Oatmealing and the new practice of ethical bittorenting

@Setanta,

I don't think that anyone here is advocating the abolition of copyright.

I, however, am arguing that the balance of power has swung too far in favor of the copyright holders. (Mostly due to lobbying by the entertainment industry.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By that "logic" the assassination of government oficials implementing policies of which one disapproves on moral grounds would not be murder.

Yes it would. The distinction comes, not from the moral disapproval, but from the fact that not all copying makes the copyright owner worse off. By contrast, killing the government official always makes the government official worse off.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Yes Thomas. The question is half about ethics of the act of bittorenting now/pay later and the other half is a critique on the present day restrictions of content behind the very large paywall/obstacle that's the business model of today's major media outlets (national TV networks, premium cable stations, etc...).

I'm surprised that more people outside of the US haven't spoken up about how they're forced to wait weeks, months, etc... for content released in the US because they don't have a viable network that doesn't broadcast the product in a viable and timely fashion. These delays aren't there for reason of wanting more money. It's just the content provider still working on a 20th century time table and refusing to move into the 21st century with all the digital revolution and what accessibility means to those who use and understand it.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Your article said:

Quote:

But that assumes that individuals intrinsically believe that making a copy of something is bad, even though in many, many cases they do not feel that way. Calling it theft when they know it's not theft doesn't convince people to stop file sharing. It just makes them respect copyright law even less, since it's clearly completely out of touch with the times and the technology.

I just changed "copying" to "murder"

But that assumes that individuals intrinsically believe that murdering is bad, even though in many, many cases they do not feel that way.

My point is that just because many, many people feel one way about something doesn't make it right.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Yes, well, that does not make throwing the baby out with the bath water a sensible solution. Multi-tiered copyright provision which distinguish between the person who produce the intellectual property and those who acquire the copyright might be a sensible solution. Saying that the model is outmoded preperatory to infrining the copyright is nothing more than a feeble argument which attempts (and fails) to claim the practice is not unethical--and largely because it is now so easy to infringe the copyright. Bad voodoo there, it's very close to the rationalization of sociopaths who say what they've done is not serious or cannot now be undone. You may think what you like about the balance of power in copyright matters, it won't make infringement cease to be an unethical act.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

As Thomas demonstrated, there is an obvious difference between copying and murder.

The question, here, is not whether copying is illegal. Clearly it is.

But we have an extremely large portion of the population that engages in copying.

We don't have roving bands of murderers, though.

Clearly there is a disconnect between what the public thinks is acceptable, and what the law says is acceptable.

Tsar is comparing that state with things like the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Sufferage movement, and I'm not certain that he's wrong.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Bad voodoo there, it's very close to the rationalization of sociopaths who say what they've done is not serious or cannot now be undone.

You're stretching a bit (or more than a bit) there.

Psychopathy/Sociopathy is obviously outside of the norm. Downloading media content is very much inside the norm.

Now, I'm not arguing "well everybody does it so it can't be wrong." I'm saying "everybody's doing it so maybe we should have a discussion about it."

Hardly sociopathic behavior.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

My point is that just because many, many people feel one way about something doesn't make it right.

Well, if I were making that argument, you'd have a point.

And that same statement cuts both ways. Just because many people feel that copyright protection should be expanded, doesn't make it right.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

We don't have roving bands of murderers, though.

There were roving bands of murderers and rapists in Bosnia who called themselves the army of the Republika Serbska. How many members does a group need before you would consider that their numbers justified their actions?

Quote:

Tsar is comparing that state with things like the Civil Rights movement and the Women's Sufferage movement, and I'm not certain that he's wrong.

I am. Those movements laid claim to civil rights which they had been denied. People who rip copyrighted material online hardly deserve to be seen in the same light as those who courageously fought racial or gender discriminatiton. The hyperbole in that argumentt is breathtaking.

2 Replies

I've got other things i'd rather do right now. The silliness here is amazing. I may or may not be back--which is, i suspect, a matter or indifference to many here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

No more than your hyperbole that people who engage in copying are sociopaths.

This attempt to demonize folks who copy is really very interesting. Downloading a Blink 182 song is now somehow similar to participating in murder?

Good lord.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The silliness here is amazing.

Yes, but I think we disagree on what the silliness is.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There were roving bands of murderers and rapists in Bosnia who called themselves the army of the Republika Serbska. How many members does a group need before you would consider that their numbers justified their actions?

Maybe they need stronger copyright protections in order to rein in the lawlessness in Bosnia.

0 Replies

One last comment for people to ignore if they please. The argument here seems to be largely "I want what I want when I want it." That's a pretty damned feeble basis upon which to attempt to wrap one's self in the robes of moral justice.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Seems that you have a comprehension problem, then, because Thomas and I have both made arguments contrary to that.

And while you might be inclined to simplify Tsar's argument down to that, it's really not what he's said.

He opened a discussion about a new idea, or new practice, and wants to discuss the ethics of it.

Now you're trying to reduce it to some kind of childish tantrum.

Again, I find the vilification attempt interesting from a psychological standpoint, but it is ultimately shallow and unconvincing.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

. You can sneer about "outmoded" models, but it won't alter that you're basically saying that people have no right to protect their intellectual property just because it has become so easy to take it without paying for it. Your argument does not serve to make the infringement of a copyright ethical or legal.

When I see/hear what some of my friends go through to try and protect their intellectual property, I can't understand how anyone could put "ethical" and "copying"/"bittorenting" into a single phrase.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

I'm surprised that more people outside of the US haven't spoken up about how they're forced to wait weeks, months, etc... for content released in the US because they don't have a viable network that doesn't broadcast the product in a viable and timely fashion.

if it is good art, it's worth waiting for

there's really no rush - watching a film this week or next year doesn't change the quality of the work

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The argument here seems to be largely "I want what I want when I want it." That's a pretty damned feeble basis upon which to attempt to wrap one's self in the robes of moral justice.

that's very much how I read the argument as well

0 Replies

Fantastic thread.

The two opposing arguments are fascinating. As a musician and song writer I'm still not totally convinced that copying is not theft, but I can see how copyright law is a bit distorted.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I read the articles
they're lovely pieces from a technical perspective
they don't make sense from the point of view of a creative artist

1 Reply

Oatmealing and the new practice of ethical bittorenting

Quick Links

My Account

able2know