Major Copyright Judgement

[gumboot]

In my first post on the subject I'm pretty sure I SAID that most laws are about restriction rather than freedom. So talking about copyright law as if it's about freedom is flat-out wrong.

I agree. Copyright Law isn't about freedom. It's about establishing a series of rights for people who originate new artistic material, and protecting those rights.

The reason those rights exist is because society has determined that it is to society's benefit to have artists originating new artistic material, and those rights ensure that artists themselves will want to, and be able to originate new material.

 

[CatInTheBag]

If someone creates something like a house we don't bat an eyelid at them keeping that within their family forever.

To make the analogy a little more accurate: Would you bat an eyelid if you were sill paying a stipend to the builder of the house, up to 70 years after the builder's death?

It's more like a hotel. A hotel is built to get people to use it.

The analogy would be more accurate if the guest of the hotel was able to build his own hotel, with no cost whatsoever to the original hotel builder, whenever they wanted to use the hotel.

 

[CatInTheBag]

[edit]deleted[/edit]

 

[CatInTheBag]

Copyright law was never intended to be used as it is now. It's original intent was to prohibit a scenario where Artist A writes/records a song, this song is then copied/performed by Artist B to make a profit, i.e. to ensure that whatever profits come from a work of art are awarded to the original author, *not to so severly restrict the average end user who simply wants to listen to the music and/or share it with friends. After all, word of mouth is still one of the most effective marketing tools.

Anti-piracy advocates would have us believe that any and all works of art that are published/recorded/marketed are guaranteed to provide a profit/return to the artist/distributor. This is just simply not the case.


*ETA

This.

Copyright law is not, in itself, a bad thing.

In its current incarnation, however, in the majority of jurisdictions, it is broken.

 

[CatInTheBag]

[edit] deleted as already mentioned[/edit]

 

[Belz...]

The question is which comes first, and hence should trump the other. My view is that social utility comes first, and if "rights" turn out to get in the way of social utility they should be pushed aside.

Well, I can see that, and I'm sure it's a defensible position. However, I'd like an answer to my question: do you know of any principle from, say, the bill of rights or similar document that lays out the foundation for social utility laws rather than individual liberties ? And if so, please present them.

Net social utility isn't made up, it's as measurable as any other psychological phenomenon.

Wait, wait. So social utility isn't made up and is measurable and individual utility is made up and non-measurable ? Isn't society made up of individuals and, by definition, of individual utility ?

I'm not sure how you can claim both of these things.

If so, the lawmakers are asses. Laws should be principally designed to bring about good outcomes, not to protect rhetorical fictions.

Individual freedom is a fiction ? That's news to me. So I can't decide by myself of my future carreer without society's approval ?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, I can see that, and I'm sure it's a defensible position. However, I'd like an answer to my question: do you know of any principle from, say, the bill of rights or similar document that lays out the foundation for social utility laws rather than individual liberties ? And if so, please present them.

I guess if you were the kind of American who thought that the Bill of Rights has quasi-Biblical status as a source of philosophical truth, as opposed to being an antique political document, that question might make sense.

Wait, wait. So social utility isn't made up and is measurable and individual utility is made up and non-measurable ? Isn't society made up of individuals and, by definition, of individual utility ?

At what stage did I say anything that even the drunkest or stupidest person could confuse with "individual utility is made up and non-measurable"?

Individual freedom is a fiction ? That's news to me. So I can't decide by myself of my future carreer without society's approval ?

Given the difficulty you are having with understanding very simple concepts it wouldn't surprise me if you couldn't decide by yourself whether your pants went on your legs or your head.

Rights as moral rules that take precedence over social utility are a fiction, in my view. I've made that amply clear.

I think it almost certainly turns out that letting people choose from the available careers for themselves works out to create utility, but that's not the same thing as a "right" existing that entitled you to do so whether or not it leads to social utility.

 

[Belz...]

I guess if you were the kind of American who thought that the Bill of Rights has quasi-Biblical status as a source of philosophical truth, as opposed to being an antique political document, that question might make sense.

Kevin, how long are you going to dance around the question ? Is it that hard to answer ? I'm not even American, so your rant is just a pile of dung.

So I ask again: is there any bill of rights-like document that lays down a framework for social utility rather than individual freedoms ? If not, why do you think it is so ?

The problem here is, "social utility" is even more of a made up construct than rights. At least with individual freedoms, each person can decide what's best for himself. But how do you determine how useful something is for "society" ? You don't, and you can't. That's why legal frameworks are based on the former rather than the latter, and why communism usually doesn't function properly.

At what stage did I say anything that even the drunkest or stupidest person could confuse with "individual utility is made up and non-measurable"?

Try this and work from there: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5651797&postcount=754

 

[Wildy]

What's the feeling? Will the appeal succeed?

I don't think so. That being said it might cause stricter laws regarding file sharing to come into effect, or will become a lobbying point with respect to any legislation for the filter.

 

[GreyICE]

This.

Copyright law is not, in itself, a bad thing.

In its current incarnation, however, in the majority of jurisdictions, it is broken.

But Bob and related idiots have been the only ones who have suggested that people have the right to make a profit. It's a complete strawman.

What people have said is that artists have the right to set the price for their art. You have no problem with farmers setting the price of their produce, tailors setting the price for their services, weavers setting the prices for their baskets - if it's too expensive, you just wouldn't buy it.

What people are mocking is this 'it's too expensive, I'm justified in stealing it' attitude. It's not a strawman, at least two people have made that exact argument in this thread.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, how long are you going to dance around the question ? Is it that hard to answer ? I'm not even American, so your rant is just a pile of dung.

So I ask again: is there any bill of rights-like document that lays down a framework for social utility rather than individual freedoms ? If not, why do you think it is so ?

You have in common with GreyICE the argumentative tactic of asking profoundly stupid questions, and then claiming victory when others point out that the question was stupid.

Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham have been arguing for social institutions based on achieving desirable outcomes and mocking the idiocy of "natural rights" for well over 200 years.

The problem here is, "social utility" is even more of a made up construct than rights.

You also have in common with GreyICE the ability to completely ignore facts and arguments that you don't want to hear, and assert the complete opposite without feeling any need to defend your claims.

Social utility is the aggregate of individual utility, and individual utility is as measurable as any other psychological fact.

At least with individual freedoms, each person can decide what's best for himself. But how do you determine how useful something is for "society" ? You don't, and you can't. That's why legal frameworks are based on the former rather than the latter, and why communism usually doesn't function properly.

That's so hilariously simple-minded and ignorant that I think this might be a personal best for you.

You've got no idea how government works, do you? How do you think money is allocated from the national budget? Do you think someone sits down and determines how and where public money is spent based on "natural law" and "natural flow" and similar nonsense? No, they look at the available evidence to see where spending money can achieve desirable outcomes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What people have said is that artists have the right to set the price for their art...

No. Nobody has said that artists can't ask any price they like to write a song, or to perform a song.

What you have been saying is that artists can also demand that nobody else reproduce their song, or perform their song, without their permission, and that everyone else owes it to the artists to pay for police, courts and prisons to fulfil their demands.

Individual artists have a monopoly on their own services, and nobody is arguing that this is a bad thing that needs to be stopped. If you want to get Sting to sing a song at your party then only Sting can do that, and Sting can ask any price he likes. If you want a song written by Tori Amos then only she can provide that service and she can ask any price she likes.

However what's very questionable is whether artists should be given an additional monopoly by the government over services that other people can provide, such as other people singing a song they wrote or other people reproducing recordings of them.

 

[Belz...]

You have in common with GreyICE the argumentative tactic of asking profoundly stupid questions, and then claiming victory when others point out that the question was stupid.

Wow. So not only do you REFUSE to answer my question, but you also continue to make up stuff as you go along, such as me claiming victory. Please show where I've claimed victory.

Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham have been arguing for social institutions based on achieving desirable outcomes and mocking the idiocy of "natural rights" for well over 200 years.

And AGAIN you speak of things that have NOTHING to do with what I said. Who said anything about natural rights ?

You also have in common with GreyICE the ability to completely ignore facts and arguments that you don't want to hear, and assert the complete opposite without feeling any need to defend your claims.

Stop with the psycho-analysis ********, Kevin, and just stick to the facts.

Social utility is the aggregate of individual utility, and individual utility is as measurable as any other psychological fact.

So far, so good.

That's so hilariously simple-minded and ignorant that I think this might be a personal best for you.

Say, Kevin. Do you get off insulting people ? Because honestly, no one cares about your little rants. Either you can debate rationally or you can't, and so far it seems obvious that the only "argument" you have is saying "ur stupid".

You've got no idea how government works, do you? How do you think money is allocated from the national budget? Do you think someone sits down and determines how and where public money is spent based on "natural law" and "natural flow" and similar nonsense? No, they look at the available evidence to see where spending money can achieve desirable outcomes.

Yes, indeed. That's how it works. But since it has NOTHING to do with my question, you're either the person with the worst reading comprehension I've ever seen, or you live in an alternate universe that distorts my posts by the time they reach your computer.

 

[GreyICE]

You have in common with GreyICE the argumentative tactic of asking profoundly stupid questions, and then claiming victory when others point out that the question was stupid.

I note no responses on anything Kevin. This is the best you have left?

 

[dudalb]

I would like to know how artists who do not perform live...like writers for instance, would make a living in Kevin's world.
And I would like to know what exactly Kevin finds "Antique" about the Bill of rights. You might argue that aspects of the Constitution as a whole have outlived their usefulness (The Electorial College,) but the Bill of Rights???????????
If you can reduce all Individual rights to whatever "Society" (which for all practical purposed in this case means the State) considers "convienent" then the road to Auschwitz and the Gulag is wide open.

 

[dudalb]

The way that Internet PIrates continue to find high sounding BS to justify their acts never fails to amuse me.
They want their entertainment but don't want to pay for it. End of story.
And I love the "everybody does it so that makes it's OK " argument.