Major Copyright Judgement

[GreyICE]

This is the naturalistic fallacy on stilts. Not only are you claiming that "natural = good", but you are going on to claim that "natural = we have a right to it".

Well this is just stupid. You did manage to find two words that were similar in the thesaurus, but it's ridiculous what you've failed at here.

You are trying to claim it's possible to restrict freedom of thought? Please.

If you are claiming that, please provide some evidence. If you are not, you just happened to find two particular words that are similar, and are trying to ride them to some sort of nonsensical conclusion.

At least you left fairies and my ass out of it this time, which is a nice improvement, the creepy factor of another man chatting about fairies and my ass nonstop was getting really high.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh this is cute. You put two of my arguments next to eachother, then claim they're different. Thank you, Captain Obvious!

No, I put both of your arguments together to show that neither of them bore any resemblance to the position you were retreating to.

You made philosophical claims you couldn't defend, and then pretended that you had never made them in the first place. You got called on it. Deal with it.

 

[GreyICE]

No, I put both of your arguments together to show that neither of them bore any resemblance to the position you were retreating to.

You made philosophical claims you couldn't defend, and then pretended that you had never made them in the first place. You got called on it. Deal with it.

But... I defended them. You just ignored the defense (this doesn't actually mean it doesn't exist. If you can't see me, well, I am glad I can't see you actually...). Twice now.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well this is just stupid. You did manage to find two words that were similar in the thesaurus, but it's ridiculous what you've failed at here.

You are trying to claim it's possible to restrict freedom of thought? Please.

What a clever straw man.

At least you left fairies and my ass out of it this time, which is a nice improvement, the creepy factor of another man chatting about fairies and my ass nonstop was getting really high.

You were talking so much about your "natural flow" that I thought it was the wrong time of the month to be hassling you.

 

[GreyICE]

What a clever straw man.

Not really. If you cannot restrict it, it's no different than gravity - a fact. We might as well acknowledge facts and build our society to work with them. Rights flow from these essential truths. It's the same way we don't build our society to ignore the effects of gravity. Sure, you could hypothesize all sorts of cool things you could do and all sorts of terrible things that might happen if gravity didn't work.

Similarly, you could hypothesize all sorts of things if people didn't have freedom of thought. It's best to respect the fact that they do, and base the rights in the society on the things that are true, not the things we wish were true.

You were talking so much about your "natural flow" that I thought it was the wrong time of the month to be hassling you.

Cute! I give it a B.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wow. This discourse is bottomed out.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not really. If you cannot restrict it, it's no different than gravity - a fact. We might as well acknowledge facts and build our society to work with them. Rights flow from these essential truths. It's the same way we don't build our society to ignore the effects of gravity. Sure, you could hypothesize all sorts of cool things you could do and all sorts of terrible things that might happen if gravity didn't work.

Similarly, you could hypothesize all sorts of things if people didn't have freedom of thought. It's best to respect the fact that they do, and base the rights in the society on the things that are true, not the things we wish were true.

Now you've twisted yourself into a complete loop and you're agreeing with me.

You are arguing that we should endow people with certain specific rights/privileges because, humans being as they are, it works out better to do so. I other words, it creates more social utility than the alternatives.

You've completely lost sight of your original position, which was that we should enforce copyright laws because copyright was a "natural right", even if it worked out to be a net social loss of utility to for us to do so.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In related news, the infamous copyright lawyer who harassed german teenagers and ripped off their parents since the eighties, himself convicted of fraud, Günther Freiherr von Gravenreuth, shot himself to death last night.

 

[Rairun]

A natural right, for instance, is freedom of thought. Humans each observe a slightly different to very different set of events and experiences, and each process it differently. Therefore, the freedom to our own unique thoughts is a natural right - it exists whether the law says that it is legal or not. While 'thought crimes' at various points in history have existed, it has never been possible to remove this right.

What you're describing isn't a "right". Thinking is just something humans do, and it just happens to be hard to control. That doesn't mean we are entitled to think freely. We are just lucky we can do it and get away with it.

From this flows the human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of belief (frequently named freedom of religion). Expression is the sharing of thoughts between individuals. This individual right allows each individual to share his thoughts, to refine them with others. Belief is more or less a combination of expression and thought, and therefore is a human right as well.

Expression is also something humans naturally do, but it's a lot easier to control than thought. It's so easy that freedom of expression has been less common than its absence throughout human history.

I agree it's hard to feel fulfilled if you have no freedom to express yourself, so maybe you could argue that without freedom of speech, people wouldn't be happy. That's a little simplistic (I'm sure there are happy people in dictatorships), but it sounds reasonable enough. But since when are people entitled to be happy? They aren't. No made-up "right" is going to change that. We may try to protect that right, and we may even succeed, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only a right because we've defined it as such. It doesn't stem from the human condition or any such thing.

 

[GreyICE]

Now you've twisted yourself into a complete loop and you're agreeing with me.

You'd be amazed how often people agree with me when they realize I'm right. Don't worry, I won't bring it up often.

You are arguing that we should endow people with certain specific rights/privileges because, humans being as they are, it works out better to do so. I other words, it creates more social utility than the alternatives.

Uh, no. I'm pointing out that social utility is not under consideration here. I have not and have never said that the goal is to minimize social utility. In fact, I would not even say the goal is to ignore social utility. All else being equal (don't ignore this line please), the choice that improves social utility would be superior to the choice that does not.

However, social utility is not the first consideration when framing what people can and cannot do. In my opinion it isn't even the fifty-first. So your argument from social utility that we should abolish copyright isn't a good argument. It isn't even a bad argument. It's just an argument utterly irrelevant to this discussion! It's always been irrelevant to this discussion!

You've completely lost sight of your original position, which was that we should enforce copyright laws because copyright was a "natural right", even if it worked out to be a net social loss of utility to for us to do so.

Yes, we should. Each person has the right to ownership of their work. This flows from the right to own what you produce.

Social utility does come into my stance. I agreed that things should enter the public domain 20 years after the author's death, in the case of single-author/creator works, or 50 years after it was created, in the case of collaborations like movies (one cannot say that the director, any actor, the scriptwriter, or any other person had sole creative responsibility for the work, so it is impossible to point to one creator). This does indeed conflict with existing copyright law, although my selection of these values was slightly arbitrary.

So you cannot say I ignored social utility, but yes, the existence of the original right trumps whatever 'social utility' you think might be gained from removing creator's rights to their work.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, we should. Each person has the right to ownership of their work. This flows from the right to own what you produce.

Social utility does come into my stance. I agreed that things should enter the public domain 20 years after the author's death, in the case of single-author/creator works, or 50 years after it was created, in the case of collaborations like movies (one cannot say that the director, any actor, the scriptwriter, or any other person had sole creative responsibility for the work, so it is impossible to point to one creator). This does indeed conflict with existing copyright law, although my selection of these values was slightly arbitrary.

So you cannot say I ignored social utility, but yes, the existence of the original right trumps whatever 'social utility' you think might be gained from removing creator's rights to their work.

So now we're back to where we started.

You haven't answered the question satisfactorily yet. "Natural flow" is your stand-in for God or fairies, but you haven't explained how it's supposed to work.

So tell us, under what circumstances does "natural flow" occur from a fact of nature to a moral right, and under what circumstances does this "natural flow" not occur?

 

[GreyICE]

So now we're back to where we started.

You haven't answered the question satisfactorily yet. "Natural flow" is your stand-in for God or fairies, but you haven't explained how it's supposed to work.

So tell us, under what circumstances does "natural flow" occur from a fact of nature to a moral right, and under what circumstances does this "natural flow" not occur?

*sigh*
Post #698. Read it and get back to me.

There's really a rather large body of work on this...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

*sigh*
Post #698. Read it and get back to me.

There's really a rather large body of work on this...

So in other words you have no answer. You just have faith that the answer is buried somewhere in a big pile of books you are waving your hands at.

As I said before, I'm sorry to crush your faith but the answer isn't in that big pile of books.

 

[GreyICE]

What you're describing isn't a "right". Thinking is just something humans do, and it just happens to be hard to control. That doesn't mean we are entitled to think freely. We are just lucky we can do it and get away with it.

Of course we are entitled to think freely, and we should base human rights around this. We are entitled to live, to breath, to think, to observe, to conclude, to work, to create, by natural rights. We are entitled to because we are human.

That is what they are. You can see why I suggested that they're slightly fundamental.

Of course our legal system should take them into account when it's created. Of course they trump 'social utility.' It's something you cannot truly change by writing some words on some paper.

Expression is also something humans naturally do, but it's a lot easier to control than thought. It's so easy that freedom of expression has been less common than its absence throughout human history.

I agree it's hard to feel fulfilled if you have no freedom to express yourself, so maybe you could argue that without freedom of speech, people wouldn't be happy. That's a little simplistic (I'm sure there are happy people in dictatorships), but it sounds reasonable enough. But since when are people entitled to be happy? They aren't. No made-up "right" is going to change that. We may try to protect that right, and we may even succeed, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only a right because we've defined it as such. It doesn't stem from the human condition or any such thing.

Is it? How many societies truly controlled expression? What was printed? Sure. That's happened. What was even said to the wrong people? Yes. But it's like many have said about the right to privacy. When the founding fathers made the constitution, there was no right to privacy. If you wanted privacy, you walked out to the barn, and chatted with your friend in private.

You think that someone actually stopped expression? No. You can try to stop people from exercising their right to express their thoughts. You may even succeed for a time. But it costs an essential loss of humanity, and that's why it's a human right.

Also, you say that a concept of a human right is made up. Sure. How is the concept of social utility less made up? Certainly anything you may level at human rights in terms of being made up may also be similarly leveled at social utility (a fundamental weakness in Kevin's argument he has ignored - every shot he takes at rights, he takes at social utility too). Hell, the concept of a society seems about as questionable as that of a right, nevermind the concept of things being useful and non useful to that society.

 

[GreyICE]

So in other words you have no answer. You just have faith that the answer is buried somewhere in a big pile of books you are waving your hands at.

As I said before, I'm sorry to crush your faith but the answer isn't in that big pile of books.

*sigh*

You didn't even read my answer. Ever. I see very little evidence you've read anything I wrote. You just copied and pasted stuff about my ass.

It does not require faith to conclude that I am a human being, and so are the rest of the people I see. It does not require faith to believe that humans are different from, say, blocks of wood. It does not require faith to observe and draw conclusions about humans.

Why do you have so much faith in your 'society' and your 'social utility' when you have so little faith that humans are different? If you're going to go the faith route, what evidence do you even have that there is such a thing as a society, much less that things can be of utility to that 'society?' Remember, according to your own arguments, society must be more than a group of nearby individuals.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Please, don't tell me you don't know about how this works. "How about my freedom to kill this person" isn't a valid counter.

Really? You really want to try the slippery slope? Well, the simple answer is that "freedom to kill this person" is generally not beneficial to society. Have you been paying any attention to the discussion between GreyICE, Kevin_Lowe, and Avalon? Beside the simple fact that this could easily be turned against your argument that the artist has a right to his/her art.

You have the right to make a living by producing art, and if someone steals this idea from you and makes a living off of it while you don't, you think it's their freedom being respected ?

I agree that people should not be able to make a living off someone else's art.

Explain to me how the average pirate is making a living off someone else's art? This is, after all, what we have been discussing. We were not discussing pirates in China that turn around and sell the art on the black market (or the streets of Chinatown, NYC).

How is my downloading an album I wasn't going to buy in the store hurting the musician, or how is it making a living for someone else to share that album? The guy/girl I downloaded the album from made no money on the transfer, so this argument holds no water when it comes to the bit of piracy we've been discussing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course we are entitled to think freely, and we should base human rights around this. We are entitled to live, to breath, to think, to observe, to conclude, to work, to create, by natural rights. We are entitled to because we are human.

That's a non-answer. Just saying "We have rights because we are human!" gets you nowhere.

Let's agree that if rights exist at all then humans have rights.

Now what's your argument for the claim that humans do have rights, and what's your explanation for how you come to know what is a right and what isn't?

Also, you say that a concept of a human right is made up. Sure. How is the concept of social utility less made up?

Happiness, or preference satisfaction, or whatever metric you choose to use is empirically verifiable to the extent that any social or psychological phenomenon is empirically verifiable. You can ask people if their preferences have been fulfilled, and you can poke them to see what their brains and neurotransmitters are doing.

Whereas there is absolutely no way to tell what rights exist in an empirical way. There is no such thing as a molecule of entitlement or an atom of rightiness.

It does not require faith to conclude that I am a human being, and so are the rest of the people I see. It does not require faith to believe that humans are different from, say, blocks of wood. It does not require faith to observe and draw conclusions about humans.

One more time: Nobody has ever argued that humans aren't humans. Nobody has ever argued that if rights exist then humans have rights. These are straw men of your own creation. Here's your argument:

1. Humans are humans.
2. ????????
3. Humans have rights.

What you are being grilled over is the next step in your argument. We all agree on (1). You are asserting (3). What you have not done is present anything remotely coherent or rigorous to fill the gap where (2) is.

All you've done is string together tenuous waffle like "humans think, work and create and therefore by magic they have a whole bunch of specific rights I just made up with regard to copyright".

 

[quixotecoyote]

All you've done is string together tenuous waffle like "humans think, work and create and therefore by magic natural flow they have a whole bunch of specific rights I just made up with regard to copyright".

Assistance to avoid strawman claims provided. Payment accepted in paypal, cash, or underage goats.

 

[GreyICE]

That's a non-answer. Just saying "We have rights because we are human!" gets you nowhere.

Let's agree that if rights exist at all then humans have rights.

Now what's your argument for the claim that humans do have rights, and what's your explanation for how you come to know what is a right and what isn't?

Okay, lets try to break this down as simply as possible.

We accept first of all that a lone human, with no other humans around, has the right to do whatever he wants, limited only by the framework of survival.

We further accept that as long as the distance is sufficient that no humans encounter one another, they all maintain these rights.

This seems simple, even your "godly ass fairy" lines can't deny this one.

Now we extrapolate that for humans to live closer together, these rights are naturally limited. This is simply true, as well. If there is one coconut, and one human, the human can eat the coconut. If there are two humans, and one coconut, they can split one, or they one can eat a coconut, but they don't both have a coconut.

The more humans, in the more proximity, the more the rights are limited.

It therefore behooves us to determine which rights are fundamental human rights, and which are not. The right to poop wherever is not fundamental. The right to cut down all the trees you see is not fundamental. So, hmm. How shall we determine which rights are necessary to the human condition, and which are not?

Which arise out of what humans fundamentally are? And which are external?

You see, your entire, complete problem is that you think rights are granted. The man on the desert island is granted rights by no one, but has more rights than anyone. Rights aren't granted.

They are taken away.

Do you see your fundamental, entire problem? You are asking me 'who grants the rights' when the question is 'what rights are fundamental to the human conditions, what rights are human rights, and what rights are external rights?'

Happiness, or preference satisfaction, or whatever metric you choose to use is empirically verifiable to the extent that any social or psychological phenomenon is empirically verifiable. You can ask people if their preferences have been fulfilled, and you can poke them to see what their brains and neurotransmitters are doing.

Whereas there is absolutely no way to tell what rights exist in an empirical way. There is no such thing as a molecule of entitlement or an atom of rightiness.

Ah. So utility is a synonym for happiness. I have always found hedonism a slightly unfulfilling philosophy. It's nice, and it is a good framework to attempt to create ethics without God, but as far as attempts go, I don't think it hit the money.

I hope you don't mind if I cut the riffing of the ol' 4chan step 3: profit! joke, as I already used it in this thread, ironically. It's kind of simply stale when the use isn't ironic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay, lets try to break this down as simply as possible.

We accept first of all that a lone human, with no other humans around, has the right to do whatever he wants, limited only by the framework of survival.

No, we don't accept that. That human can do whatever he wants, and it's not immoral for that person to do whatever he wants (leaving aside the question of the ethical treatment of animals). However it does not follow that the human has a right to do whatever it wants.

It therefore behooves us to determine which rights are fundamental human rights, and which are not. The right to poop wherever is not fundamental. The right to cut down all the trees you see is not fundamental. So, hmm. How shall we determine which rights are necessary to the human condition, and which are not?

Which arise out of what humans fundamentally are? And which are external?

JAQing off much? It's your job to answer these questions, and to explain your answers, not ask them of thin air.

However you first need to answer the prior question about how you make that huge jump from "humans have quality A" to "humans therefore have right B".