|
Post by echnaton on Oct 23, 2010 17:29:24 GMT -4
If someone puts a lot of time and effort into the creation of a book/song/video with the intention of selling it, and then nobody is interested in owning a copy of it, whether they have to pay for it or not, is the creator still robbed of their income? Maybe not current income but they are being robbed of something of value. Any work may have a future market and the creator does have a right to control the work to best capture that value. In finance we call this a real option, and it is something that while intangible and difficult to quantify, unquestionably exist.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 23, 2010 17:36:14 GMT -4
If someone puts a lot of time and effort into the creation of a book/song/video with the intention of selling it, and then nobody is interested in owning a copy of it, whether they have to pay for it or not, is the creator still robbed of their income? In that case the creator simply has an unsuccessful product. But pirates want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the product without exchanging money for it. Just like someone who stole a car. Your argument seems to be that "they don't really want the product, so why should they pay for it?" and that makes no sense at all. If they don't really want it, then why would they obtain it, whether or not it was free? I don't want Britney Spears music. Do you know how you can tell? Because I don't have any on my iPod... pirated or purchased. If Dwight is providing that information in an easily accessible form, so that you don't have to interview people, then he is providing a service. To me that is easily worth the $25 I paid for his book. At least in this case Dwight could say he lost out to another author who put effort into their work, and not just some guy with a scanner and a couple of hours to spare. I'm sorry, but pirates are people who are just too cheap to pay for things, just like any other thief. Libraries pay for their books. People only borrow the books from the library. Since they don't get to keep the book there is still an opportunity for a sale if they like it. I've got an idea. I'm going to build a factory that makes exact replicas of the Ford Mustang. My company logo will look identical to the Ford logo. I'll sell my cars for half of what Ford charges. Sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 23, 2010 18:24:13 GMT -4
Is it ethical to record programs from TV? I still do that occasionally with my primitive VCR.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 23, 2010 18:47:27 GMT -4
Is it ethical to record programs from TV? I still do that occasionally with my primitive VCR. You're still getting the commercials that made producing the program possible. And if you're like most people you probably don't keep your recordings forever.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 23, 2010 18:52:34 GMT -4
In this case, should public libraries be restricted to works presently in the public domain? I suggest you learn how libraries really work. Firstly we all pay for them via out rates or taxes regardless of where we live. Secondly, the library pays a royalty on purchasing the book. Thirdly, in a lot of countries, especially Europe and down this neck of the woods, book loans are tracked, and Authors are paid a royalty per year based on how many of their books were loaned by libraries, although this only extends to authors in the same country as the library, but still all authors are paid for the library to carry their work at least once. Libraries also don't make copies of a book, they buy one and then loan it out just like DvD/Video stores. The lender doesn't get a permanent copy, and while one lender has it, no other lender can get it. Thus to get a book from the library, you have paid for it, and the author does get reimbersed for their work. Your Anaolgy fails. ETA: I see that Al and LO beat me to it. Should have read all the thread before posting.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 23, 2010 18:57:57 GMT -4
Is it ethical to record programs from TV? I still do that occasionally with my primitive VCR. You're still getting the commercials that made producing the program possible. And if you're like most people you probably don't keep your recordings forever. What you want to do is hang on to the program long enough so that it winds up being the _only_ copy out there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 23, 2010 19:04:24 GMT -4
Your argument seems to be that "they don't really want the product, so why should they pay for it?" and that makes no sense at all. If they don't really want it, then why would they obtain it, whether or not it was free? I don't want Britney Spears music. Do you know how you can tell? Because I don't have any on my iPod... pirated or purchased. This really is the main thing. Priates constantly say "I wouldn't have it if I had to pay for it" yet the fact they have it really shows that they did actually want it. There are a lot of things I'd like but can't afford, but that doesn't give me the right to just copy them off.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 23, 2010 19:07:00 GMT -4
There's an old Dilbert strip in which some musician ends up being one of Dilbert's coworkers. Dilbert loved his music--but he never paid for it, so the guy had to stop recording and get a real job. Dilbert then lost out on the opportunity to experience more music from that person, because so many people were downloading his work without paying anything for it that he had no incentive to put it out there anymore.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 23, 2010 19:07:25 GMT -4
What you want to do is hang on to the program long enough so that it winds up being the _only_ copy out there. True... but hopefully networks have learned a lesson from the BBC and their lost Moon landing, Dr. Who, and Monty Python archives.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 23, 2010 19:13:56 GMT -4
There's an old Dilbert strip in which some musician ends up being one of Dilbert's coworkers. Dilbert loved his music--but he never paid for it, so the guy had to stop recording and get a real job. Dilbert then lost out on the opportunity to experience more music from that person, because so many people were downloading his work without paying anything for it that he had no incentive to put it out there anymore. Exactly. We pay for things so that the creators of those books, movies, and songs we love will be able (and willing) to keep doing it. But then again, maybe we would be better off if Justin Bieber had to get a real job.
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Oct 24, 2010 5:48:03 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Oct 24, 2010 8:32:16 GMT -4
Thinking about it the whole intangible argument is nonsense.
If you download a piece of music you'd be pretty pissed off if the bytes arrived in a random order. The data is still there , and it's all the same data, so you can't really complain because the correct arrangement is intangible, isn't it?.
Another example. Someone steals the Mona Lisa, and replaces it with one of his own paintings. He's spent 15 years creating his replacement, and used the same materials and techniques as the original, but it's rubbish. The Louvre has no right to prosecute the theft, because he's left the same amount of tangible stuff as he took?
Yes officer, I paid less than the asking price for that DVD from the shop, I'm only paying for the cost of materials and distribution, which is negligible. Anyhow it's OK, I have no intention of watching it.
Now there are some creators who have used the priacy and mashup culture to get their work out there, and pick up actual sales or real gigs because of that. That's pretty much the whole point of the MySpace music scene, however that's just an old fashioned loss leader in a new form.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 24, 2010 8:48:39 GMT -4
Is it ethical to record programs from TV? I still do that occasionally with my primitive VCR. Yes. You have no agreement with anyone to that you will watch the commercials. While they may want you to, there is no reason you must. Time shifting is perfectly ethical as well. I view it as no different from buying a CD and putting a copy on you IPOD to listen to in you car. We must also remember that entertainment is a business and there is a difference between creative rights and business revenues. The latter does not deserve government protection.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Oct 24, 2010 8:56:10 GMT -4
Thinking about it the whole intangible argument is nonsense. If you download a piece of music you'd be pretty pissed off if the bytes arrived in a random order. The data is still there , and it's all the same data, so you can't really complain because the correct arrangement is intangible, isn't it?. Another example. Someone steals the Mona Lisa, and replaces it with one of his own paintings. He's spent 15 years creating his replacement, and used the same materials and techniques as the original, but it's rubbish. The Louvre has no right to prosecute the theft, because he's left the same amount of tangible stuff as he took? Yes officer, I paid less than the asking price for that DVD from the shop, I'm only paying for the cost of materials and distribution, which is negligible. Anyhow it's OK, I have no intention of watching it. Now there are some creators who have used the priacy and mashup culture to get their work out there, and pick up actual sales or real gigs because of that. That's pretty much the whole point of the MySpace music scene, however that's just an old fashioned loss leader in a new form. Also on the loss leader idea I bought a book recently and the publisher included a CD with the authors other works published by that company on it. You could share it with friends, who could copy it for their own use. The company did this because their experience is that people who like the books will want a tangible copy, and in fact they are more likely to buy an expensive hardback edition to put on their bookshelf. Now a lot of people will get those books for free but if the publisher didn't expect to ultimately make money by doing it that CD wouldn't exist. It's the same on the net, the 'free' stuff only exists so long as someone somewhere is paying enough for it be created.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 24, 2010 10:06:24 GMT -4
Jack White is not a participant but Jim Fetzer gets him to post his "studies" (sorry - I can't help but laugh at him calling them that; it's an oxymoron) because Jim doesn't seem capable of posting them himself. I think Jim has run away after the shellacking he was given on the thread.
|
|