G
Gerhard Fiedler
Chris said:
No. Where did I write this?
What is ridiculous?
Gerhard
No. Where did I write this?
What is ridiculous?
Gerhard
J
Jorgen Grahn
.
That is (based on my rather sloppy reading of this thread) a good
summary. I wouldn't call it "attempted justifications", but it does
seem a bit evasive.
/Jorgen
That is (based on my rather sloppy reading of this thread) a good
summary. I wouldn't call it "attempted justifications", but it does
seem a bit evasive.
/Jorgen
I
Ike Naar
I won't charge people for building a copy of my house.
I
Ike Naar
It wasn't meant to be an argument, just an answer to Chris Vine's question.
G
Gerhard Fiedler
David said:
David pretty much got what I meant, and explained it rather well more
explicitly -- at least one aspect of it.
To respond to Chris Vine: If we disregard for a moment that the thread
has wandered quite a bit before I joined and that I did not respond to
the OP but rather to claims made later on that have little to do with
the OP, and go back to Chris's idea that this is about the OP: The OP
was not about the original ripping; it was advertising of a supposedly
unlicensed electronic copy of a book.
This ad (the actual original post) did not say "go and get your
unlicensed copy for free", even if many read it that way and it is a
possible reading. If we want clear-cut lines, we probably should stick
to the bare facts, with as little interpretation as possible --
interpretation is always messy and personal, and not clear-cut at all.
As a reminder, here's what the OP looked like:
Very little meaning in that, and very little that supports any claims
about the advertiser (or the uploader). This ad just tells the reader
where to get something, much like a <insert your favorite hardware
store> ad might tell you where to get a hammer, $5 off this weekend
only.
If I already own that book in another form, I don't think there's
anything morally wrong in downloading this (unlicensed) electronic copy
-- I (and this is my personal opinion) simply think that my book license
morally (opinion!) covers any freely available electronic copy of it
also. I'm aware of the fact that this may be illegal in various
jurisdictions; this is no surprise -- the difference between what's
considered moral and what's considered legal has been an issue for as
long as the two concepts exist. But for me, this is as morally ok as
going into the hardware store and buying the advertised hammer.
However, using such a copy without having this backed by the appropriate
book license is another matter. I have a differentiated (as opposed to
black-and-white) opinion here, but that's not what this message is
about. In any case, abusing the download to do something illegal with it
is not much different from abusing the hammer to do something illegal
with it. But in the case of the hammer, nobody would even think of
blaming the advertiser (or the seller) -- despite the potentially much
more invasive and irreparable damage. Yet in the case of an ad for a
download that can be used illegally, the measures all of a sudden
change. Why is this?
Exactly.
I think the main points that we seem to disagree are:
- Some seem to claim that there is an objective morality, but IMO there
is no objective morality. The concept of morality is highly personal and
always includes tons of judgment and interpretation. Nothing wrong with
this, and I have my own moral code like everybody else, but IMO
conversations would be more fruitful if we all kept this in mind. The
idea of a universal morality is just a mirage.
- Some seem to claim that copyright has something to do with morality,
but IMO copyright is a legal concept, not a moral one. You don't find
any mention of copyright in the Christian ten commandments nor in other
cultures' and religions' moral codes. As legal and economic concept, it
is based on specific assumptions and specific conclusions (which not
surprisingly mostly hover around economics, not morals), which may have
been correct (or not) at the time the concept was devised, which may
have been completely disclosed to the public (or not), and which may
still be correct today (or not). In any case, for me it is a moral
imperative to continuously re-question such concepts and the assumptions
and conclusions on which they are based.
- Some seem to claim that there are clear-cut, objective ("zero
tolerance") judgments possible about such complex issues as copyright.
IMO legal concepts (like copyright) are never clear-cut and always
require lots of discernment. Besides, there are as many (legal) concepts
of copyright as there are jurisdictions.
- Some seem to think that "zero tolerance" is a good thing. I agree with
what else-thread was explained quite clearly: the concept of "zero
tolerance" is very strongly associated with "zero differentiation",
"zero awareness about the lack of objective judgment in all of us" and
"zero thought about the complexity of life in general". It doesn't fit
at all with the idea of copyright, which -- as a legal concept -- makes
quite subtle distinctions (as evidenced by the many different
"copyrights" that exist).
Gerhard
G
Gerhard Fiedler
Chris said:
I think that morality is a personal question; calling something moral or
immoral is essentially a way of saying "I (don't) like it" and
attempting to give it more weight than this would have. You seem to
disagree, without ever saying what you mean when you say something is
immoral.
It's this mixture of opinion and facts that makes this conversation a
bit difficult. Let's just separate them clearly, and make assumptions
explicit.
And FWIW: I did mean much of what David wrote in the paragraph you cited
above: "not a black-and-white issue", "no 'absolute standard of
morality'", "no 'absolute copyright law'", "you cannot make claims about
the damages caused by any particular copyright violation without looking
at the details of the particular case in question" -- all things that in
one or another from I did mean. And mostly, more or less similarly, even
say. And all things that you seem to disagree with, without giving good
reason (other than calling it "immoral", but without saying what you
mean by this).
Gerhard
Ö
Öö Tiib
Can you explain that opinion a bit more? You did but it was just
categorization of various relations that for me does not make sense.
For me there is just The Golden Rule of ethics "One should treat others
as one would like others to treat oneself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
That applies to every aspect of treating others (for me) including in
legal, economic and business relations. What is the difference? Damaging
others interests unfairly is immoral. Nothing to be proud of, nothing to
teach to grandchildren. That basis of moral values seems to be same in
all known human philosophies and theologies (including most Christian
groups).
G
Gerhard Fiedler
Öö Tiib said:
Sure... Who doesn't like to be asked nicely about one's opinion?
I'm not sure what exactly you want me to explain, so I touch a bit on
everything I can think of that might be related to this paragraph.
Please feel free to ask for more.
I'm really having trouble with the concept of "moral". I myself don't
use it. Where others would use it, I probably say something like "I
probably wouldn't do this" or "I think this isn't right".
IME, the concept of "moral" is often used to give some authority to an
opinion that the opinion doesn't have. There is really no common moral
code; everybody has their own. Which seems to put it back into the realm
of personal opinion. Some people think that all killing is immoral. Some
people think that only killing done by others is immoral. Some people
think that killing a convict is a moral imperative, others think that it
is immoral. Take your pick...
So much about my take on morals. Then there's copyright... it is a legal
concept. I think this is a fact. As such, it shares all characteristics
of legal concepts: depends on where and when, is subject to
interpretation, has its subtleties, the way it was conceived was subject
to pressure from all sorts of lobbies, and so on. Everything but a
clear-cut issue, like all legal questions, and, also like all of them,
possible to improve on.
I'm not a big fan of this rule. For me, the big fallacy in it is that it
assumes that you want to be treated like I do -- and I'm pretty sure
this isn't the case. (I know it doesn't work with my wife or my kids.
Referring to the Wikipedia page you linked, I feel more in alignment
with the citation from Karl Popper (in the criticism section).
There's also the question of "depth" of this rule (as explained in the
responses to criticisms on this page), where the rule is interpreted as
taking the opinions, needs, feelings and so on of others into account.
If anything, one thing seems to result from the criticisms and
responses: even this rule, as simple as it sounds, is not as simple if
you actually want to apply it. The (2) of the paragraph where Marcus
George Singer is cited defending the rule shows a bit of this messiness:
rather than performing specific actions, you "guide your behavior in the
same general ways that you want others to."
Ouch... out the window is all simple clarity that surrounds the commonly
known version of the rule. This seems to be a necessary consequence of
defending the rule against the question "how about if the other doesn't
like how you want to be treated?" Then the rule is re-interpreted to
address this question, becomes similar to the extensions that the
critics have offered, and loses its simplicity and becomes as messy as
every other "rule".
I think if we want to do someone "right", there's no easy way: we have
to try to understand the other, try to reconcile our own convictions
about what's "right" with the other's and our needs with theirs, and
then take a leap of faith and do what we think is the best at the time.
I don't think there is a rule for that; it's case by case, moment by
moment.
As applied to copyright: There are good reasons to be for an abolition
of all copyright, or at least copyright as it is currently prescribed by
law in several jurisdictions. It may just be better for humanity, as a
whole. Nobody really knows. The reasons why copyright was introduced
originally are not given anymore. The reasons why we hold on to
copyright are mostly of economic nature, and in a way always get back to
"how else would content creators make money". Doesn't sound much of a
"moral" or ethical reason to me, and mostly economic. But economy is a
messy subject, with little that's known and much of what's floating
around that's bull. (I'm not trying to defend that position here, just
saying that I think it's a position for which we can find reasonable
arguments.)
So if someone is really, honestly an adept of abolishing copyright (or a
change in copyright), would it be "moral" or ethical for that person to
freely copy copyrighted material (or to copy it according to his own
rules)? According to this golden rule, it seems it would be: he's just
doing to others what he want to be done to everybody, including himself.
(It definitely would remain illegal where it currently is illegal;
another example why "moral" or ethics are not that closely connected to
legality.)
Or if I simply (and again honestly) wouldn't mind that someone copied
something from me, I could infer that I have the (moral) right to copy
something from him. This doesn't seem to be a sound foundation for the
application of copyright.
Gerhard
Ö
Öö Tiib
Sure... Who doesn't like to be asked nicely about one's opinion?
I'm not sure what exactly you want me to explain, so I touch a bit on
everything I can think of that might be related to this paragraph.
Please feel free to ask for more.
The categorization "legal concept" is correct but (since there are no
inherent or necessary connection between law and morality) that aspect
of copyright feels orthogonal to the question if it is morally right
or wrong to honor it.
Me too, even with same words. I believe that lowest level excuses for
doing or not doing something are material considerations (will I more
likely be rewarded or punished?). Bit higher are aesthetic considerations
(will the outcome be beautiful or ugly?) Moral considerations are even
higher (is it right or wrong thing to do?).
IME, the concept of "moral" is often used to give some authority to an
opinion that the opinion doesn't have. There is really no common moral
code; everybody has their own. Which seems to put it back into the realm
of personal opinion. Some people think that all killing is immoral. Some
people think that only killing done by others is immoral. Some people
think that killing a convict is a moral imperative, others think that it
is immoral. Take your pick...
Healthy collective is always capable to come out with decision even when individual members of it may have opinions from edge to edge.
Yes. That is the question: How does it matter that it is legal concept?
I'm not a big fan of this rule. For me, the big fallacy in it is that it
assumes that you want to be treated like I do -- and I'm pretty sure
this isn't the case. (I know it doesn't work with my wife or my kids.
Referring to the Wikipedia page you linked, I feel more in alignment
with the citation from Karl Popper (in the criticism section).
It is simple rule but indeed it might be in some situations hard for me
to figure out how I would like to be treated being you. Also it may be
hard for you to figure out how you would like to be treated being me. We
may decide wrongly but I still consider it important to try. So the rule
is important despite there are no clear and simple ways to follow it.
....
You do not think that economy is very important? I think it is
something that keeps best part of population occupied, and everybody warm
and feed. If someone really manages to damage the economy then that
might result with years of misery to majority of population.
Someone wrote a scholarly book. Someone else made that book to be freely
downloadable without asking from the author. Perhaps for to make the site
(I did not follow OP link but I trust that it is usual mal-ware and
pornography) interesting to people. I feel that the author has been
unfairly and wrongly treated. That this is immoral in several senses. If
I was the author then I would feel mistreated. I may be mistaken about
everything here, but can you describe the situation how you see it? I mean
not theoretical limits how the situation can be interpreted but how you,
Gerhard Fiedler, feel about it?
If such "interpretations" make it not rational to teach others then it
may be rational to fall back to closed schools of informed. You know,
we have been there, one will receive knowledge only after giving oath
to prefer death to spreading information, serving masters few years and
then if considered to be worthy by elders of brotherhood.
G
Gerhard Fiedler
Öö Tiib said:
Got it. I'll try to focus on this question (and may skip some side
roads).
I can relate to this. But one thing that for me seems to be missing from
discussions around moral questions is that answers to questions about
the morality of an action depend a lot -- essentially -- on the "moral
environment" of the question. And that "moral environment" lives only in
a given person, and is different in every person -- and might even
(actually or seemingly) change from situation to situation. (IMO.)
For me, if I would say that a given action is "immoral", I don't assume
that is necessary immoral for the other. That's why the "probably" and
"I think" in the phrases above.
Healthy collective is always capable to come out with decision even
when individual members of it may have opinions from edge to edge.
But again... what the collective comes out with is the law, not the
individual moral decision. Which creates the tension between the law
(ideally the summary, median, whatever of the individual morals) and the
individual morals.
For me, it depends on how we look at it. I have my moral position, you
have yours, everybody has theirs. The only thing that we have in common
is the law.
So if we talk about what I think, I can talk about morals -- /my/
morals. And they don't apply to you, unless you want to. So by (this)
definition I can't say that somebody else's actions are immoral. The
only moral that I could apply is my moral -- but I generally don't know
enough about the actual act to be able to apply my morals. I can ask the
other whether his action is in alignment with /his/ morals (and I assume
most often the answer will be "yes", which doesn't necessarily say
much).
Agreed -- as a thought-provoker it's useful.
I do think that "the economy" is important. But I don't think that the
current way of doing things in a given place is necessarily the best
way, and I do think that it's quite likely that we can improve on the
status quo.
For example, I don't think that the GDP is a useful measure for how well
an economy is doing, even though it's often used. And for the IMO most
important things, we (that is, all countries I know of) don't really
have the figures. One important figure would be how well we are doing,
year by year, as a simple sum of all individuals in an economy,
including individual debts and all the individual shares of corporate
and public debt. (There's of course the problem in estimating the value
of non-monetary assets. What value do you put on increased or decreased
health? It's of course an important part of how well I'm doing, and how
well an economy is doing.)
IMO it's not clear at all whether copyright helps with that number of
"overall economic well-being" or not. One thing is clear: it makes
tremendous amounts of advertising worthwhile for a copyright holder --
and almost all advertising reduces the number I'm talking about. (Most
advertising doesn't create anything of value; in the best case, it helps
redistribute values.)
So, yes, "the economy" is important. But IMO it's not clear whether
copyright as it is helps with it or not. In a way, this is similar to
the discussion around FOSS and GPL. There are the voices that think that
FOSS is a death threat to the economy, but it's not really clear at all
whether or not this is the case, or whether more FOSS code doesn't mean
more collective wealth. One of the problems is that this type of
collective wealth (the availability of useful FOSS) doesn't appear in
the numbers of what's generally considered "the economy".
I don't know enough about the uploader to be judging him or her. I also
think that it being available doesn't really hurt the copyright holder;
what potentially hurts is the way it is being used. (I wrote so much
before with my hammer analogy, which may not be the best one around.)
I'm in a phase of rethinking my position towards copyright. I'm not done
with it yet
What I've done on occasion is to download a notauthorized copy to see whether it is what I hoped it was. If it was, I
bought it (and sometimes continued to use the electronic copy). If it
wasn't, I just forgot about it. This is an illegal procedure in many
places, but it's in alignment with my morals. (And I wouldn't mind if
someone else did it with my stuff.) Besides, it's not essentially
different from going into a book store and reading part of the book
there before deciding to buy it or not -- only that I don't have any
book stores nearby where this would be possible. In that sense, it feels
immoral to not give me the choice to temporarily "circumvent" the
copyright prohibition that people elsewhere have. (Some online sellers
already provide the possibility of pre-reading parts of a book. That's
already a good thing, but it's not the same. In a book store, you can
pick freely the pages you want to see.)
I don't think that it was immoral for the uploader of such material to
bring me into the position to do what I did. It might have been immoral
for me (the downloader) to use it without paying for using it.
I also think that there is a more than theoretical possibility that the
author wouldn't be too terribly upset if he knew that a number of
students in a country where the price of the book is a month's salary
use a not authorized copy of it. I think it's a given that these not
authorized copies wouldn't translate into sales if the students didn't
have access to them. And I think that there is a good chance that at
least some of these students later make enough money to actually buy a
book by the same author -- to which the unauthorized copy they used as a
student may have contributed.
If such "interpretations" make it not rational to teach others then
it may be rational to fall back to closed schools of informed. You
know, we have been there, one will receive knowledge only after
giving oath to prefer death to spreading information, serving masters
few years and then if considered to be worthy by elders of
brotherhood.
Yes, there's that part. But then, it's a different time now, with
Wikileaks and all, just as it is a different time from when the
copyright was though up -- there's no monopoly of the printing press
owners anymore that needs to be broken up by copyright, and rather
there's now an oligopoly of big copyright owners that is protected by
it, and it's not one of content creators.
It's just getting more and more difficult to keep the lid on things, and
the mechanisms we create to still keep it on sound more and more like
something I don't like. Like the DMCA in the USA.
Of course, in our current legal structure, many people make money
through copyright that they wouldn't make without copyright. That's the
whole (or primary) reason of copyright. But IMO it's not really proven
that things overall would be worse without copyright. Or with a
copyright with different rules. (No doubt though that such a change
would be tough on some, and have some bad and unintended consequences.
That's the same with all changes...)
Wikipedia says "If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work
is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries. Some works are
covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death." I
can't see anything moral about extending copyright past the author's
death. I can of course see economic reasons (which I consider immoral in
this case), but not moral reasons. IMO the heirs of the author have no
more "right" to benefit from the author's work, and neither is it likely
that someone doesn't create a work because the copyright expires at his
or her death (which means that this provision doesn't serve the public
good).
Summary: I don't have a clear position. I think it's an issue with many,
many facets and it's difficult enough to make up my mind about what I
think is right for /me/ to do -- much less what is right for /others/ to
do
Gerhard
D
DeMarcus
Crap or not, it's still thievery. And not only that, it's distribution
to third party.
M
Melzzzzz
On my work we have ordered book in paper form. It's shame we don't have
it in our shelf yet