Death of copyright, film at 11?

[JGB]

HarryT, since we already pay a levy on any form of media that could be used to store copyright infringing material(CD's DVD's, even Mp3 players for a while) Since I already pay a tax for doing it, then I can do it as much as I please? I'm a bit confused by your view of it, should we teach our kids that it is wrong to download, when it seems to be legal?
That would create some rather interesting discussions, it's morally wrong to do what is illegal because it is illegal, but it's also morally wrong to do what is legal despite the fact that it is legal?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JGB

HarryT, since we already pay a levy on any form of media that could be used to store copyright infringing material(CD's DVD's, even Mp3 players for a while) Since I already pay a tax for doing it, then I can do it as much as I please?

Since your profile does not state which country you live in, I have no idea whether or not downloading is legal where you live. In some countries it is (eg Switzerland). If you live in a country where it's legal, then personally I still think it's unethical, but clearly it's not illegal.

That would create some rather interesting discussions, it's morally wrong to do what is illegal because it is illegal, but it's also morally wrong to do what is legal despite the fact that it is legal?

There are plenty of "legal" activities that many would consider to be unethical. Eg, selling tobacco.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There are plenty of "legal" activities that many would consider to be unethical. Eg, selling tobacco.

And there are some illegal activities that many consider ethical, e.g. removing DRM for one's own use.

Of course, choosing not to do something that is legal because you feel it is unethical doesn't* have the same potential to cause problems as doing something that is illegal because you feel it's ethical.

Paul

*Hmmm... unless, say, we're talking about a pharmacist who won't dispense birth control pills.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And there are some illegal activities that many consider ethical, e.g. removing DRM for one's own use.

I completely agree with you. I make no secret of the fact that I rip the CDs I've bought to my iPod, despite the fact that doing so is (technically) illegal in the UK.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd feel a little differently if you depended on intellectual property rights for your livelyhood.

I have a right, as an author, to benefit from my work for AT LEAST my lifetime. I also feel that I should be able to pass on the "fruits" of my work to my descendents, just as I can with my other property. I honestly see no rational reason why "intellectual" property should be treated any differently.

As has been said again and again : because it's not property!
Copyright is a (supposedly) momentary monopoly on the distribution rights. If you make some kind of intellectual work, whatever it is, it stops being yours the moment somebody reads/listens/whatever it. From that moment on, it's the common property of all the people who know it.

I'll add that whatever genius you may have, you didn't create your work in a vacuum, out of nothingness. What you've done is add a tiny layer of your own work over the heap of knowledge and experience you've accumulated since you were born. Considering most of that experience is part of the public domain, appearances to the contrary; to want to own that monopoly for what is, on average, one and a half lifetimes appears to me hubris on an unbelievable scale.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, Ralph, you're on very shaky ground trying to use the ideas of 300 years ago to justify today's laws. For one thing, we live far longer: average life expectency in the early 18th century was under 40; today, in most western countries, it's in the mid 80s. For another, there were virtually no professional authors at that time; today, many people make a living writing, and by other "creative" activities. I can honestly see absolutely no rational justification for considering the "work" of writing a book to be trated differently from any other type of work, in terms of being able to pass on its benefits to one's family.

I call bs!
The average life expectancy of the time has nothing to do with that of people who wrote for a living. As they didn't toil in manual, low wages, labor, their life expectancies weren't that different to ours.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but you're just not "getting" the fundamental point - that writing a book is just as much "work" as doing any other job, and to try to use 300 year old ideas of "limited monopolies" to pretend that it isn't is a completely outdated concept. The law needs to be changed to grant the creators of intellectual property the same rights as the creators of "physical" property.

So basically you're saying you want to keep the idea of copyrights, which dates back 300, but you want redefine it so you don't have to deal with the whole concept that led to its creation.

That's convenient, I must say.

[HarryT]

What a vivid imagination you have .