Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Thoughts on "Piracy".

<< < (10/11) > >>

40hz:
I'm not in a position to impose my ethics to others.
-eleman (November 28, 2014, 05:58 AM)
--- End quote ---

Nor am I. But I'm looking for a clarification of your argument using a real 'real world' example. And one that is very close to home.

Because none of this exists in an intellectual non-space. There are real people involved. And real people are being affected in real ways. See Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal for how an even logical and seemingly moral suggestion can bear strange fruits once the implementation of said proposal is considered. I'm sure you've read it, but there's a PDF here if you need a refresher. (I did since the last time I read it in full was 30 years ago. ;D)

So... I'll ask the question again while slightly rephrasing it: Do YOU feel that if YOU wanted the aforementioned software, you'd (in your own mind) be ethically correct in acquiring and using it without first obtaining a license. And for extra credit (and logical consistency), would you still remain ethically correct if a good friend, in turn, asked you for a copy of same?

eleman:
Today IP is abused to skew the distribution of wealth. Its primary purpose is to make commodities out of thoughts and ideas, so that capital can buy them, and subsequently sell them to consumers at a substantial profit. The "compensating artists" point is no longer relevant, for most, albeit not all, of them earn their living by appearing on events and shows, rather than through royalties.

From this thoroughly political perspective, my conscience is free with respect to downloading things released by billion dollar firms.
For shareware released directly by the programmer, however, I check out the trial version. If I like it, I write to the programmer and tell them $39.99 is a lot of money here in Turkey, and I'd be really happy if they would give me a discount. They often do. Regardless of the discount, in the end I buy the software.
-eleman (November 24, 2014, 12:24 AM)
--- End quote ---

So, to answer your question:
I'd not act against the will of an ordinary natural person who thinks he/she is better off charging for the software. I'd pay for it, or not use it.
The legal persons with the clout (and the will) to shape the laws through lobbying, regulatory capture etc. are fair game to screw however. Because they screw me anytime they get the chance to do so.
But in practice, (nowadays) I rarely bother to pirate their products as well, for I have free alternatives. Why bother cracking ms office, when libre would do?

40hz:
I'd not act against the will of an ordinary natural person who thinks he/she is better off charging for the software. I'd pay for it, or not use it.
-eleman (November 28, 2014, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

An interesting but very real distinction. It could be considered "situational ethics" by some. But since all ethics are (of necessity) situational, calling them 'situational' is not a valid criticism. It points to a higher level of ethical distinction. Something too many people who are in love with a "zero tolerance solution" fail to consider. Thank you for not being one of those. :Thmbsup:

The legal persons with the clout (and the will) to shape the laws through lobbying, regulatory capture etc. are fair game to screw however. Because they screw me anytime they get the chance to do so.
-eleman (November 28, 2014, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

So your quarrel is with the regulatory environment and the 'players' rather than the content creators themselves? Ok. I got it now.

That's also a very humanizing distinction and clarification.

Question: How do you break the current framework without sacrificing the creators in the process? The interest groups and corps are the last to get hurt in this sort of battle. The people that make the product are the first to get put on the block or thrown to the wolves. This isn't meant as a comeback. I really am curious how that might be accomplished with minimal casualties to the creatives.

But in practice, (nowadays) I rarely bother to pirate their products as well, for I have free alternatives. Why bother cracking ms office, when libre would do?
-eleman (November 28, 2014, 06:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

I hear you. I do the same, along with providing financial support to those projects whenever possible. (Oddly enough, I do practice what I preach. Go figure.) 8)

eleman:
Question: How do you break the current framework without sacrificing the creators in the process? The interest groups and corps are the last to get hurt in this sort of battle. The people that make the product are the first to get put on the block or thrown to the wolves. This isn't meant as a comeback. I really am curious how that might be accomplished with minimal casualties to the creatives.
-40hz (November 28, 2014, 07:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Well, that's the one I have yet to figure out a good answer for.

The best I have so far is to go back to the creative compensation system which was in place before the royalty system (i.e. how Spinoza, Mozart or Shakespeare paid their bills). But it's not practical for immediate application, and would disrupt the economic system to an extent to cause unbearable hardship to millions. And you would never see products such as Pixar movies in the lone-wolf creative system I preach. So it would take away certain things we are used to and like.

Therefore, I'm always all ears for better solutions. But making creations "property" is not the way to go from my political perspective. I can say that.

What would you suggest to reform the existing intellectual creativity compensation regime, if you think we have to?

40hz:
What would you suggest to reform the existing intellectual creativity compensation regime, if you think we have to?
-eleman (November 28, 2014, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

We do - and I'm not at all sure how to do it.

It will probably first require a major shift in attitude on the part of the creators and consumers. That and some management of expectations by both sides before anything lasting gets accomplished on that front. Right now both sides feel hurt and angry and are constantly doubling down and getting more and more ridiculous with their claims and arguments.

Which is why the vultures are having such a field day. Any time a buyer and a seller aren't being civil and reasonable, it's only a matter of time before a middle-man shows up, inserts him or herself in the process, and fleeces them both bare.

"So it goes..." :-\

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page