Are you a thief?

[Charles Anthony]

In many cases it is only one side's fault so it is unreasonable to expect the other party to help you with problems that they did not create.

I understand that. It is rarely a true fault of the operating system; software support usually says so as a weasly excuse. My beef is simple: they should not make the claim that it will work. What claim they CAN make to cover their asses, I do not know, but the onus is on them to be honest.

Microsoft only looks bad because so many hackers try to exploit it. Other OSes on the market would fare much worse if they had to deal with the same level of attacks.

No. You hear that all of the time but it is false. Can you see a successful virus attack that requires the user to:

- stop what they are doing

- permit the virus download

- log out of their user account

- log into the root administrator account

- find the virus file

- type "chmod" at a command prompt to change the priviledges of the virus file to make it executable

before going back to what they were doing so that the virus file can run???

So what do you want: an OS that is 99.999% secure or an OS that will still allow you to keep using applications you bought 3 years ago? Choosing both is not an option.

Actually, my demand is simple: the software vendor must be accountable for their claims and their product. If they say it should work, than it should work. If it "works" by also doing damage to me someplace else, the software vendor is responsible.

Nevertheless, all of this is permitted by us because it is still more convenient. We, as consumers, facilitate it all.

How can you expect any piece of software to cover any potential operating scenerio out there?

I do not. However, the software vendor is responsible if their "system requirements" are fulfilled but still does not work or does damage.

I think that these companies should do less to alienate customers (i.e. differing media management methods, hardware locks, etc), and should think of better ways of still making profit while distributing this media.

I think the technology and the demands of the market will eventually grant your wish. Your example is excellent:

Its ironic that if I only play bootleg DVDs in my laptop, which have been 'fixed', then I don't have to worry about my count going up - so why would I bother to buy a legit DVD when it will only limit my system's capabilities?

The existence of this black market will lead legitimate DVD creators to smarten up, so to speak.

I have a slightly different beef with respect to bootleg multi-media. I get ENRAGED with bootleggers who pretend that their knock-offs are actually original. I buy collector's items and I have tons of worthless copies. Since they were purchased online, my recourse is limited. Nevertheless, those are the risks I take as a consumer. I guess a lot of people bought marshland in Florida or crossed the ocean to live in the land-of-milk-and-honey under similar pretenses.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I see you as arguing two seperate points here. One dealing with 'caveat emptor', and one of the abolition of 'intellectual property'.

To the first point, there is legal recourse should manufacturers claims and representations be false. The onus is on the consumer to either raise a fuss or stop buying the product. Ultimately, the consumer decides what levels of 'fraud' are acceptable. There is also an issue of 'falliability, where, due to circumstances beyond control, lemons get made. (I was told, once upon a time, to never buy a car manufactured on a Monday or a Friday, the worker's minds were elsewhere). I suppose that this argument needs it's own thread...the morality of free enterprise.

Second point, Hugo's rejection of the notion of copyright. Without reward for creativeness, new developments would stagnate. ( I would venture to say that this idea could only be feasible in a 'commuunist collective', where all contribution is voluntary.) Who would come forward with a good idea to improve on a product if they weren't going to benefit from their effort? For example, let's take the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. Without 'intellelectual property rights', Hugo claimed that the onus was on him to become a car manufacturer in order to receive any money from this development. It could never happen. 'R&D' would shut down if you could just wait for someone else to develop something and then just 'steal it'. The music industry, too, would be strangled without copyright. I could simply burn all of the Rolling Stones music, claim it as my own, and sell it to the radio stations for airplay at a greeatly reduced price.

[Renegade]

No. I call it fraud.

Excusing it as a marketing slogan is not fair.

Then sue the manufacturer. Make your case in court. See if a judge agrees with you. Frankly I doubt you'll get far.

(ever hear of "Nice'n'Easy" hair colouring?).

No, I have not. Nevertheless, did the hair coloring perform as they said it would in their marketing campaign?

Every commercial I saw only showed women with lustrous hair. They never explicitly claimed that the product created that hair. The "nice'n'easy" moniker would lead you to have some expectations on the application of the product. I guess "nice" was subjective, and "easy" was relative. Most people I know who used the product considered it neither nice nor easy.

Since we are looking at things in a moral context (as opposed to a bland legal one), a marketing slogan should not be brushed off. If I was blind or illiterate would there be a different marketing morality for me? If I heard the advertizement on television and ran to the store to buy NiceAndEasy hair products, it would be unreasonable to say that I must read the fine print connected to the asterisk on the bottom of the back side of the label. The marketing slogan, if proved false, makes the marketing an act of fraud. To me, that is immoral.

Then you have a moral standard different than the one which is commonly used in the world today. Marketing for all products puts a positive spin on products and tries to generate demand. That is the role of marketing. My point is that I don't see a different standard used for software than any other product.

I do not believe it is a different discussion. It examines the difference between copying and original sources.

Of course it is my property because I put it there and I own the hardware upon which it lies. I do not care about somebody else making copies but rather I am concerned about my original copy.

I was not concerned that it is "yours". I was concerned that it was "property" to begin with. (I'm with Hugo on this one). What onus do you have to protect your "property" with proper backups when you are fully aware of the volatile nature of the data on your disk?

No, your analogy is mistaken.

Toyota would be blamed if they made copies of my car key and made security codes available to crooks and told them where I parked my car every night.

Yes, in that case I would blame Toyota. Show me how software vendors have done that.

If the "recommended system requirements" are fulfilled by the consumer, the technical culprit does not matter. The vendor is responsible for the product.

The "recommended system requirements" only list the basic requirements for the software. The do not list the configurations that the software is tested and validated on. Let's assume that manufacturer did take your recommendation and put on only the tested configuration as the recommended system configuration. Let's say each vendor did this. The "recommended system configuration" for each woudl be the OS and basic drivers and the application under test. Would you as a consumer purchase a different system for every application you wanted to use (eg one for Microsoft Office, one for Nero, one for Photoshop, etc). What would happen is that people would essentially ignore the recommended system requirements in the same way they ignore the fine print today.

Interesting assumption. Forgive me but where have you been? Surely you have heard of Linux?

All of my software is legit and free. I have not spent a red cent on firewalls nor on anti-virus software nor on anti-this nor on anti-that in nearly ten years. The only thing I pay is PC hardware and ISP service.

My mistake. I misunderstood. I thought your complaint was against all software. I realize that it is restricted to commercial vendors. Are you under the assumption that the free software you use, and Linux, have no security exploits and no defects? Or perhaps it is your contention since it is "free" it is then ok that it has those flaws because no represntations have been made.

Those CDs damaged people's computers without their consent.

I agree. They were wrong, they suffered a backlash, and now they are forced to pay compensation. They will be a lesson to other vendors who venture into similar practices.

During the cold war (and still today), the US (and Russia, China, etc) commonly used spies to steal each other's technology and equipment. They used the IP gained to improve their own weaponary. Is that IP violation any different than copying a song, except for the scale?

Actually, I believe a comparison is impossible by the very nature of intellectual property. It is possible to construct scenarios whereby copying somebody's song creates more harm and an other whereby copying the weapon technology does more harm. That is the nature of intellectual property: it does not exist but for how we apply it.

I agree. My point is not to guage which practice is more damaging. My point is to show that a double standard exist when the accuser uses the same practices as the accused.

[Renegade]

What claim they CAN make to cover their asses, I do not know, but the onus is on them to be honest.

What the do claim is that their software is not warranted to be defect free. That's as honest as you get. You just choose not to read or ignore the license agreement.

[Argus]

In my view there is nothing morally wrong with Intellectual Property violations. The violation is a legal transgression not a moral one. A moral trangression, would be one which deprived the owner of the use or posession of that which was taken. That is not the case with IP violations.

You are, to a certain extent, depriving the producer of his livelihood. He or she has performed a service, and you have stolen that service without the compensation which society agrees is their due. Ultimately, if lots of people did it (they do) their compensation for their hard work is greatly diminished. Instead of getting a ten thousand dollar royalty cheque, they get a five thousand dollar cheque. It makes a difference in their lives.

Now here's where I quibble, to an extent, in defence of myself.

When I download a single song from twenty or thirty years back without compensation for the artist I am not depriving them of what would otherwise be a sale. There is nothing available to my knowledge, which would allow me to easily download an older song like this and pay a nominal fee. If there were, I would be willing to do so. However, there isn't. So the alternative to my downloading the song and not paying anything, is to not have the song and not pay. In other words, there is no affect on the artist.

However, if I download an entire album, one which I could and otherwise would be purchasing on-line or in a store, that is theft of services. I am taking something I want from the artist and deliberately not compensating them as I should. It's not much different from pocketing a CD at a music store and walking out of the store with it. I know people who have entire libraries of albums they've downloaded. These are libraries simliar to the ones I used ot have when younger - except I paid for all of my records - and then CDs.

[Renegade]

You are, to a certain extent, depriving the producer of his livelihood. He or she has performed a service, and you have stolen that service without the compensation which society agrees is their due. Ultimately, if lots of people did it (they do) their compensation for their hard work is greatly diminished. Instead of getting a ten thousand dollar royalty cheque, they get a five thousand dollar cheque. It makes a difference in their lives.

Yes I do realize that, however, intellectual property is essentially "ideas". From a moral perspective, I believe ideas should be free. We reuse ideas all the time without paying for them. Do we pay royalties to the decendents of whoemever first invented the wheel? Why not?

I agree that the current compensation mechanism may deprive the producer of payment. The fault I see is with the compensation mechanism, not with the morality of the act in question. Yes, I realize that "society" has agreed to a royalty-based compensation scheme, which is why I belive the violation is one of contract violation not one of ethics.

Incidentally downloading doesn't necessarily deprive the producer of revenue. In some cases it generates demand for the ancillary producer's products which cannot be downloaded (such as live performances)

[Riverwind]

Microsoft only looks bad because so many hackers try to exploit it. Other OSes on the market would fare much worse if they had to deal with the same level of attacks.

No. You hear that all of the time but it is false. Can you see a successful virus attack that requires the user to:

Most people run Windows while logged in as 'root'. If they ran Windows while logged in as an ordinary user then many attacks would not work. IOW - Windows offers similar protections - but people choose not to use them because it is less convenient

Actually, my demand is simple: the software vendor must be accountable for their claims and their product. If they say it should work, than it should work.

Most EULAs already make the claim that software might not work in all situtations and that there could be adverse side effects. Any informed purchaser of software should already be aware of the risks even if they do not read every line in the EULA. If you are not aware of these caveats or choose to ignore them then you are responsible for your dissappointment.

Nevertheless, all of this is permitted by us because it is still more convenient. We, as consumers, facilitate it all.

It all comes down to cost vs. benefit. People knowingly buy lower quality products all of the time because the price is lower and they believe the product will still be useful even if it could fail unexpectedly.

[Riverwind]

Yes I do realize that, however, intellectual property is essentially "ideas". From a moral perspective, I believe ideas should be free. We reuse ideas all the time without paying for them. Do we pay royalties to the decendents of whoemever first invented the wheel? Why not?

Many 'ideas' cost a lot of money to create. Movies, drugs and software cost hundreds of millions to produce - no one would spend the kind of money required to produce these ideas if there was not some gurantee that they could get return on their investment. For that reason there must be some sort of social stigma applied to people who refuse to follow the rules set up to ensure that the idea creators get compensated.

[Renegade]

Yes I do realize that, however, intellectual property is essentially "ideas". From a moral perspective, I believe ideas should be free. We reuse ideas all the time without paying for them. Do we pay royalties to the decendents of whoemever first invented the wheel? Why not?

Many 'ideas' cost a lot of money to create. Movies, drugs and software cost hundreds of millions to produce - no one would spend the kind of money required to produce these ideas if there was not some gurantee that they could get return on their investment. For that reason there must be some sort of social stigma applied to people who refuse to follow the rules set up to ensure that the idea creators get compensated.

Yes I agree that the creators should be compensated. I'm not convinced that the royalty schemes are necessarily the only way to do so. The royalty schemes only benefit the creator and not the consumer. If it were a manufactured product, with a larger consuming market, economies of scale would drive down the cost and competition would result in net price decreases to the customer. With IP, the incremental cost to produce the next unit is essentially nil. Unfortunately with IP products such as movies, products from one creator are not readily substituted from that of another, so competition cannot work in the same manner as other goods.

Part of the reason that the cost to produce the items are so high, are simply because of the royalty schemes. Movies are expensive to produce, in part, because movie actors command such high salaries simply because the royalty scheme gives the creator a lucrative funding mechanism.

For years record companies essentially gouged the music market by charging what the market could bear even when their costs were lower (eg CDs cost less to produce than tapes). They even forced consumers to repay for IP they had already licensed (eg having to rebuy the song on CDs when they already purchsed that same song on records). That legacy has left many consumers without the social stigma that record companies are now trying to revive because it is in their best interest to do so.

I do sympathize for the artists, however record companies get no sympathy from me.

[Argus]

You are, to a certain extent, depriving the producer of his livelihood. He or she has performed a service, and you have stolen that service without the compensation which society agrees is their due. Ultimately, if lots of people did it (they do) their compensation for their hard work is greatly diminished. Instead of getting a ten thousand dollar royalty cheque, they get a five thousand dollar cheque. It makes a difference in their lives.

Yes I do realize that, however, intellectual property is essentially "ideas". From a moral perspective, I believe ideas should be free. We reuse ideas all the time without paying for them. Do we pay royalties to the decendents of whoemever first invented the wheel? Why not?

Because there's a time limit on patents. In any event, you're simplifying things far too much. If an author works for years on a great novel, with a quarter million words, putting his blood and sweat and God knows how much of his life into it, does that not constitute more than an "idea"? You might have an idea for a song, but someone else had to put time and effort into the lyrics and melody, and then, of course, there are all those people who put years into learning their musical craft who need to record this song. It's not just an "idea".

I agree that the current compensation mechanism may deprive the producer of payment. The fault I see is with the compensation mechanism, not with the morality of the act in question. Yes, I realize that "society" has agreed to a royalty-based compensation scheme, which is why I belive the violation is one of contract violation not one of ethics.

Ethics are an agreed-upon standard. Our society, the one you live in, has agreed on what is and is not ethical. It is not ethical to take make use of someone's services for nothing unless those services are provided for free. If you sneak into a theatre and watch the movie for free, or sneak into a concert, and watch the performers while not compensating them, you are depriving them of their livelihood, of the compensation they earned.

Incidentally downloading doesn't necessarily deprive the producer of revenue. In some cases it generates demand for the ancillary producer's products which cannot be downloaded (such as live performances)

Unlikely. Buying the CDs properly would generate just as much demand.

[Renegade]

Because there's a time limit on patents.

The time limit on patents is not a ethical restriction. It is simply an arbitrary rule that society has put in place.

In any event, you're simplifying things far too much. If an author works for years on a great novel, with a quarter million words, putting his blood and sweat and God knows how much of his life into it, does that not constitute more than an "idea"? You might have an idea for a song, but someone else had to put time and effort into the lyrics and melody, and then, of course, there are all those people who put years into learning their musical craft who need to record this song. It's not just an "idea".

I disagree. Regardless of how much work is put in or not, or how complex the concept is or not, it is still just an idea.

It is an interesting debate on what activity deserves to be compensated and what doesn't. I don't think it is sufficient simply to put in effort, no matter how much, to decide that it will get compensated. For example, some people put extraordinary effort into their hobbies, but yet do not expect compensation. The expectation of compensation for the author comes because society has led him to that expectation.

Our royalty mechanism is a relatively new concept. Previously artist had benefactors who funded them, or they simply did other work as well as their art. If in the Middle Ages a composer created a song, and then the populace sang the song without paying the composer, was that a moral transgression? If it wasn't then why is it now?

Ethics are an agreed-upon standard. Our society, the one you live in, has agreed on what is and is not ethical. It is not ethical to take make use of someone's services for nothing unless those services are provided for free. If you sneak into a theatre and watch the movie for free, or sneak into a concert, and watch the performers while not compensating them, you are depriving them of their livelihood, of the compensation they earned.

I at least partially disagree. Ethics as I define it are your own moral standard, not society's. Society imposes rules which may or may not be based upon ethics. Society may impose a rule that I can only travel 100 km/hour. I certainly trangress that rule when I travel 110 km/hour, but in my view I don't trangress any ethical standard.

If I snuck into a theatre, from a moral perspective, I am in violation of trasspassing, not of theft. If I walk by a stadium and hear a new song, and I continue to sing the song to my self, am I stealing the auhors' work by not compensating him? The flaws you point out in depriving them of their livelihood, are flaws in how we compensate the artists, not in the morality of the act.

Unlikely. Buying the CDs properly would generate just as much demand.

That would be presuming one even knew about the song or artist in the first place. People are much more likely to listen to the song if there is no cost to do so. As an example, the comedian Russell Peters was a relatively little known stand-up comic. A video of one of his performances was uploaded and then subsequently downloaded by audiences he had never been able to reach before. That one event has caused his popularity and demand for his performances to soar, despite the fact that he recieved no direct compensation from those who downloaded his performance.

[August1991]

I don't know if I want to weigh in on this topic since (and I don't mean to insult) smarter people than anyone on this forum have already solved every question raised in this thread.

Do we pay royalties to the decendents of whoemever first invented the wheel? Why not?

In a sense, we should. And in the future, we likely will - for a generation or two perhaps.

If you go back to the Friedman quote, we have property rights for two reasons: as an incentive for people to create things and to avoid conflicts about who gets to use something.

In the case of intellectual property, the second reason is irrelevant. Unlike a glass of milk, two people can use the same idea at the same time.

So, the reason we have intellectual property rights is as an incentive for people to create new ideas. Without intellectual property rights, people who create new ideas are engaging in an act of charity. It's likely to believe that we get more ideas when people profit from their creation. (IOW, I think we still underproduce ideas but then again, we produce far more now than, say, 1000 years ago.)

There remains a last point - and I'll be technical. If ideas can be consumed simultaneously (without rivalry) then on efficiency grounds, the price for access should be zero since the marginal cost of supplying the idea is zero. But with such a price, there would be no revenues to compensate the idea's creator.

Ideally, we would assess somehow each person's benefit from the idea and charge them accordingly. This would create the proper reward for the creation of ideas and the proper incentive for their use.

----

So much for the ideal world. In the real world, one solution is copyright law which grants a monopoly for a certain length of time and then the idea goes into public domain for free use. That's a practical compromise.

The bigger practical problem is protection of the copyright. Technology changes this. It was easy to protect copyright with 45 rpm discs because if you wanted a song, you had to buy a plastic disc. With MP3 files, this protection is no longer possible.

As a species, we are pragmatic in dealing with such problems. We define property (and fairness and justice) by whatever seems to work. I'm not surprised that many people consider it theft to steal a CD from a store but consider it acceptable to copy a file from a friend.

[Renegade]

So, the reason we have intellectual property rights is as an incentive for people to create new ideas. Without intellectual property rights, people who create new ideas are engaging in an act of charity. It's likely to believe that we get more ideas when people profit from their creation. (IOW, I think we still underproduce ideas but then again, we produce far more now than, say, 1000 years ago.)

I agree. The point I was originally responding to was that I asserted that the reproduction and reuse of IP was not a moral transgression. It is however, and economic and incentive issue. How do we create an economic incentive system which will encourage new ideas?

There remains a last point - and I'll be technical. If ideas can be consumed simultaneously (without rivalry) then on efficiency grounds, the price for access should be zero since the marginal cost of supplying the idea is zero. But with such a price, there would be no revenues to compensate the idea's creator.

This is not just a technical point, it should be a requirement of the compensation scheme. If the incremental cost to use the idea is zero, and the incremental effort to the idea creator is zero. I don't see why there should be incremental revenue to the idea creator, or at least that incremental revenue should be shared by lowering the cost to the idea users.

Ideally, we would assess somehow each person's benefit from the idea and charge them accordingly. This would create the proper reward for the creation of ideas and the proper incentive for their use.

Ideally, we would assign a fair compensation for the idea based upon the effort and skill involved in creating that idea. We would then somehow collect contribution from each user of the idea totaling the amount required to compensate the creator. The more people who used an idea, the less it should cost each individual user. IOW, ideally we should incent the wider use of useful ideas not disincent them.

I'm not surprised that many people consider it theft to steal a CD from a store but consider it acceptable to copy a file from a friend.

I'm not either. People moral compass on stealing derive from whether they deprive someone of that product. Stealing a CD from a store, deprives the store of the ability to sell that physical CD. Copying a flie does not. Similarily most people would consider it stealing if they managed to hack into a bank account and electronicly transfer funds to themselves. So stealing doesn't really require the item to have a physical manifestation.

[August1991]

This is not just a technical point, it should be a requirement of the compensation scheme. If the incremental cost to use the idea is zero, and the incremental effort to the idea creator is zero. I don't see why there should be incremental revenue to the idea creator, or at least that incremental revenue should be shared by lowering the cost to the idea users.

That's not what I meant by technical point, and your reasoning above is false. Although I don't have the patience to explain why. You can try this.

Ideally, we would assign a fair compensation for the idea based upon the effort and skill involved in creating that idea.

That idea was proven false at least 100 years ago. If I devote two weeks effort and skill digging a hole in the ground, and then spend another week filling it in, do I have something worth three weeks of effort and skill?

The "value" of something is not based on the skill and effort required to create it.

People moral compass on stealing derive from whether they deprive someone of that product.

Maybe but I doubt it. Most people won't walk across private property if a sign says not to.

Renegade, my point was that morality like property is a pragmatic invention. Don't look for simple rules. Property law is a complex field and different jurisdictions use different rules.

[Renegade]

That idea was proven false at least 100 years ago. If I devote two weeks effort and skill digging a hole in the ground, and then spend another week filling it in, do I have something worth three weeks of effort and skill?

The "value" of something is not based on the skill and effort required to create it.

You are quite right. I retract my suggestion. Really all we are doing is tryng to find a way to incent creators to create ideas while at the same time encouraging people to use those ideas.

The current royalty scheme does incent creators, but can add barriers to people using those ideas.

Most people won't walk across private property if a sign says not to.

True, but the question was whether they considered it theft. Even if people do walk across a private property, they don't consider it theft.

-------------

I agree with you that since the morality of this issue is a pragmitic invention, I as a consumer want to share in the proceeds, or I will find a way to revolt (eg by downloading).

The only reason that many CDs are now $9.99 instead of $40 is that music companies are faced with the threat of dowloading. The beneficial economic effect of downloading is that it provides competition where there would otherwise be none and thus keeps prices low.

[Charles Anthony]

I see you as arguing two seperate points here. One dealing with 'caveat emptor', and one of the abolition of 'intellectual property'.

To the first point, there is legal recourse should manufacturers claims and representations be false. The onus is on the consumer to either raise a fuss or stop buying the product. Ultimately, the consumer decides what levels of 'fraud' are acceptable.

In the long run, that is the most effective way to maintain a balance.

I suppose that this argument needs it's own thread...the morality of free enterprise.

Start one. I wonder how fast it will evolve into the immorality of restricting enterprise.

[i had to say that.]

Second point, Hugo's rejection of the notion of copyright. Without reward for creativeness, new developments would stagnate.

That is silly. There were never any "new developments" throughout the history of mankind until the good grace of copyight law was bestowed upon us.

Yes, copyright law props up markets which would otherwise not exist in the same manner -- maybe. So what???

How about I propose a "prop-up-market law" which functions thusly:

- a manufacturer petitions the "government" to bestow a monopoly on a particular product

- the "government" agents rough up anybody who tries to compete with the monopolist

How does that sound?

( I would venture to say that this idea could only be feasible in a 'commuunist collective', where all contribution is voluntary.)

I find this statement exciting (seriously, I am not being sarcastic) because it examines how "intellectual property" would be marketed in an alternate social organization. I do not agree with your view. Without coersion, the idea is that people would not lay claim on "intellectual property" in the same way as people do not lay claim to owning clouds or air or the planet Pluto or the game of hopscotch or the art of origami or flowery cake decorations or the colors of the rainbow or anything else in the public domain. Following your venture, I could say that we already live in a "communist collective" with respect to how we share clouds or air or the planet Pluto or the game of hopscotch or the art of origami or flowery cake decorations to the colors of the rainbow. We do accept a certain level of anarchy right now.

Your examination is exciting because, in a world without coersion, there would naturally be more public domain and intellectual property would fall within it.

I would say that the development of digital media bootlegging presents strong evidence of man's inherent desire for non-coersion rather than any respect for copyright nor communism.

Who would come forward with a good idea to improve on a product if they weren't going to benefit from their effort?

Whoever it was would look at a different way to market the new product instead of collecting a mark-up for also selling air.

For example, let's take the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. Without 'intellelectual property rights', Hugo claimed that the onus was on him to become a car manufacturer in order to receive any money from this development. It could never happen. 'R&D' would shut down if you could just wait for someone else to develop something and then just 'steal it'.

Correct. We have reverse engineering happening all of the time today and it seems like a transgression. The anarchist would say "Yes! The windshield wiper inventor is not making as much money as he could. Too bad. He is making as much money as he should." Period. If that leads to less inventions, so be it. I could also say that, for the sake of maximizing inventions, the government should tax us even more and throw that money to the invention market as a subsidy. Who is right???

Furthermore, I could say that without copyright law enforcement, we may in fact see more innovation.

The music industry, too, would be strangled without copyright. I could simply burn all of the Rolling Stones music, claim it as my own, and sell it to the radio stations for airplay at a greeatly reduced price.

The music industry would stop selling air and would sell music in a different way -- maybe live performances -- maybe sell only cheap quality vinyl (the assumption being that it does not last long) instead of digital media.

Your re-claiming The Rolling Stones as your own music is interesting because we currently do that all of the time anyway. When was the last time that Beethoven or Shakespeare earned a royalty??? In fact, if you went back in time and explained our modern copyright law to those two, what they would say? I bet they would first think: "I have already figured out how to make money with my art on my own terms." Bootleggers and copy-cats existed long before copyright law anyway. Somebody else asked in a previous thread: "Who owns copyright over all of the knock-knock jokes?" or something to that effect.

[Charles Anthony]

I was not concerned that it is "yours". I was concerned that it was "property" to begin with.

It is my property because it is a piece of metal with magnetic ions in a structured order.

How I interpret or what I do with that ordered magnetizm is irrelevent -- and intellectual.

What onus do you have to protect your "property" with proper backups when you are fully aware of the volatile nature of the data on your disk?

The same onus that a person has to protect their home from robbery. I am identify a transgression.

Even if the onus is on the home owner to put up triple locks on all doors and bullet-proof glass and bars on all windows and hire a 24/7 security guard, if there is a successful home invasion, there is a transgression.

Toyota would be blamed if they made copies of my car key and made security codes available to crooks and told them where I parked my car every night.

Yes, in that case I would blame Toyota. Show me how software vendors have done that.

I thought I did up in a previous post but I now see that I repeated a link instead of adding a second one. I would edit my previous post but somebody has alread quoted it so I will leave the mistake. I will post the link here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...cleID=175700809[/indent]Also, the example of the Sony DRM fiasco is obvious: the operating system permitted it.

What would happen is that people would essentially ignore the recommended system requirements in the same way they ignore the fine print today.

Correct. However, there would be no valid grievance. Furthermore, the software manufacturers would did have a better record for reliability would stand out.

Are you under the assumption that the free software you use, and Linux, have no security exploits and no defects? Or perhaps it is your contention since it is "free" it is then ok that it has those flaws because no represntations have been made.

Neither. My attitude is that I have no valid grievance against my software.

I agree. My point is not to guage which practice is more damaging. My point is to show that a double standard exist when the accuser uses the same practices as the accused.

Your example may also serve as further evidence that "intellectual property" is a phony concept.

Incidentally downloading doesn't necessarily deprive the producer of revenue. In some cases it generates demand for the ancillary producer's products which cannot be downloaded (such as live performances)

A lot of small-time independent acts are marketing themselves this way now. When we are all dead and gone, the big-time music industry may in fact depend on downloading.

IOW - Windows offers similar protections - but people choose not to use them because it is less convenient

Indeed. Windows is a hell of a lot more convenient to get things rolling.

There is something fishy going on....

So, the reason we have intellectual property rights is as an incentive for people to create new ideas.

Who is obligated to ensure incentives for invention? or compensation?

There remains a last point - and I'll be technical. If ideas can be consumed simultaneously (without rivalry) then on efficiency grounds, the price for access should be zero since the marginal cost of supplying the idea is zero. But with such a price, there would be no revenues to compensate the idea's creator.

The market does not need to be efficient for it to exist.

Most people won't walk across private property if a sign says not to.

True, but the question was whether they considered it theft. Even if people do walk across a private property, they don't consider it theft.

The decision to NOT walk across would not necessarily be a moral issue: they may fear punishment or danger.

The beneficial economic effect of downloading is that it provides competition where there would otherwise be none and thus keeps prices low.

Would you permit downloading if it had no effect? or if it had a detrimental effect? I would.

[Renegade]

Toyota would be blamed if they made copies of my car key and made security codes available to crooks and told them where I parked my car every night.

Yes, in that case I would blame Toyota. Show me how software vendors have done that.

I thought I did up in a previous post but I now see that I repeated a link instead of adding a second one. I would edit my previous post but somebody has alread quoted it so I will leave the mistake. I will post the link here: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...cleID=175700809

It woudl seem that if Microsoft issues a patch or acknowledges a security vunerability, you accuse them of making "security codes available to crooks". If they don't acknowledge a security vunerabilty or issue a patch, you would accuse them of being decietful, misleading the public and covering up.

Given that they didn't intentionally create the software defect, what under the circumstances would you have them do?

Also, the example of the Sony DRM fiasco is obvious: the operating system permitted it.

The OS permitted the intrusion in the same way that Toyota permits car theives to steal your car.

The beneficial economic effect of downloading is that it provides competition where there would otherwise be none and thus keeps prices low.

Would you permit downloading if it had no effect? or if it had a detrimental effect? I would.

Yes, I would. I didn't mean to suggest that the economic effect was the only one. There are many reasons why I believe downloading should be permissable.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Even if the onus is on the home owner to put up triple locks on all doors and bullet-proof glass and bars on all windows and hire a 24/7 security guard, if there is a successful home invasion, there is a transgression.

Indeed, though I think you stated elsewhere that someone who leaves there door open is 'asking for it'. 3 locks or none, it is still a transgression. Further to this, is 'possession' the only definition of 'ownership'?

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Sep 24 2006, 07:54 AM)

I suppose that this argument needs it's own thread...the morality of free enterprise.

Start one. I wonder how fast it will evolve into the immorality of restricting enterprise.

[i had to say that.]

I've noticed that many an argument turns to 'the morality of coersion' right around the time you show up... j/k

Somebody else asked in a previous thread: "Who owns copyright over all of the knock-knock jokes?" or something to that effect.

Yes, my patent on 'the question mark' is pending, please stop using it in the meantime...lol

[Charles Anthony]

Given that they didn't intentionally create the software defect, what under the circumstances would you have them do?

I only attribute responsibility to them. I do not know what they could do. That is why I shrug my shoulders and just leave it to the market. Easier that way.

The OS permitted the intrusion in the same way that Toyota permits car theives to steal your car.

In my example, yes.

Indeed, though I think you stated elsewhere that someone who leaves there door open is 'asking for it'.

Yes. Nevertheless, I believe such a transgression is still wrong.

Further to this, is 'possession' the only definition of 'ownership'?

Further indeed. What are you talking about?

I do not believe possession is the only definition of ownership. However, I will say: "Yes! possession is the only definition of ownership -- final answer." because I am intrigued.

I've noticed that many an argument turns to 'the morality of coersion' right around the time you show up...

Yeah, I am starting to get tired of it too!

By the way, since the thread is examining digital media and we have touched upon operating system platforms, please tell me: how in the world do you quote like this:

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Sep 24 2006, 07:54 AM)

in your forum post? Are you just trying to be old-fashioned?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

By the way, since the thread is examining digital media and we have touched upon operating system platforms, please tell me: how in the world do you quote like this: CODEQUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Sep 24 2006, 07:54 AM) in your forum post? Are you just trying to be old-fashioned?

I actually don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how my quotes appear to you. Is this like telling me I'm black? (j/k lol)

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Sep 24 2006, 03:04 PM)

Indeed, though I think you stated elsewhere that someone who leaves there door open is 'asking for it'.

Yes. Nevertheless, I believe such a transgression is still wrong.

Colour me mortified, I spelled 'their' wrong. Ugh.

Further indeed. What are you talking about?

I do not believe possession is the only definition of ownership. However, I will say: "Yes! possession is the only definition of ownership -- final answer." because I am intrigued

A throwback to the argument I had with Hugo pertaining to the nature of 'rights', including property ownership. He felt they were inherent, I say they are granted. So the 'further' bit is about granting rights of ownership. It is either all this way, (including the granting of copyright) or it is all about coersive force.

[Charles Anthony]

A throwback to the argument I had with Hugo pertaining to the nature of 'rights', including property ownership. He felt they were inherent, I say they are granted. So the 'further' bit is about granting rights of ownership. It is either all this way, (including the granting of copyright) or it is all about coersive force.

Comprendo. If you are asking what is morally right or wrong, my anarcho-reflex is on the inherent side as opposed to the depending-on-somebody-else's-charity-and-good-grace side. There can not be coersion nor theft for it to be right.

If you determine that our laws of "copyright" are the right way to do things, fine. They are only "right" in the same way as it is "right" to be charitable after stealing from somebody else.

[i know, I know. Eventually, everything devolves down to a simple-minded argument conditional upon a clepto-maniacal world involving nebulous "social contracts" that do not exist but strategically include taxation and yadda yadda yadda to which everybody gives their consent because they always have the option to run away into the deep blue ocean and yadda yadda yadda. Even I am getting tired of it -- however, I will still object whenever I can muster up enough energy.]

[Renegade]

I only attribute responsibility to them. I do not know what they could do. That is why I shrug my shoulders and just leave it to the market. Easier that way.

But wasn't your original complaint that the market was too complacent and let them get away with a lesser standard than any other product. On one hand you say you leave it to the market to decide, on the other hand you say that the market is basicly getting duped, and is too stupid to know what it is gettting. Which is it?

[Charles Anthony]

But wasn't your original complaint that the market was too complacent and let them get away with a lesser standard than any other product.

Yes. However, I am not recommending an intervention.

On one hand you say you leave it to the market to decide, on the other hand you say that the market is basicly getting duped, and is too stupid to know what it is gettting. Which is it?

Both.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If you determine that our laws of "copyright" are the right way to do things, fine. They are only "right" in the same way as it is "right" to be charitable after stealing from somebody else.

I don't follow this argument at all. These two ideas are mutually exclusive, no one ever 'gets stolen from' vis taxation to pay a copyright holder. (Well, perhaps a small portion on goods purchased through gov't expenditure from the private sector). My point is that all 'rights' are granted (moral or not) including a 'patent', and you are not forced to use a product to which a patent applies. Therefore, it does not 'bestow the right to steal' in the same way (your claim about) taxation does.