A Question on ethics

[bingle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you can "profit and profit and profit forever" from the single effort of buying shares in a company. Should we ban the stock market on the grounds that it allows people to profit without doing any work?

I don't think the concept that causes problems is profiting without doing any work. It's more in the difference between most work and IP creation. If I am a plumber, and install a toilet in your house, should I be paid for the act of installing the toilet, or should I be paid each time you use that toilet? Copyright is more like the latter, currently. A creator is paid not for the initial creation, but each time someone wishes to use that creation in the future.

I'm not saying that isn't fair, I'm just pointing out that it *is* different.

Why is it different? Well, for a long time people have realized that ideas are easy to copy, while physical objects aren't. (Provided you're not from Star Trek, of course...) That made it so that people wanted to keep their ideas secret. If a person came up with a good way for making steel, or violins, or gnocchi, they would only pass it on to people they trusted, late in life (usually an apprentice).
But, if the person with the idea died without passing it on, that idea was lost forever, obviously a bad thing for a society that loved gnocchi. To combat this, people came up with a compromise: in order to get people with ideas to share them with everyone, they would get the sole right to profit from that work for a period of time. Afterwards, of course, it has to go to the public domain, otherwise the point is lost. But for that time period, the creator has a monopoly on the idea.

So really, it's not that the "natural order of things" is that someone should get paid for having an idea, that's a construct put in place in order to encourage growing the field of ideas. It seems to have worked fairly well, too, until an invention that made it even easier to share ephemeral things...

[Leaping Gnome]

. If a person came up with a good way for making steel, or violins, or gnocchi, they would only pass it on to people they trusted, late in life (usually an apprentice).

That would be called a patent, and have nothing to do with copyrights. In these discussions it seems a lot of times people mix up patents vs copyrights vs trademarks.

[NatCh]

Actually, the point he's making is the one, admittedly narrow, aspect where patents and copyrights overlap, LG.

The method or technique for making, say gnocchi, is extremely easy to duplicate from one person to another. Write it down and post it on the internet and the whole world's making gnocchi. But if Luigi has a patent on gnocchi, then others have to get his permission to make it the same way.

The patent doesn't protect the thing itself, it protects the intellectual property of how the thing is made.

In the case of copyrighted works such as a book, the story is the thing and the physical book is just packaging (which is, of course, why e-books are even possible). The design of say, a turbine, on the other hand, is something that someone else with the necessary skills can look at and say, "yeah, I can build that."

The spark of coming up with the how in the first place is what's protected by the patent. What the patent does is prohibit others from doing the same thing in the same way for a period of time. They can come up with a different way to do the same thing, but if they do it the same way (even if they came up with it on their own) they infringe the patent (which is why patent searches are such a pain in the sitter-downer).

That may be part of why so many folks confuse patents and copyrights.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Leaping Gnome

That would be called a patent, and have nothing to do with copyrights. In these discussions it seems a lot of times people mix up patents vs copyrights vs trademarks.

Yes, definitely. There are also trade secrets in there, as well (which are more like the original "I'll pass it to my apprentice" way of doing things). I was actually not discussing copyright per se, but the notion of Intellectual Property vs. Actual Property. (Since the motivation behind Patents and Copyright, at least, is similar).

It's correct to point out that books are subject to copyright, not patent, law. But the progression from the wild'n'crazy IP-free days is more clearly explained using patents, I think. At the root, they're both limited-time monopolies on the fruits of an idea.

[Azayzel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that means breaking the law (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are), that brings up the question of whether we have a moral right to break laws that we disagree with.

and that's the rub Harry. There are so many gray areas that abound within law, especially regarding digital content, that many chose to read in what they will. As for what's legal or not, most laws that come into effect regarding copyright and digital content aren't necessarily to protect the original creators so much as to ensure companies can capitalize on the laws as much as possible (who do you think funds the people who put the laws into stone?).

Here's an exercise in thought regarding laws, suppose you're a citizen of a country where it's not legal to convert your paper content into a digital format. Later in life you choose to move to a country, and become a citizen of said country, where there exists no such law. For that matter, said country does not accept many so-called international laws concerning copyright, so it is freely legal in that country to convert what you want. While you have been brought up in a country where it's been *morally* wrong to do such a thing, you now live in a country where it isn't. Who's to say you're wrong for doing such a thing now?

For that matter, I've been to countries where you can freely buy disks and DVD's full of computer software, music, and videos well within the legal constraints of that country. While you may not be able to legally bring the purchased goods into your original country, you paid for them in a country where it was legal to do so. Do you just take a loss and throw them away? I'm not advocating piracy in the least, I'm merely pointing out that in some countries there are no laws limiting what is considered to be piracy in other countries.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by mogui

In some of the societies in which I have lived public morality is contingent upon consanguinity. If you are my brother I will treat you with all the care and honesty of which I am capable. If you are a stranger you can count on me cheating you if I am able. This is a fact of life in countries with high populations and pervasive poverty. Public morality is, unfortunately a luxury of affluence.

I know you're making a different point, but I think something is important to say here.

The public vs. private morality is a form of moral relativism. Morals change based on who, what, where you're dealing. I want to note, however, that the OP, DeusEXMe, brought up serving God. In this case, we are NOT dealing with moral relativism, but universal morality -- and thus if it's wrong to do something to your brother, it's wrong to do it to a stranger. This isn't a function of affluence, it's a universal function, applicable across the board.

To whit, let me make it applicable to this situation, as it WAS part of the OP.

Let's say a rich person who downloads a stranger's e-book without paying is wrong. How can it be right for a poor person to do the same? Saying "it's okay because they can't afford it" is actually justification.

So I fully disagree with this "function of affluence" argument. Certainly there are 3rd World countries (China in particular) pirating DVDs like mad, and it's facilitated by the relative cheapness of the DVDs and the relative poverty of the people. That does not mean it's okay. It's still piracy, and still -- ultimately -- wrong. The same would go for e-books.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by bingle

I think there are a lot of interesting issues here.

It seems like the motivations for paying for a digital copy of the book are mostly along the lines of supporting the author. But as others have pointed out, authors don't get any support from used book sales, library loans, or books borrowed from a friend.

Authors (and publishers) know these parameters as part of the current legal system. And they still choose to create works even under these parameters.

If you, as a reader, used to get your books from these sources, does downloading free ebooks now change the issue? and if you don't download free ebooks, what did this change about your book reading habits/budget?

Yes, because now the parameters have changed. Maybe not for YOU as a reader, but for the authors and publishers. Still, is that fair for the author, as they created their work without agreeing to this particular form of usage?

And, in some cases, does the current status of the author matter? Does a dead author need support, or does J.K. Rowling?

Once again, I turn to justification. For example, who gave US the right to decide if J.K. Rowling needs the support or not? And if she's so talented that she creates an absolutely astounding work, isn't it fair she be compensated proportionally? After all, basketball stars are compensated in proportion to their talent.

In terms of dead authors... I'm an Engineer. I have a 401K, and I have retirement benefits, including life insurance. When I die, I know my family will be supported.

Under the current economics of publishing, authors do NOT receive 401Ks, retirement benefits or life insurance through their publishers. The author supports themselves and their family purely through the money from their books. Is it fair to say to those authors that, once they die, their family loses all benefits from their work?

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Now away from theory and on to reality.

It's hard to compete with free!

This is the WHOLE reason MP3s took off, and why the Internet is rife with movie downloads as well. I find it hard to resist downloading stuff I haven't paid for, even ebooks.

I saw the mention of "slippery slope" earlier in the thread, and I think this one is like a well-greased slide propped at 90%. If people can get stuff for free, rather than pay, it's VERY DIFFICULT to pay. Especially when there's very little value-added by paying -- and as MP3s prove, removing LOTS of value (diminished sound quality), free still wins.

The reason e-book downloads haven't taken off is that it SUCKS reading on a computer screen. Now with the advent of e-Ink, we will start to see more and more "book piracy" than before... assuming people adopt the technology.

-Pie

[mogui]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that means breaking the law (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are), that brings up the question of whether we have a moral right to break laws that we disagree with.

Isn't one of the duties of being a citizen in a democracy to obey all the laws, not just those that we happen to agree with?

IMHO, if one thinks that a law is unjust, one should fight to change it using the appropriate judicial process, not simply say "I don't agree with that law, so I'm not going to obey it".

Imagine the chaos if everyone in society decided on an individual basis which laws they were going to obey and which they weren't.

If one does think that a law is unjust and decide to disobey it "on principle" then surely one should have the "guts" to do so openly and accept whatever the punishment is, rather than break it secretly and furtively, and then claim some sort of "moral superiority" for having done so, don't you think?

Someone, I forget who, once said that in a democracy it is the citizen's responsibility to break those laws with which he disagrees. Granted, it is an extreme position. There are many who, I think, would be moved to break certain laws on principle were it not for the fact that only the wealthy are able to prevail in court. When last I was involved (peripherally) in litigation, it was the suits with the $500 an hour lawyers who made the rules and walked away with the stuffed panda. It is not "guts" that is needed, but money. So we are left with a sort of guerrilla mentality where netizens take little bites out of the system wherever they can. The only answer to this that I can think of is to devise systems that are perceived as fair.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The public vs. private morality is a form of moral relativism. Morals change based on who, what, where you're dealing. I want to note, however, that the OP, DeusEXMe, brought up serving God. In this case, we are NOT dealing with moral relativism, but universal morality -- and thus if it's wrong to do something to your brother, it's wrong to do it to a stranger. This isn't a function of affluence, it's a universal function, applicable across the board.

To whit, let me make it applicable to this situation, as it WAS part of the OP.

Let's say a rich person who downloads a stranger's e-book without paying is wrong. How can it be right for a poor person to do the same? Saying "it's okay because they can't afford it" is actually justification.

So I fully disagree with this "function of affluence" argument. Certainly there are 3rd World countries (China in particular) pirating DVDs like mad, and it's facilitated by the relative cheapness of the DVDs and the relative poverty of the people. That does not mean it's okay. It's still piracy, and still -- ultimately -- wrong. The same would go for e-books.

-Pie

You are absolutely right. It is difficult to convince the world's poor of that however. I suspect that equality is the basis of compliance -- morally and legally.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I want to note, however, that the OP, DeusEXMe, brought up serving God. In this case, we are NOT dealing with moral relativism, but universal morality -- and thus if it's wrong to do something to your brother, it's wrong to do it to a stranger. This isn't a function of affluence, it's a universal function, applicable across the board.

-Pie

Ah but to which god(s) -- there is the rub and the relativism that is not universal. The morality of your god may be quite different from mine and definitely different from the atheist's god (or whatever is substituted of his god). So morality is relative, even among those who profess to serve the same god.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Azayzel

For that matter, I've been to countries where you can freely buy disks and DVD's full of computer software, music, and videos well within the legal constraints of that country. While you may not be able to legally bring the purchased goods into your original country, you paid for them in a country where it was legal to do so. Do you just take a loss and throw them away?

Let's substitute "drugs" for "disks and CDs" in that sentence.

There are countries where you can legally buy drugs that are considered illegal in many other countries. Eg, suppose you visited Amsterdam, went into a "coffee shop" there, and bought some marihuana. Perfectly legal to do that in Amsterdam. Would you consider it morally acceptable to smuggle it into the US on the grounds that you'd bought it legally in Holland?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by mogui

Someone, I forget who, once said that in a democracy it is the citizen's responsibility to break those laws with which he disagrees. Granted, it is an extreme position.

Although I do not live in a democracy (I live in a republic), I - and I believe everyone else - find a certain agreement in this concept. In the US's history, slavery has been legal and serving alcoholic beverages has been illegal. Both of these laws were blatantly violated and have since been repealed/changed.

Even in a true democracy, must we be restricted by laws with which we disagree? Normally we accept the ones we consider bad because the good ones out weigh the bad, at least for us. Whether we think a law is good or bad is a very relative thing depending on our status in our society. Thus as you say, mogui, it is a product of the affluent. The affluent may not mean strictly monetary affluence but might be those with an affluence of customs, concepts, prestige, societal position, etc. This often changes as one grows older and becomes more established in their society - i.e. has invested more into the society's morality and laws or, stated another way, has become more affluent.

Bottom line is you have to live with yourself so your own morality always counts strongly regardless of where your morality originated - from parents teaching, religious concepts, or some innate since of right & wrong (assuming such can be innate). But we all live in some sort of society which also imposes its morality on us to some extent.

So do what you think is right and don't get caught by your neighbors.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by slayda

Although I do not live in a democracy (I live in a republic)...

Huh? A Republic is a state in which supreme power rests with the people. It is, therefore, a form of democracy. Whatever makes you think that republican forms of government are not democracies?

[volwrath]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Huh? A Republic is a state in which supreme power rests with the people. It is, therefore, a form of democracy. Whatever makes you think that republican forms of government are not democracies?

A republic is not a form of democracy. Democracy is mob rules. A Republic protects the minority as well. Just look at the election results of Bush/Gore. Gore took the popular vote but did not win the election.

Here is the first link I pulled up on Google


Of course I would argue that the US is moving away from a republic and towards a democracy.

edit: Actually HarryT and Natch you are right, the US is a representative democracy which is technically a form of democracy...

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Huh? A Republic is a state in which supreme power rests with the people. It is, therefore, a form of democracy. Whatever makes you think that republican forms of government are not democracies?

It depends on how you define "democracy."

In its purest definition, often called a direct democracy, it's a method of governing where everyone votes on everything, and a simple majority rules. I don't think that there's any government that works that way at the moment. If there is, I expect it'll implode in due course.

In the U.S. we have a "liberal democracy" in the sense that everyone that meets a set of extremely not stringent requirements is allowed to vote. (I still don't understand how showing photo ID to prove who you are before you vote is an undue burden on a voter. )

But functionally, what we really have here is more of a representative democracy, where we directly vote to elect representatives to go off and, theoretically, do things in the government that they folks back home will agree with.


The real problem with a direct democracy is that there are more stupid people than smart ones, and if everyone gets an equal say, all you do is guarantee that the stupid thing gets done.

(Please note that while I may not be one of the smart people, I am smart enough not to say which group I belong in. )