Give me a break with the theatrics. You're basically saying "doesn't my extraordinary case justify copyright infringement / theft?"
No, it doesn't.
It justifies you getting off your rear and making resources for 12 year old kids to learn and play and experience FOR FREE. The existence of commercial products doesn't negate free stuff. So why not let the 12 year olds use any of the free and open source and widely available stuff? If you think that the stuff produced for free isn't as good as the copyrighted stuff, isn't that itself a useful observation of the effects of copyright?
Instead of using those 12 year olds as a prop piece for a bad argument, put your money where your mouth is and go out there and produce content for them that will inspire them, without forcing them to break copyright to be inspired.
Give me a break. Do you think that racism is justified just because you let black people ride in the back of the buss? Arguments that the back of the buss is equally good as the front of the buss is not good enough. If you think that putting in nicer seats will be a useful observation of the effects of racism, think again.
Instead of using those fixed up back seats as a bad argument in favor of racism, be honest with yourself. You simply want to continue a society that separate one part of society (black, poor, kids), from you (white, rich, old enough to be working with a high paid job).
Btw, I do produce content for free. My tax money however goes to support the restriction of 12 years old who want to learn physics. I think that is not the compromise that copyright is intended to be, or should exist in a moral society.
I think you've wandered a bit far from the original point with this talk of racism. More back to the first, I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing. That means I can make something, and then I can require people to pay to use it/see it/experience it. And I don't think we can get away from that.
I also don't think we have can say that violating that right is an act of integrity.
I think it's an unavoidable fact that if you create something you are allowed to dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing that thing.
I have to disagree 100%. Once you publish something you lose all effective control over it.
It is only this legal fiction we call copyright that gives copyright owners any sort of control. But even maximalist copyright regimes are full of more holes than swiss cheese - if anything, the more they ratchet up the controls the more people seek out the holes. It is human nature to share knowledge, modern copyright is about fighting human nature and that never works out (c.f. the war on drugs).
"Legal fiction" is the only thing that gives anyone any control over anything, tangible or otherwise. Without various "legal fictions" that society imposes, what's to stop someone stronger, faster, sneakier or smarter than you from making off with any of your property?
> human nature to share knowledge
Oh boy, where do I begin...
1. First of all, [citation needed]. Humans have been exploiting information asymmetry since the dawn of time.
2. It is also "human nature" to want to want to have sex with people one finds attractive. Are rape laws also never going to "work out"?
3. Entertainment counts as "knowledge" now? That's even more of a stretch than calling it "culture"!
"Legal fiction" is the only thing that gives anyone any control over anything, tangible or otherwise.
No, tangible items are inherently controllable because they are rivalrous and excludable. The law just structures how we deal with those characteristics. For information, copyright attempts to make it rivalrous and excludable, to stuff it into the same box as tangible items when it shares none of the same properties.
1. First of all, [citation needed]. Humans have been exploiting information asymmetry since the dawn of time.
Sure they have, but just because it happens sometimes does not contradict the self-evident fact that people love to share. Next time you send someone a lolcat, remember that.
2. It is also "human nature" to want to want to have sex with people one finds attractive. Are rape laws also never going to "work out"?
Rape, murder, theft, these are all behaviours that are (1) not the common case and (2) inflict harm because the objects of the crimes are essentially rivalrous.
3. Entertainment counts as "knowledge" now? That's even more of a stretch than calling it "culture"!
Arguments about quality of the information are completely orthogonal to the topic. Copyright law does not attempt to discriminate on the quality of the material copyrighted so quality isn't a factor in discussing the merits of copyright law either.
> No, tangible items are inherently controllable because they are rivalrous and excludable.
You missed my point. Tangible things are only as inherently controllable as the capacity of the owner to control them. Without "legal fictions", what's to keep someone more capable than you to simply take it from you? After all that's your argument against copyright: people can just take it, so owners have no control. What stops a bully from taking your school lunch?
> Sure they have, but just because it happens sometimes does not contradict the self-evident fact that people love to share.
"Sometimes"?! It happens all the time! It's been happening since the existence of competition over limited resources, even before humans consciously realized knowledge is power! Think of all the "priests" throughout various cultures in history. Think of why encryption exists. Think of why the CIA and NSA exist. Saying something is self-evident doesn't make it so.
>Next time you send someone a lolcat, remember that.
Heh, I don't send lolcats. Guess I'm not human, then :-P
> Rape, murder, theft, these are all behaviours that are (1) not the common case and (2) inflict harm because the objects of the crimes are essentially rivalrous
Wait, by (1) you mean if rape, murder, theft ever become the common case, it will be OK? You know, like when it happens during wars? And (2) what's so rivalrous about sex? You can have sex with multiple people simultaneously, and once somebody has had sex does not mean they cannot have it again. And heck, we have the technology to make it so people don't even remember having sex, so there's no harm done!
But you know what is rivalrous? The food, shelter and clothing creators need to live to create new works.
> Arguments about quality of the information are completely orthogonal to the topic
The characteristics of the information do matter matter in determining what protections are afforded it. Would you share here all your private information, financial accounts, photos, and so on? That's just knowledge after all, and it's human nature to share. Or say you get "doxxed" and it's all out on the Internet, you'd be OK with people sharing it? No? Oh, it's your private information, and suddenly you feel it should not be shared? Thank god for privacy laws but down with copyright laws! Funny how that works.
Without "legal fictions", what's to keep someone more capable than you to simply take it from you?
Laws don't keep people from taking tangible items, they only punish afterwards. The only thing that stops someone from taking something tangible from you is your ability to stop them. Nothing stops someone from making a copy of information they already have.
Think of all the "priests" throughout various cultures in history. Think of why encryption exists. Think of why the CIA and NSA exist.
Secret versus public knowledge. They are two entirely different things. This discussion is about intentionally published knowledge.
Wait, by (1) you mean if rape, murder, theft ever become the common case, it will be OK? You know, like when it happens during wars?
Even during war none of those is the common case. That's why we prosecute people for those crimes in times of war too. If those things actually become the common case, we can cross that bridge when we come it.
But you know what is rivalrous? The food, shelter and clothing creators need to live to create new works.
> Laws don't keep people from taking tangible items, they only punish afterwards.
So now all laws are "legal fiction"?
> The only thing that stops someone from taking something tangible from you is your ability to stop them. Nothing stops someone from making a copy of information they already have.
And my point is, your ability to stop them, absent the so-called "legal fictions", is about as weak as a creator having their work ripped off. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many people in the world are more than capable of taking stuff away from you.
> This discussion is about intentionally published knowledge.
Actually, it's about control of information. You don't want your private data published because you fear it may harm you. Creators want to publish their works because they hope to profit from it. If you expect your "rights" to be respected even though little stops people (coughNSAcough) from taking it, why should creators not expect respect for theirs?
Essentially, most works are intentionally published with the expectation that something will be given back in exchange. Otherwise you might as well say people are "intentionally publishing" loaves of bread in supermarkets and you could just take them. (And since about 40% of supermarket perishables are wasted on the shelves anyway, hey, they're only about 60% rivalrous anyway!)
> Even during war none of those is the common case. That's why we prosecute people for those crimes in times of war too.
War is an atrocity precisely because this does become the common case. And that we (make feeble attempts to) prosecute for war crimes means that even then it's not OK.
> Yes sir, Mr Valenti!
I guess that means you think non-consensual sex is perfectly fine!
> Again, secret versus public.
What does that have to do with the "human nature to share"?
I guess that means you think non-consensual sex is perfectly fine!
If there is one thing anyone else reading along should take away from this discussion, it is that you wrote the above. It perfectly sums up the intellectual rigor of the arguments you've made here. And yes, that statement means I am done wrasslin' with a pig.
> ""Legal fiction" is the only thing that gives anyone any control over anything, tangible or otherwise. Without various "legal fictions" that society imposes, what's to stop someone stronger, faster, sneakier or smarter than you from making off with any of your property?"
I don't steal from my friends, family, coworkers, and strangers.
Is that because of the law, workplace policy, or fear of social retribution and/or ostracism? No. So long as I kept it petty, there is realistically zero chance that I would be caught. It's because I'm not a dick.
Laws don't make us civilized. We have laws because we are civilized.
It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact, like saying water is wet.
There is an implicit assumption in your position that copyright based compensation is the only method of compensation. It isn't. It wasn't even the dominant method until the last couple of centuries when technology made it feasible. Now that technology has moved on, our economic systems need to keep up.
"It is not an argument, it is a statement of fact, like saying water is wet."
Oh nonsense. You're ignoring the legal system, which is hilarious, because you're talking about a LEGAL construct.
So yes in your little hypothetical world where copyright exists AND there is no legal system, sure, copyright has no effect and you have no control.
But otherwise, saying "if you publish you lose all control" it's like saying "if you go out in public you lose all control over what happens to you. Mugging... rape... murder... you have zero control".
It ignores the legal system, and your ability to seek punishment or compensation for being wronged under the law.
I don't understand the value of such an asinine hypothetical.
In the real world: you do retain control of what you publish after you publish it.
If you think otherwise: Mickey Mouse would like to have a word with you.
Oh nonsense. You're ignoring the legal system, which is hilarious, because you're talking about a LEGAL construct.
Original poster called it an "an unavoidable fact" - that is a statement far in excess of "there are laws." Given the context is people infringing copyright law, clearly we are talking about the utility of the law in the "real world."
We are? Then in the real world copyright is effectively managed, things are unpublished or never published and brands are managed.
Again, if you think in the real world you lose control, talk to Micky Mouse.
You lose a small amount of control against small, unincorporated actors, but you retain large amounts of control in the markets you operate in, and against any institutional actor at all.
If you create something, you are perfectly fine in dictating the terms of it. I just don't agree that you should require society to punish children who want to learn. Your dictating ends at that point, since its not a good compromise for society to make. If you still want to continue dictate the terms of using, consuming, or experiencing the thing you made, you got to do it without the help from the government.
You want to get paid, and you want the governments help to do so. Fine. Make a compromise that benefit both side and do no harm to groups we don't expect to be working at any rate. It should not be such a hard thing.
Ever hear the phrase it takes a village/community to raise a child? Do we punish a child because perhaps his parents don't have the skills and knowledge from a lack of life experiences - perhaps because they didn't have access to such material - therefore continuing the cycle? You have to look at what end goal you want to achieve, and then decide what systems to have in place.
Give me a break with the theatrics. You're basically saying "doesn't my extraordinary case justify copyright infringement / theft?"
No, it doesn't.
It justifies you getting off your rear and making resources for 12 year old kids to learn and play and experience FOR FREE. The existence of commercial products doesn't negate free stuff. So why not let the 12 year olds use any of the free and open source and widely available stuff? If you think that the stuff produced for free isn't as good as the copyrighted stuff, isn't that itself a useful observation of the effects of copyright?
Instead of using those 12 year olds as a prop piece for a bad argument, put your money where your mouth is and go out there and produce content for them that will inspire them, without forcing them to break copyright to be inspired.