Hey,
Ryan_T:
Agalloch:
I agree with the first point made here, however the reasoning seems confusing to me afterwards. Obviously the moral issue is the impending threat of wielding the force of government. The FSF is immoral to want to use it to prevent freedom of contract; however I don't see how the problem is government backing up contracts? While this is by definition, immoral, as long as those contracts are still voluntary, the moral issue doesn't rest with the producers. Consumers are capable of rejecting contracts, and I can't blame anyone for doing their best to survive in the environment that is government. Do you believe that threatening people who break contracts with violence makes them more likely to agree to the contract in the first place? This seems counter intuitive to me. However, the FSF's plan to force producers to include contract terms does mean the initiation of force before any contract has even been presented to consumers. That is coercion.
It seems as if you didn't seem to understand my point about government interference. The issue is not with governments enforcing contracts. The issue is that the government imposes terms of use without any sort of contract.
My exact point was that the moral issue is about government enforcing terms without a contract.
Agalloch:
However, the FSF's plan to force producers to include contract terms does mean the initiation of force before any contract has even been presented to consumers.
Ryan_T:
I don't have to make any contract or buy any product for the government to punish me for IP infringment (copyright or patent). Being already forced to abide by certain terms by the government, people will see little gain in agreeing to contracts that neglect such terms. Hence, the claim that customers agree to such terms voluntarily seems questionable at best.
As for the actions of the FSF, I don't know enough about this particlar organization to make any claims of significant weight. Rather, I was focused more on the idea of the current state of IP.
Obviously I'll ignore the points about Patents; as I've stated above, to no criticism, Patents have absolutely nothing todo with Intellectual property. I'll assume you didn't use the term dishonestly, I know it's hard to take in lots of ongoing discussions at the same time. I agree that if you take the the labours of someones mind without having contracted with them, or a morally allowed supplier, then you are likely to face violence from government. However, while I disagree with any government action, I wouldn't fight this individual point for the same reason we don't fight individual laws on murder; because it's still immoral. When you take someone's copyrighted work, you deprive them of the right to contract. There is no way you could have recieved the work without their wishes having been usurped, and are therefore indirectly stealing (their right to contract works of their mind).
However, you are under not threat from government before taking other peoples works now (except under Patents, which are themselves immoral); and under FSF wishes, you will be under threat from government simply for thinking. Note that the FSF is not anti-IP, as they refuse to view Public Domains works as free; they simply wish to wield the gun of the state to infringe the most misunderstood of all property. I also agree that copyright law is flawed, however I don't own a single IP work that doesn't have the terms we're talking about stated, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I wasn't forced to buy any of them; all of them say don't distribute, and if they want to say it's ok to distribute (like GPL licenses do) then this is perfectly legal.
The current state of Copyright where exactly? I'm in Britain, where copyright's are pretty much contract rights. We also don't have Americas patent problems.
Ryan_T:
Agalloch:
"Copyright" is the right to contract with other people in relation to works of the mind. It is the lack of a right for others to ownership of such works, and a lack of a right for them to put you into intellectual slavery; clearly it exists. Whether we want to call it ownership or not is irrelevant; what does exist is the right to use such works, to contract them and to be deprived of that right. You don't own concepts... so I'm not sure what this next set of statements is in reference too; it blows my mind either way. Copyright is about contracting "artistic" (in the loosest sense of the word) works. That is, a unique "design" pattern whose value is derived from the abstract parts that make it reproducable without some being identical to the original physical maifestation. These include the text of books (But not the exact font and page structure), paintings, music, software code, the compiled software etc etc etc. These are the works of the mind with value, which one has the right to contract and use. Historically, there has never, and logic tells us that there never will be, an example of two independant creations of this kind created identical. Two people can concieve of "paper airplanes", but do not own this concept, only one person ever wrote Lord of the Rings,and no one could achieve this independantly. Patents are another issue.. but again, these have nothing todo with ethics and are government concpets meant to confuse this copyright issue. Thereofre, all your following assertions are invalid, no one claims copyright gives you physical ownership of anything.
How does a lack of copyright put people into intellectual slavery? No one can be forced into creating great works of the mind. Additionally, the creator is perfectly capable of negotiating any terms by which he is willing to share his ideas. This does not come from any special characteristic of IP, but rather just the general right to contract; no presupposition about copyright vailidity is necessary.
I'd also like to reitterate my paper airplanes argument. I believe that it works just as well for copyright as it does for patents. Just because I create a poem, doesn't mean that I gain control over that arrangement of words. If a person owns the means to write and a medium to write on, then writing words is a vaild expression of their property rights. I don't see how me thinking of a poem restricts that right to write in any way.
Have you tried putting the idea of "copyright" through UPB? Perhaps if we cannot reach an agreement by this point it would be helpful to fall back to a common methodology for determining valid moral rules.
Do you know what copyright is? I understand that governments heavily mess up the intellectual debate, but I thought we were discussing the idea in free terms. Saying the creator is perfectly capable of negotiating any terms by which he is willing to share (trade?) his ideas (works?) without copyright; is like saying the creator is perfectly capable of negotiation any terms by which he is willing to sell his teaspoons even if property is a fallacy. Clearly not; if the spoons he has created are not his, then he has no right to contract them, and infact others are perfectly ok to come and take them from his home. Now, while I admit that it is more difficult to take works directly from the mind, we can still equate it to the later sale of stolen goods; an act we understand to be immoral. We don't have a "general right to contract." I can't sell you, my neighbours house, the sea, or anything else I don't have the right to contract. The right to contract (as well as to use) are the only two factors that define property. Copyright is this right for intellectual works (Literally, the right to copy/contract), and without the "(copy)right", we don't have the "right". So, you're entirely in agreement with the ideas, and in complete contradiction on terms. I apologise for not defining what I meant by copyright better.
No you don't have control over the order of words; however, given that there has been not a single, not even a slight historical example, of two independant creations of works of the mind, I don't see you point? You do gain control over the right to contract the words (that's copyright). If you independantlly create an identical work; well done, but it's next to mathematically impossible. They can only gain knowledge of the words by having deprived you of the right to contract.
I have run this through UPB, and it requires the direct contravention of contracts in a closed system; as well as retrieving the works from a party who does not possess the right to contract for third parties in an open one. This deprivation of the right to contract (by contracting from a party who is infringing their contract) is the act of stealing; and does not differ as I see it from purchasing stolen goods. Stef also did a 3-part podcast on the issue, which while limited, argues quite well for the right to contract works of your mind. It's podcasts, 164/165/166. Mostly an economic argument for the closed system (if I remember correctly) but the moral issues are touched.
Thanks,
James