You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation?
Unless everyone is living on a different planet, some people will necessarily be affected by the consequences of the chemical plant's operations. Looking out for those people is reasonable.
You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed?
That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society.
You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners?
That's more like the first question. The slaves are necessarily affected by that arrangement, and again looking out for them is reasonable.
Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
> That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society.
It's actually not that hard: The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. If you simply claim ownership of something, but noone agrees with you, then you don't actually own it. If society grants you the advantages of this norm and enforces it for you, it's just as valid to partially revoke it where that is to the advantage of society at large. It would be completely arbitrary to say that everyone is obligated to help enforcing a norm that's to their own disadvantage and they should not have any say in it because the person profiting from it says so.
> Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third.
What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference?
Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy?
Does a human need participation in culture?
In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it.
> And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything.
I see what you're getting at, but I think you're missing something. What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership, which essentially means a recognised form of ownership that society will defend on the owner's behalf. The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state.
What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference?
This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think.
Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy?
I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal.
What we're really talking about in this sort of discussion is whether it's worthwhile for content creators to create and distribute new content at all. At present, it is, but in many cases that remains so only because of the customer base who do comply with the law and provide a solid economic foundation for doing the necessary work. Freeloaders benefit from the content but contribute nothing to support its creation, and if the legal environment were changed so that everyone could lawfully act as a freeloader, the economics would change radically. This is not to say that some other economic model to support creative work couldn't function as well or better than what we have today, but so far I don't think we've found one that does and I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not.
In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it.
I would think that common sense and common decency made it clear that everyone was entitled to an opinion on whatever subject they want, and however unpleasant anyone else might happen to find that opinion. What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take.
What conclusion do I want it to lead to?
Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be opposing the idea that the views of those who create the content should carry more weight than the views of those who merely benefit from the content's existence without contributing. In that case, economic arguments much like those you have just made yourself in favour of physical property rights would also tend to support strong IP rights that support the content creators in this debate.
> What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership,
Nope.
> The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state.
That's kindof a self-referential definition, isn't it? The power to defend property was with those who had the power and the property ... yeah, obviously?
All of that is rooted in social norms. What does it mean to have wealth? What does it mean to have power? Sure, if you have a gun, I guess you could say that that gives you power somewhat independent from social norms. But the moment you try to get someone else to use their gun to defend your property, they could potentially just ignore your request, and that would be the end of your power, and consequently of your property/of your wealth.
Power and property are granted by society, not an intrinsic property of the powerful or wealthy person. And that applies even to "communal property".
> This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think.
As can the equal say of everyone in deciding on copyright rules? That was kindof my whole point: The weight of your opinion should not depend on the position that you end up in in society, be it a slave, a slave master, a "content creator", or a "content consumer".
> I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal.
Really, I am not sure how things map to modern technology and the business models/contracts it enables, and in any case, it's usually not just a blanket permission to make as many copies as you like, but there are quite a few options of what is in US law usually called "fair use":
Those exceptions usually exist for very good reasons, and are part of the rules that society decided to be a fair deal. Now, if modern devices/software intentionally don't implement the functionality that would enable people to make use of those exceptions (in addition to possibly illegal activity), that de facto takes away people's rights, which is why it's morally questionable: The software does not distinguish between a user exercising their right to, say, pull an excerpt from some video to create a political commentary on it, and another user illegally making a copy of a movie purely for entertainment purposes, it just enforces the wishes of the creator/platform.
> I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not.
I am actually not that convinced of that, but well, sure, some things might be difficult to finance on that basis.
> What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take.
I think you might have inadvertently changed the topic: TheSpiceIsLife's comment referred to how much weight their opinion should have in determining the rules of society (in this regard). Your argument doesn't really make much sense in that context, as valuation is subjective and exactly the subject of political discourse, and it doesn't make sense to say that the creator of some thing should be given special privileges because they themselves value their work highly--and if you base the decision instead on how the rest of society values their work, you have just found a confusing way to say that everyone should get equal say in what the rules ought to be.
Your argument makes sense as a principle for how the rules that are to be determined should distribute power, not so much for who gets the power to decide the rules in the first place.
For the record: I definitely strongly agree with everything Silhouette wrote.
And I'd like to say, my opinion hasn't changed. I still think creators should have fairly strong rights over what they create, and that my opinion on the matter carries less weight because I'm not part of the creator cohort.
I don't think conflating slavery and intellectual property in this context is helpful at all.
> And I'd like to say, my opinion hasn't changed. I still think creators should have fairly strong rights over what they create, and that my opinion on the matter carries less weight because I'm not part of the creator cohort.
In other words: You haven't understood a thing I wrote?
> I don't think conflating slavery and intellectual property in this context is helpful at all.
How does it make even the slightest sense to allow only those who profit from a norm to have an opinion on it?
You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation?
You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed?
You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners?