Thread: Copyfraud - public domain's fate?
View Single Post
Old 12-08-2010, 04:31 PM   #262
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post
It is not an emotional position, it is an ethical one.
No, it's pretty clearly emotional. See my previous post as an example of why.

Also, you may want to read Daniel Ariely's book Predictably Irrational. He discusses how people act in a highly irrational (yet predictable) way to "free (gratis)".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Business transactions require a certain level of "fair dealing." A seller is entitled to a "fair profit." In other words, business transactions occur in an ethical climate.
Hopefully, yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Kovid's position is a way of saying that when a seller, at no cost to himself, has done nothing to improve a product otherwise available for free, there is actually NO profit that can be regarded as "fair." Therefore, it is incumbent on the seller to reveal that the product can be had for free.
No, it is not.

It doesn't matter how much it costs to produce a good. It doesn't even matter if you charge an outrageous price -- as long as you aren't engaging in anti-competitive behavior, or claiming that you are selling X when instead you are selling Y.

E.g. DeBeers acted immorally when it essentially cornered the market and inflated the price of diamonds. Gold bugs, on the other hand, are not engaging in immoral actions if they bought gold when it was cheap, and sell when the price is higher -- even though the seller did absolutely nothing to "improve the value" of the gold.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I think that an ethical seller would say something along the lines of "This product is in the public domain, and the identical product is available for free elsewhere....
You are welcome to refer to such an individual as virtuous if you like. But that does not mean that it is unethical to request payment for PD works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
It is not ethical to sell something a buyer something that he and everyone else already owns, and to hide that fact from the buyer.
That's real sweet, but it's simply not how PD works. PD means that no one controls it anymore.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
One interesting thing about this discussion is that the ethical dimension of the selling of PD books only seems to exist in the digital environment.
Yep. Did I mention the thing about emotional reactions to "free (gratis)"?
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote