Watching movies at home?

[hoosierdoc]

You guys are really going in circles here.

First, downloading a movie was immoral because it was theft.

When I asked how something can be theft when nobody is deprived of their property,it was then argued to be immoral because I was viewing it without paying the owner.

It *IS* theft. Theft as a concept is not limited to a single object. View it as you took something that does not belong to you. It is not public domain. It is able to be licensed (purchased), but you chose to simply take it without remuneration to the owner. Theft.

When I asked why it was morally acceptable to borrow a physical DVD and watch it without paying, then downloading became immoral because I was duplicating the content, a violation of a contract.

If you borrow the DVD, there is one copy in existence. I am OK with that morally, but honestly the EULA may forbid it, I don't know. If the EULA forbids it, then it becomes immoral, and possibly illegal. It becomes immoral and illegal if you download it for free because there is no contract/license offered by the IP owner that allows that.

When I asked how I could be bound to a contract that I didn't agree to, downloading then became immoral because it violates copyright law.

You are making leaps. you simply said "I didn't agree to a contract". If a friend gives you a DVD and you copy it, you violated the EULA, immoral and probably illegal. If someone downloads a movie and gives it to you, then you are in possession of intellectual property that you did not purchase. That is illegal and immoral. If I steal a car and give it to you, that car is "hot", just like the movie, and you have received stolen goods. Bad position for you to be in.

So, really, you guys have no moral grounds.

Disagree.

You have legal grounds. And I agree, you do have legal grounds because intellectual property is nothing but a legal construct straight from someone's imagination to ensure more profit for content creators.

Hah, OK, sure. Shame on the content creator to attempt to monetize their creation. Lemme guess.. you love bit torrent and are downloading tons of "warez" right now?

Which is exactly why I call it imaginary property.

Bully for you. Tell that to the judge.

As the Monsanto thread went, so goes your logic/argumentative style here. It is not up to me to teach you morality. Fair winds, I will not reply to your further questions to safeguard my own sanity.

 

[mbills2223]

You ran away from the tough questions far too early to be making fun.

Cool!

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

In moral terms, it protects the ownership of intellectual property legally. Even if you refuse to accept that intellectual property exists. If you come onto my property and start rummaging through my tools because you think I might have something you want, we're gonna have a problem. Is that an issue? If I've written a book or composed some music, put in hours/days/years making something worth reading/hearing, then you download it and make your own copies, I reserve the same rights.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

My face is starting to hurt again; and I think I've made my point. Had enough of this thread.

 

[steveh_131]

If you borrow the DVD, there is one copy in existence. I am OK with that morally.

Why? Whether I download the movie or borrow it, I get to view the content without paying the creator. Why is one "theft" and the other is not?

You are making leaps. you simply said "I didn't agree to a contract". If a friend gives you a DVD and you copy it, you violated the EULA, immoral and probably illegal. If someone downloads a movie and gives it to you, then you are in possession of intellectual property that you did not purchase. That is illegal and immoral. If I steal a car and give it to you, that car is "hot", just like the movie, and you have received stolen goods. Bad position for you to be in.

You continuing to call something immoral does not make it so. You think that violating a license agreement that I didn't enter into is immoral? How can I be held morally responsible for upholding a license agreement that I did not agree to?

Every argument you've made follows the same logical circle straight to legality, not morality. It is immoral because it is illegal. I won't necessarily disagree with that, but it doesn't answer the question of Should it be illegal?

Hah, OK, sure. Shame on the content creator to attempt to monetize their creation.

Nobody said that. Especially not me. People have been making a profit with creative content for multiple millenia. Long before patents and copyright law came around.

These laws are nothing more than government intervention in the marketplace.

 

[steveh_131]

In moral terms, it protects the ownership of intellectual property legally.

So... again, nothing but legalities.

My face is starting to hurt again; and I think I've made my point. Had enough of this thread.

Nobody likes having to really get down to the nitty gritty details of this particular moral code.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

If you 'loan' a friend a dvd, you are giving them the dvd, with their promise to give it back. Whether they do or not is immaterial. The work has transferred hands.

I find it odd. Those who have interest & want to partake of someone else's creation (imagination), justify it by claiming it's 'imaginary' and doesn't exist. Why then, the interest in seeing, hearing, experiencing an imaginary non existent thing?

 

[steveh_131]

The property rights are non-existent. Not the works themselves.

Important distinction.

Don't assume that my stance reflects my own preferences. I support the artists that I enjoy by purchasing their works. I buy cds, t-shirts, etc. Additionally, my job is primarily focused on producing proprietary work so I certainly have skin in the game.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Ok, sudafed has kicked in. Face doesn't hurt so much.

Say your talent is machining and you sit down at your vertical mill for an hour, tch tch tch, make some kind of artifact. It's how you make your living. If somebody came and took it without paying for the time and materials, would you have a problem with that? Now, say your talent is writing, and that's how you make your living. You sit down at your typewriter or laptop for 1000 hours, tch tch tch write a book worth reading. But since you haven't created a tangible artifact it's ok for people to make unauthorized copies of your work?

 

[mbills2223]

Ok, sudafed has kicked in. Face doesn't hurt so much.

Say your talent is machining and you sit down at your vertical mill for an hour, tch tch tch, make some kind of artifact. It's how you make your living. If somebody came and took it without paying for the time and materials, would you have a problem with that? Now, say your talent is writing, and that's how you make your living. You sit down at your typewriter or laptop for 1000 hours, tch tch tch write a book worth reading. But since you haven't created a tangible artifact it's ok for people to make unauthorized copies of your work?

But movies are imaginary so it's okay!

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Apparently.

 

[steveh_131]

Now fellas, I said the property rights are imaginary. Not the movies. No need for logical fallacies.

As to fans reading my works without paying me, no, you wouldn't find me suing my fans for wanting to read my books. There are ways to monetize creative works without government interference. Musicians do it, programmers, authors, Everyone.

 

[mbills2223]

No need for logical fallacies.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I'm not sure I am following on how property rights are non existent.
So no patents, copyrights or trademarks?

As if to insinuate that we don't need laws against any theft? Mind you I am not saying those laws will prevent the crimes from happening, but offer justice for those harmed by the crimes. Not sure how free market is going to handle that on it's own... Nor how a property rights holder is going to seek recourse entirely on their own without laws to aid them?

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not sure I am following on how property rights are non existent.
So no patents, copyrights or trademarks?

As if to insinuate that we don't need laws against any theft? Mind you I am not saying those laws will prevent the crimes from happening, but offer justice for those harmed by the crimes. Not sure how free market is going to handle that on it's own... Nor how a property rights holder is going to seek recourse entirely on their own without laws to aid them?

Then allow me to clarify. Property rights are not imaginary. The application of property rights to thoughts and ideas that have been published? That part is imaginary.

If you want your ideas kept secret then keep them secret. That is certainly your right. But you have no right to control what others do with those ideas once you publish them. Everything we do as a society is built upon the ideas of others. Every book, every song, every new technology. That's life.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Then allow me to clarify. Property rights are not imaginary. The application of property rights to thoughts and ideas that have been published? That part is imaginary.

If you want your ideas kept secret then keep them secret. That is certainly your right. But you have no right to control what others do with those ideas once you publish them. Everything we do as a society is built upon the ideas of others. Every book, every song, every new technology. That's life.

ok I see where you are going with this. And I'm not going to get into philosophy on it. I do agree that influences shape our ideas and such. I disagree we have no right to control our ideas once they're published.
I once had a guy come into our shop looking for a job. He opened his portfolio, and within it was a design I had done 3 years prior (while working at said shop). That is theft. Pure and simple.

 

[steveh_131]

ok I see where you are going with this. And I'm not going to get into philosophy on it. I do agree that influences shape our ideas and such. I disagree we have no right to control our ideas once they're published.
I once had a guy come into our shop looking for a job. He opened his portfolio, and within it was a design I had done 3 years prior (while working at said shop). That is theft. Pure and simple.

Well, I'd call that fraud. Not theft.

If full property rights apply to ideas, then why do copyrights and patents expire? The title to your car doesn't expire, does it? What about the deed to your home? Does it expire?

Should the inventor of the Internet combustion engine have remained the sole owner of that idea still today?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Well, I'd call that fraud. Not theft.

If full property rights apply to ideas, then why do copyrights and patents expire? The title to your car doesn't expire, does it? What about the deed to your home? Does it expire?

Should the inventor of the Internet combustion engine have remained the sole owner of that idea still today?

When the person obtains financial compensation (job) based on my merits (with his master photoshopping skills deomnstrated by removing our logo) I prefer it to be theft. But I won't argue fraud vs theft.

Perhaps those rights should never expire?
Copyrights still has to be tested... should be soon

 

[steveh_131]

When the person obtains financial compensation (job) based on my merits (with his master photoshopping skills deomnstrated by removing our logo) I prefer it to be theft. But I won't argue fraud vs theft.

Perhaps those rights should never expire?
Copyrights still has to be tested... should be soon

His compensation will be based upon the work he performs under whatever contract he obtains. His crime was misrepresenting himself, which I would call fraud.

I do admire your consistency is supporting no limits on patents and copyrights. While I may disagree, at least your position is logical.

It does beg the question, though: If I read a book that is technically now "public domain", without reimbursing the author, am I stealing from him? Even though it is perfectly legal?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

His compensation will be based upon the work he performs under whatever contract he obtains. His crime was misrepresenting himself, which I would call fraud.

I do admire your consistency is supporting no limits on patents and copyrights. While I may disagree, at least your position is logical.

It does beg the question, though: If I read a book that is technically now "public domain", without reimbursing the author, am I stealing from him? Even though it is perfectly legal?

If the law states it isn't illegal, then it isn't. I think the various changes in copyright laws over the years certainly don't help things (in terms of inconsistency). Clearly creating IP laws long after many works were created generates issues there. I think it's perfectly acceptable to sell/transfer the rights as one sees fit.
I think perhaps use of public domain works muddys the waters and perceptions of IP (making it more confusing)