a silly idea.

Why would anyone think that?

Are you just trolling now ? I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're serious or not.

I'm sure you won't mind, then, if I go and steal your computer and everything else you own, and stab you in the neck, since you have no rights that anybody can protect.

If they can't get someone to pay them to do so they won't, and I'm completely relaxed about that.

Fascinating. So, somebody writes a novel, goes to an editor, gets it published, but the editor decides to not pay a dime to them, and they have no legal recourse ?

You routinely are so confused that what you post makes no sense to anyone outside your own head.

Kevin, "Kevin_Lowe" isn't everybody.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you just trolling now ? I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're serious or not.

I'm sure you won't mind, then, if I go and steal your computer and everything else you own, and stab you in the neck, since you have no rights that anybody can protect.

That would be a suboptimal outcome for me and society, so I hold that it's morally wrong for you to do that.

Fascinating. So, somebody writes a novel, goes to an editor, gets it published, but the editor decides to not pay a dime to them, and they have no legal recourse ?

You're getting yourself confused again, you were talking about songs a second ago. You also either failed to read the last sentence of the post you were replying to in your confusion, or decided it would be more fun to pretend it didn't exist so you could ask one of your profoundly inane rhetorical questions.

 

[Belz...]

That would be a suboptimal outcome for me and society, so I hold that it's morally wrong for you to do that.

Who cares about you ? Individuals don't have rights.

You're getting yourself confused again, you were talking about songs a second ago.

Oh, so songs and novels aren't the same, rights-wise ?

You also either failed to read the last sentence of the post you were replying to in your confusion, or decided it would be more fun to pretend it didn't exist so you could ask one of your profoundly inane rhetorical questions.

Neither, actually. Gosh, you are bad at mind reading. In fact, if you answered my question about books you might have cleared my confusion. Instead you prefered to rant.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Who cares about you ? Individuals don't have rights.

False dilemma. He says he doesn't believe in rights; this does not imply that he doesn't believe in laws or morality. He believes that the basis of laws and morality is something other than rights (from the sound of it, social utility may be his standard).
So, to answer your rhetorical question -- society cares about him and his personal property. Hence, stealing his car is wrong, and stabbing him in the neck is wrong.

 

[GreyICE]

What about them? Didn't I already post that in the absence of modern copyright law we might not have hugely expensive "blockbuster" games and movies, but that there would still be games and movies?

Books on the other hand I think provide significant social benefit in return for copyright protection, although the 50+ years of protection currently afforded is manifestly absurd.

Ooookay...

Well, you're welcome to your opinion. And I'm welcome to think that your opinion is antediluvian. Seriously, movies, music, and games don't provide any social benefit, but books definitely do?

I think it's funny that you hold it would not be a suboptimal outcome for society if this happens.

 

[GreyICE]

False dilemma. He says he doesn't believe in rights; this does not imply that he doesn't believe in laws or morality. He believes that the basis of laws and morality is something other than rights (from the sound of it, social utility may be his standard).
So, to answer your rhetorical question -- society cares about him and his personal property. Hence, stealing his car is wrong, and stabbing him in the neck is wrong.

What if I'm a genius doctor who also happens to be a serial killer? I only kill hobos and cheap prostitutes, whose social utility is virtually zero, and I save hundreds of lives.

I'm not sure the standard of 'social utility' is a good one. In fact I hold that it has manifestly not been shown that society is an entity deserving of more consideration than individuals. In fact, since individuals make up a society it is more arguable that granting individual rights is more important than social utility, since the concept of social utility does not exist on a micro level.

 

[Belz...]

False dilemma. He says he doesn't believe in rights; this does not imply that he doesn't believe in laws or morality.

Isn't the whole points of laws and morality to bestow rights and responsabilities upon people ?

So, to answer your rhetorical question -- society cares about him and his personal property. Hence, stealing his car is wrong, and stabbing him in the neck is wrong.

But not making money off of his works and not paying him for it ?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Isn't the whole points of laws and morality to bestow rights and responsabilities upon people ?

As I understand his position, the point of laws and morality is to create rules that optimize societal benefit. The concept of "rights" as inherent or basic entitlements with underlying moral significants runs counter to this.
So, he's not interested in copyright law as an application of a fundamental right to property -- he's interested in copyright law as it is beneficial for society to have it.
Again, the way I see it:
Belz: We have a moral right to our property, hence personal property laws and also copyright laws.
Kevin: Personal property laws benefit society, hence personal property laws. IF copyright laws benefit society, THEN copyright laws.
Even though the two ideas match on personal property, because the moral/legal basis is different (rights vs. social utility), the conclusion on copyright and other intellectual property laws may also be different.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What if I'm a genius doctor who also happens to be a serial killer? I only kill hobos and cheap prostitutes, whose social utility is virtually zero, and I save hundreds of lives.

There is high social utility in prohibiting murder.
There is high social utility in having criminal law apply uniformly throughout society.
For your "serial-killing doctor" example to work, you have to show that allowing the doctor free reign benefits society more than these things -- which I would argue you will be unable to do. Each exception adds great negative utility by virtue of being an exception to otherwise well-understood and generally-accepted rules.

 

[GreyICE]

There is high social utility in prohibiting murder.
There is high social utility in having criminal law apply uniformly throughout society.
For your "serial-killing doctor" example to work, you have to show that allowing the doctor free reign benefits society more than these things -- which I would argue you will be unable to do. Each exception adds great negative utility by virtue of being an exception to otherwise well-understood and generally-accepted rules.

This suggests that there are rules that are so necessary that they must be universal.

Defining rights as 'universal rules that apply to the treatment of people' seems reasonably accurate. Thus, the code of social utility just gained rights, despite a specific goal to avoid having rights encoded in it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This suggests that there are rules that are so necessary that they must be universal.

Defining rights as 'universal rules that apply to the treatment of people' seems reasonably accurate. Thus, the code of social utility just gained rights, despite a specific goal to avoid having rights encoded in it.

Where was there a specific goal to avoid having rights? The goal was to maximize social utility.
To the extent that a universal rule has social utility, we use one. But the point is that the universal rule is only a means to an end, not an end in itself.
This becomes relevant when we want to extend an established "right" outside of its traditional boundaries, such as extending the "right" to personal and real property into the realm of things that are neither physical nor limited. If the "right" itself is the end (people have a basic moral entitlement to what they produce), then the result may very well be different than if social utility is the end (there is great social utility to giving a monopoly on exclusive goods but not on inexclusive goods).
Does the reason for establishing the "right" in the case of physical property still hold in the case of nonphysical property? Perhaps it does, and perhaps it doesn't -- but by understanding that social utility, and not rights, form the fundamental purpose of laws, we know that it's a question that has to be asked and that doesn't have an immediate a priori answer.

 

[GreyICE]

Where was there a specific goal to avoid having rights? The goal was to maximize social utility.
To the extent that a universal rule has social utility, we use one. But the point is that the universal rule is only a means to an end, not an end in itself.
This becomes relevant when we want to extend an established "right" outside of its traditional boundaries, such as extending the "right" to personal and real property into the realm of things that are neither physical nor limited. If the "right" itself is the end (people have a basic moral entitlement to what they produce), then the result may very well be different than if social utility is the end (there is great social utility to giving a monopoly on exclusive goods but not on inexclusive goods).
Does the reason for establishing the "right" in the case of physical property still hold in the case of nonphysical property? Perhaps it does, and perhaps it doesn't -- but by understanding that social utility, and not rights, form the fundamental purpose of laws, we know that it's a question that has to be asked and that doesn't have an immediate a priori answer.

Ah, now we have hit on the fact that despite protestations otherwise, Kevin's ideas must be thrown out because they are fundamentally unsound. They suppose rights do not exist, but in constructing our model of social utility, rights again spring up, suggesting that fundamentally social utility and rights are intertwined concepts

Once again, social utility is a construct, because society is nothing more than a way to describe multiple individuals. Therefore social utility cannot trump individual rights, because society is a collection of individuals. Social utility can only be measured as an aggregate of individual utility, thus the concept of social utility cannot trump the concept of individual utility.