Are you a thief?

Charles Anthony · September 26, 2006

These two ideas are mutually exclusive,

It has nothing to do with their relationship to eachother. They are both wrong in the same manner: they involve coersion.

no one ever 'gets stolen from' vis taxation to pay a copyright holder.

Correct. However, our form of "copyright protection" involves coersion. Even more, we use taxation to fund our copyright laws and offices and enforcement and bureaucracy and the rest of it.

Thus, when you steal (I mean, tax -- NO, I mean STEAL!) to maintain a "copyright" law your are morally on the same side as stealing from Peter to give to Paul -- i.e. the "charity-theft" reference. The beneficiary is the person who submits the "copyright" and his costs are shared among all of the taxpayers.

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.

That is a different story. I do not care about buying the patented product. I am exposing the funding of the patents and their enforcement which in turn contributes to why it is wrong.

Therefore, it does not 'bestow the right to steal' in the same way (your claim about) taxation does.

Yes, they do. People who do not buy the patented product still pay through their taxes for its protection, maintenance and bureaucracy -- they pay without choice and under duress.

Our "copyright" or "patent" rights depend on coersion. Thus, they are wrong. [i realize this is different from attacking the concept of "intellectual property" but it exposes the fact that breeching copyright law is just a legal issue and not a moral issue.]

jbg · September 29, 2006

What are your thoughts? Do you consider yourself a thief? Should these handful of rich guys producing this crap be getting your hard-earned cash?

I buy music that is worthwhile to buy. A rap CD where the idea is to say as many violent, four letter words as possible; not worth buying. Create a new Beatles and the CD's would still tumble off the shelves. The problem is lack of quality, not piracy.

Riverwind · September 29, 2006

Yes, they do. People who do not buy the patented product still pay through their taxes for its protection, maintenance and bureaucracy -- they pay without choice and under duress.

How is that different from a court or legal system set up to protect an individuals property rights?

Charles Anthony · September 29, 2006

How is that different from a court or legal system set up to protect an individuals property rights?

If you are talking about "our" legal system, the answer is: none.

KrustyKidd · September 29, 2006

What are your thoughts? Do you consider yourself a thief?

No. I buy twenty dollar CDs in order to listen to ONE song that I think I might like because, I would feel so guilty listening to it for free on the radio. Those poor artists and, paticularily those poor marketers and producers. Living in carboard boxes and producing works of art just to scrape by.

Riverwind · September 29, 2006

How is that different from a court or legal system set up to protect an individuals property rights?
If you are talking about "our" legal system, the answer is: none.

Any system of laws - even the anachistic system of laws - requires institutions to support it and everyone will be cohersed into supporting these institutions (denial of an essential service _is_ a form of cohersion).

Charles Anthony · September 29, 2006

Any system of laws - even the anachistic system of laws - requires institutions to support it.

If they are coersive, they are wrong. In anarchy, whatever those institutions happen to be, they are not coersive.

We are really getting into the hypothetical, as you know. I am not pretending that everybody will hold hands in anarchy and share or respect eachothers property. I am just identifying what is wrong and the criteria is coersion. Thus, if "copyright" institutions require coersion, they are wrong.

Much like the cotton-slave can feel wronged in slavery, I am saying coersion is wrong. The slave may only dream of freedom. Likewise, I can only dream on non-coersion but I will always say that coersion is as wrong as slavery.

Riverwind · September 29, 2006

We are really getting into the hypothetical, as you know. I am not pretending that everybody will hold hands in anarchy and share or respect eachothers property. I am just identifying what is wrong and the criteria is coersion. Thus, if "copyright" institutions require coersion, they are wrong.

It is on topic - it is a complete contradiction to say that someone entitled to use cohersion to enforce their land property rights but claim that someone has no right to enforce their intellectual property rights. Coersion is coersion even if you dress it up as anarchist vigilantes-for-hire or with as a tax supported legal system.

theloniusfleabag · September 29, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

it is a complete contradiction to say that someone entitled to use cohersion to enforce their land property rights but claim that someone has no right to enforce their intellectual property rights

I have to agree with Riverwind here...there must be maintained a difference between 'coersion' and 'action and consequence'. For example, if someone on the street said that they were going to kill you, and then they came at you with a knife. Would I be exercising unfair 'coersion' if I stopped them? There must be rules to follow when freedoms collide.

Just imagine a world with no parents!

Charles Anthony · September 29, 2006

it is a complete contradiction to say that someone entitled to use cohersion to enforce their land property rights but claim that someone has no right to enforce their intellectual property rights
I have to agree with Riverwind here...there must be maintained a difference between 'coersion' and 'action and consequence'.

I believe Riverwind is questioning a different issue. Both of your attacks are different.

I do not see it as a contradiction because they are completely different things:

the land rights refer to something physical and the intellectual rights refer to something non-physical.

For example, if someone on the street said that they were going to kill you, and then they came at you with a knife. Would I be exercising unfair 'coersion' if I stopped them? There must be rules to follow when freedoms collide.

You are talking about self-defense. I see no moral problem with people defending themselves against aggression. In a world where non-aggression reigns supreme, making the one exception for self-defense sounds reasonable.

Any way that you define an intellectual property right, it requires discretion with respect to what we call public domain. What if the long-lost descendents of Mozart suddenly pop-up and demand royalties?

What would you say?

Riverwind · September 29, 2006

I do not see it as a contradiction because they are completely different things:
the land rights refer to something physical and the intellectual rights refer to something non-physical.

Land rights are as arbitrary as intellectual property. Many societies do not even have a concept called 'land ownership'. That said, land ownership is a fundemental part of our economic system and has provided the basis for a lot of wealth creation and innovation. Similarily, intellectual property rights are a fundemental part of economic system and must be respected even if they lack a physical manifestation.

Any way that you define an intellectual property right, it requires discretion with respect to what we call public domain. What if the long-lost descendents of Mozart suddenly pop-up and demand royalties?
What would you say?

Copyright has a time limit which has long expired in the case of Mozart so they would have zero claim on any of the works.

Charles Anthony · September 30, 2006

Land rights are as arbitrary as intellectual property.

The legalities behind how WE apply those rights are arbitrary. However, the objects to which they are applied are not equally arbitrary.

Many societies do not even have a concept called 'land ownership'.

Explain. I find it hard to believe.

That said, land ownership is a fundemental part of our economic system and has provided the basis for a lot of wealth creation and innovation. Similarily, intellectual property rights are a fundemental part of economic system and must be respected even if they lack a physical manifestation.

So what? So are self-interest and self-defense. So are common courtesy and peace-and-harmony.

Are the fundamentals of our economic system and a lot of wealth creation and innovation the standard from which we are to base our legal system?

Copyright has a time limit

Why?

Riverwind · September 30, 2006

Many societies do not even have a concept called 'land ownership'.
Explain. I find it hard to believe.

Most aboriginal societies do not have land ownership. That is why Manhattan Island was sold for a pile of beads - the Aboriginals living there had no concept of land ownership so they did not understand what they were agreeing to. Even today aboriginal groups reject the notion that their land claims can be settled with private lands handed to individuals - they want collective control.

Are the fundamentals of our economic system and a lot of wealth creation and innovation the standard from which we are to base our legal system?

Yes. Wealth creation and innovation is the the basis of economics and the way we ensure the 6 billion people on this planet have food and shelter. Intellectual property is an extremely important part of our economic model and eliminating it would take us back to a medieval economy.

Copyright has a time limit
Why?

All rights must be balanced with the needs of society. Property can be expropriated for similar reasons. The exact nature of the balance between property rights and society can evolve over time. For example, new DRM technologies will give copyright owners unprecedented control over their intellectual property which will allow them to abuse the rights of the consumer. It is reasonable for the gov't to regulate the use of DRM technologies to ensure the consumer's right to 'fair use' is protected.

Charles Anthony · October 1, 2006

Most aboriginal societies do not have land ownership. That is why Manhattan Island was sold for a pile of beads - the Aboriginals living there had no concept of land ownership so they did not understand what they were agreeing to. Even today aboriginal groups reject the notion that their land claims can be settled with private lands handed to individuals - they want collective control.

I do not buy it. They may claim to "not have land ownership" but what is it in their behavior or relationship with the land that can not be defined as ownership? I do not understand. From everything I see, they seem to be claiming ownership.

Also, collective control is a form of ownership.

Wealth creation and innovation is the the basis of economics and the way we ensure the 6 billion people on this planet have food and shelter. Intellectual property is an extremely important part of our economic model and eliminating it would take us back to a medieval economy.

That is a lame standard upon which to base your legal system. Actually, it is worse than lame. The communists had wealth creation and innovation strategies that led to people starving and people playing soccer with loaves of bread.

All rights must be balanced with the needs of society.

What does "society" need?

The exact nature of the balance between property rights and society can evolve over time. For example, new DRM technologies will give copyright owners unprecedented control over their intellectual property which will allow them to abuse the rights of the consumer.

That is not how I see it. The development of digital rights management is the proper way in which suppliers protect their product: i.e., they do not need force and they do not need government and they do not need legislation. They are figuring it out. Funny how they only way in which they are able to protect their "copyright" is the anarchist way, is it not?

It is reasonable for the gov't to regulate the use of DRM technologies to ensure the consumer's right to 'fair use' is protected.

What would the government do that a consumer backlash can not do better?

Riverwind · October 2, 2006

may claim to "not have land ownership" but what is it in their behavior or relationship with the land that can not be defined as ownership? I do not understand.

In traditional aboriginal cultures land was not something that could be bought or sold. It was not 'property' in the way we see property.

The development of digital rights management is the proper way in which suppliers protect their product: i.e., they do not need force and they do not need government and they do not need legislation.

DRM is useless without a legal framework to back it up since virtually any DRM mechanism can be defeated.

What would the government do that a consumer backlash can not do better?

All property rights only exist because of government regulation. Therefore only the government can change those regulations to balance competing interests.

Charles Anthony · October 2, 2006

In traditional aboriginal cultures land was not something that could be bought or sold. It was not 'property' in the way we see property.

Honestly, I believe that is not an adequate example. You should properly say : it was not "property" in their eyes as we see property. Also, does any part of you consider the possibility that "collectively" the natives truly were not fully understanding the implications of what they were trading?

Nevertheless, they defend their land NOW exactly as if it was property regardless of their culture in the past and as anybody else would who believes their land-ownership rights are being violated.

DRM is useless without a legal framework to back it up since virtually any DRM mechanism can be defeated.

How? The way I see it is that the usefulness of digital rights management is a function of technology and free markets. If the DRM technology does not work, we will see continued pirating. Period.

All property rights only exist because of government regulation. Therefore only the government can change those regulations to balance competing interests.

That is side-stepping the argument by only looking at our current legal system and the power it has to control us or over-rule morality.

What dictates our sense of morality independent of the confines of modern legal systems?

jbg · October 2, 2006

How did this thread veer from stealing music to aboriginal land issues?

Charles Anthony · October 2, 2006

How did this thread veer from stealing music to aboriginal land issues?

They are all related to rights (legal and moral) to person and property.

For some people, the minutia of "music" or "land" or "digital" is missing the bigger picture.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 2, 2006

Interesting arguements. Considering that Canadians lost the right to own property according to the 1982 Constitutional reforms, the debate seems to be a mute point in as much as the damned government has already removed the right.

Riverwind · October 2, 2006

You should properly say : it was not "property" in their eyes as we see property.

Fine. It does not change my point that individual land property rights as we define them are not a universally accepted concept. IOW - property rights are arbitrary and require a social/legal framework to define them. They do not exist without that framework.

The way I see it is that the usefulness of digital rights management is a function of technology and free markets. If the DRM technology does not work, we will see continued pirating. Period.

DRM only works because most people accept the principal that bypassing DRM mechanisms constitutes a form of theft. If there was no notion of intellectual property then everyone would bypass the DRM mechanisms. The end result is no one would offer the service or product because they could not make money from it.

BTW - the computer you are using to type your message only exists because of laws protecting intellectual property. Without that market incentive we would be still writing letters by hand. That is perhaps the best example of why intellectual property rights are absolutely essential to our economy. BTW - do not bother trying to argue the open source movement evidence to the contrary - the open source movement also depends on intellectual property rights in the form of the GNU license of agreement. Open source would not exist without ability to legally and or morally compel people to follow the terms of the GNU license agreement.

What dictates our sense of morality independent of the confines of modern legal systems?

Morality is social consensus and the legal systems reflect that social consensus. Abortion is moral from the perspective of the majority of people which means it is legal. If the majority of people felt it was immoral it would be illegal.

In almost all cases morality stems from pragmatic principles based on what people think is "best for society". Murder is immoral because society could not function if people were free to kill each other, however, murder in self defense or by law enforcement personal is not immoral. Similarily, we have defined various forms of property rights because they benefit society as a whole even if they put some individuals at a disadvantage.

Charles Anthony · October 2, 2006

Morality is social consensus and the legal systems reflect that social consensus.

What is "social consensus" anyway?

In almost all cases morality stems from pragmatic principles based on what people think is "best for society".

What do YOU think is "best for society" and what is "best for society" when members of "society" have differing opinions?

theloniusfleabag · October 2, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

What dictates our sense of morality independent of the confines of modern legal systems?

An excellent question. Usually religion. Some of those wish to dictate law too. I'll have to come back to this one...

If the majority of people felt it was immoral it would be illegal.

I disagree with Riverwind here, because the 'majority will' does not always translate into law, especially on closely debated points such as capital punishment. The majority may be for it, but usually it is + or - 10% swing. It could also change from week to week depending on what is in the news.

What do YOU think is "best for society" and what is "best for society" when members of "society" have differing opinions?

The 'petulant child' also looks at the world from this viewpoint . He or she doesn't see the value of cooperation, especially when anything interupts the process of "Gimme, now".

What is "social consensus" anyway?

The mores and norms that are the most universal in any given area.

Charles Anthony · October 2, 2006

The 'petulant child' also looks at the world from this viewpoint . He or she doesn't see the value of cooperation, especially when anything interupts the process of "Gimme, now".

Actually, the person who understands that the very definition of cooperation involves non-coersion looks at the world from this viewpoint.

What is "social consensus" anyway?
The mores and norms that are the most universal in any given area.

I am at a loss of what to say. The only thing I can think of is to be sarcastic and thank you for the circular clarification.

theloniusfleabag · October 3, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

I am at a loss of what to say. The only thing I can think of is to be sarcastic and thank you for the circular clarification

My sarcastic answer would have to be..."If you ask a silly question...expect a silly answer'.

QUOTE
What dictates our sense of morality independent of the confines of modern legal systems?

An excellent question. Usually religion. Some of those wish to dictate law too. I'll have to come back to this one...

Well, there are, even within religions, moral standards and practices that do not hold up under scrutiny for the majority, so they either become fringe sects or very secretive. For example...( I will have to go through the Koran again to find this verse, but...)The Koran says that "one should not have sex with an animal that they intend to eat'. Leviticus 20 verse 15 says "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast'. Kooky. (actually, I was looking for the passage where Moses was to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificed bullock on his right big toe, or something similar, but I'll keep looking)

btw, Where is the brass serpent? (Numbers 21, 8-9)

Charles Anthony · November 6, 2006

My sarcastic answer would have to be..."If you ask a silly question...expect a silly answer'.

If my question is indeed silly, that means the original statement: "Morality is social consensus and the legal systems reflect that social consensus." from post #71 is nonsense.

By the way, I had to look this one up:

btw, Where is the brass serpent? (Numbers 21, 8-9)

The serpent is held up on a pole to cure people who look upon it -- forshadowing Christ being held up as a cure for modern man -- or at least for those who look upon Him.

Now, after spending a month trying to figure out its relevance, I give up. Please tell me the answer to this riddle.