[RD] Morals of enjoying works made by people who have done bad things

[Patine]

I mean yes I feel this unironically, darn democrat that I am.

I don't belong to a U.S. political party, or any other, for that matter - not even one active in my home country of Canada. I follow my own ideology and vision, and vote for (or vocally support, if their jurisdiction is about my legal voting range) candidates on a case-by-case basis - which, unfortunately, very often comes down to "least of all evils" scenarios.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't belong to a U.S. political party, or any other, for that matter - not even one active in my home country of Canada. I follow my own ideology and vision, and vote for (or vocally support, if their jurisdiction is about my legal voting range) candidates on a case-by-case basis - which, unfortunately, very often comes down to "least of all evils" scenarios.

I'm not talking about any political party but rather support for social equality, including equality of you with the Philistines

 

[Patine]

I'm not talking about any political party but rather support for social equality, including equality of you with the Philistines

I disagree that the Philistine masses are entitled to easy and cheap entertainment, but those that creatively and lovingly design such entertainment are not considered to have the right to propriety to their work, like the makers of the televisions, computers, iPods, and smartphones that are very common modern mediums of entertainment are still allowed to keep and benefit from, undisputedly. Your point-of-view is highly skewed and faulted.

 

[Zelig]

How so? Just DECLARING it such means absolutely nothing.

You admitted it yourself when I pointed it out the first time.

It seems to be another Philistine who no creativity or product thereof to defend the integrity of and the benefit of the labours that go into it, but a defender of the "rights" of spineless couch potato to be entertained easily and without effort or need to contribute to, or respect, what's entertaining them. I apologize if I find your point-of-view on this, and @Zelig's, and a few other posters here, to be nothing short of repugnant.

For the umpteenth time, I haven't advocated against IP except for in cases of serious criminality.

Here are some refreshers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Ohio grabbed a guy's $42k SUV for drugs when the fine for the offense was less

the biggest thieves wear badges

I remember a few years ago seeing a news story saying that for the second year in a row the value of property seized by police through civil asset forfeiture was larger than the value of everything stolen by everyone else in the USA combined.

 

[Berzerker]

Thats sad...and much of that property was seized without ever charging the owner with a crime. They charge the property with the crime and apply a lower standard of 'guilt'.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[Patine]

You admitted it yourself when I pointed it out the first time.



For the umpteenth time, I haven't advocated against IP except for in cases of serious criminality.

Here are some refreshers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

And as I said earlier, the "slippery slope" argument being invalid and easily ignored is only in theory and on paper. Human stupidity, and numerous historical anecdotes in far too great of number to count, have proven that such a phenomenon is a very real danger, and it is arrogant, complacent, uniformed, and being a glutton for punishment to just simply put on a label on the idea as a justification to always ignore it and say it has no validity.

 

[Zelig]

And as I said earlier, the "slippery slope" argument being invalid and easily ignored is only in theory and on paper. Human stupidity, and numerous historical anecdotes in far too great of number to count, have proven that such a phenomenon is a very real danger, and it is arrogant, complacent, uniformed, and being a glutton for punishment to just simply put on a label on the idea as a justification to always ignore it and say it has no validity.

Cool, so now please read the other three links.

I'll wait for you to stop ranting about the things philistines don't deserve.

 

[Patine]

Cool, so now please read the other three links.

I'll wait for you to stop ranting about the things philistines don't deserve.

I didn't say "don't deserve," moreso "are not automatically entitled to at the expense of the creative IP authors', artists', and authors' benefits." Charity is a voluntary activity one engages in of one's free will - there's absolutely no justification for all you create IP's to only be able or allowed to do so as a matter of charity, unless you completely abolish Capitalism entirely and EVERYONE contributes their part in society with such a mindset. People constantly accusing others of, and crying about, the "straw man" concept has become so immensely overused in debate and rhetoric, it's become a pitiful and contemptible whine and attempt at a shield, rather than approaching the issue at hand more productively.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't belong to a U.S. political party, or any other, for that matter - not even one active in my home country of Canada. I follow my own ideology and vision, and vote for (or vocally support, if their jurisdiction is about my legal voting range) candidates on a case-by-case basis - which, unfortunately, very often comes down to "least of all evils" scenarios.

The technical term is "holding your nose and voting for the party you dislike the least."

I got canvassed last night by one of the local UCP candidate's volunteers (tsk, canvassing outside the writ period, when Jason Kenney is whining that the NDP are doing that), and told her that I am so frustrated when I ask questions about what the party would do to improve conditions for the disabled population of Alberta and discover that they've never heard of the most basic things. Apparently it comes as news to political candidates that disabled people are allowed to vote.

 

[Patine]

The technical term is "holding your nose and voting for the party you dislike the least."

I got canvassed last night by one of the local UCP candidate's volunteers (tsk, canvassing outside the writ period, when Jason Kenney is whining that the NDP are doing that), and told her that I am so frustrated when I ask questions about what the party would do to improve conditions for the disabled population of Alberta and discover that they've never heard of the most basic things. Apparently it comes as news to political candidates that disabled people are allowed to vote.

The UCP keep sending me robocalls with heavily weighted and slanted "multiple choice answers" available. I've just started hanging up on them before they start asking, now.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the umpteenth time, I haven't advocated against IP except for in cases of serious criminality.

Also for the umpteenth time, you have not established why IP should be treated differently from other property in the case of serious criminality.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If using a piano to produce a piano sound isn't conceptually infringing on someone's artistry, how would using someone's snare sound in your record? Because it's a literal recording you are copying rather than copying the exact process to get there? I find this distinction to be arbitrary and driven from a legal critique rather than a creative one.

Because one is artistry and one isn't. A piano is an instrument for making music, not music itself. The clue is in the name "musical instrument". I do realise that when you boil it down to a single snare hit it's pushing the definition of "artistry" somewhat, but they're still fundamentally different things. One is a recording of a performance, or part of a performance, that is more than just the instrument involved. The other is just the instrument involved.

Yeah so then you agree that the take of contrasting sampling with original creations is a false dichotomy as presented here

Sorry but you don't just get to quote me disagreeing with you and then claim I'm agreeing. Pointing out that two different things are two different things is not agreeing that there is a false dichotomy in play.

For the umpteenth time, I haven't advocated against IP except for in cases of serious criminality.

You still haven't explained why you think unrelated criminal activity should have an influence.

 

[Zelig]

Also for the umpteenth time, you have not established why IP should be treated differently from other property in the case of serious criminality.

There's no onus to treat things identically when the things themselves are different by nature.

You still haven't explained why you think unrelated criminal activity should have an influence.

Maybe I haven't in the general sense, but isn't it obvious? Because I think it would benefit society at large, without unduly infringing upon anyone's rights. Yes, you'll quibble on the latter point, but I don't agree. IP rights only exist for the good of society (and they do benefit society in many cases!), and shouldn't be structured such that they're maintained in cases where they're no longer a net benefit.

 

[Patine]

There's no onus to treat things identically when the things themselves are different by nature.



Maybe I haven't in the general sense, but isn't it obvious? Because I think it would benefit society at large, without unduly infringing upon anyone's rights. Yes, you'll quibble on the latter point, but I don't agree. IP rights only exist for the good of society (and they do benefit society in many cases!), and shouldn't be structured such that they're maintained in cases where they're no longer a net benefit.

I think your "only exist for the good of society" argument is highly flawed because it's only applicable by your own personal biases, and not a general consensus. Either the fruit of everyone's work, innovation, and labour, in whatever form it takes, is theirs to benefit from (assuming it's not criminal from the start by nature, like opioids, pornography of minors, or chemical weapons, for instance) and must be treated the same, or you abolish all fruits and intrinsic material rewards for everyone's contribution, and abolish all traces of capitalism, and have a society of purely communal, tribal-level, participatory contribution. But picking and choosing within such which are worthy of greater consideration as "contributions" intrinsically to others, and which are not, and thus not protected by the same laws and rights, by arbitrary bias and decision, is not only flawed, it is authoritarian and totalitarian as an attitude and viewpoint.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There's no onus to treat things identically when the things themselves are different by nature.

There's an onus on you to establish reasoning for asserting something should be exceptional. Absent that, different property is still property.

If you hold that IP rights are a "net benefit", what makes them stop being a net benefit?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe I haven't in the general sense, but isn't it obvious? Because I think it would benefit society at large, without unduly infringing upon anyone's rights. Yes, you'll quibble on the latter point, but I don't agree. IP rights only exist for the good of society (and they do benefit society in many cases!), and shouldn't be structured such that they're maintained in cases where they're no longer a net benefit.

I get that you think that way, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, but even accepting your point of view I still can't see the logic to apply these rights unevenly the way you propose. I don't see how you think they are a net benefit when afforded to law-abiding citizens (or even criminals below whatever severity threshold you're setting), but a net loss/handicap/whatever-the-opposite-of-benefit-is when afforded to criminals, regardless of whether their criminal activities are related their creative work in any way. I can't see it as anything other than an arbitrary punishment you're doling out for bad behaviour.

 

[Zelig]

There's an onus on you to establish reasoning for asserting something should be exceptional. Absent that, different property is still property.

"Different x is x" is tautology, it's literally impossible to argue against.

If you hold that IP rights are a "net benefit", what makes them stop being a net benefit?

benefits - costs < 0

I don't see how you think they are a net benefit when afforded to law-abiding citizens (or even criminals below whatever severity threshold you're setting), but a net loss/handicap/whatever-the-opposite-of-benefit-is when afforded to criminals, regardless of whether their criminal activities are related their creative work in any way.

The benefit of IP is in incentivizing creation. I don't expect the incentive is materially affected by accelerating criminals' IP to the public domain, while the cost goes to zero.

Plus there's some benefit to allowing people to consume the IP of former-criminals with a clean conscience rather than a burden of guilt.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Different x is x" is tautology, it's literally impossible to argue against.

Yet I just did, and so far you've lost, probably because my statement wasn't actually a tautology. Just for the sake of debate: a yacht and a kayak are different things. They're still both boats. IP and physical property are both different kinds of property.

benefits - costs < 0

Your assertion is that IP allows this for non-criminals but does not allow this for criminals. You've yet to back this with coherent reasoning though, which is what I'm asking in the discussion.

 

[Hygro]

Because one is artistry and one isn't. A piano is an instrument for making music, not music itself. The clue is in the name "musical instrument". I do realise that when you boil it down to a single snare hit it's pushing the definition of "artistry" somewhat, but they're still fundamentally different things. One is a recording of a performance, or part of a performance, that is more than just the instrument involved. The other is just the instrument involved.



Sorry but you don't just get to quote me disagreeing with you and then claim I'm agreeing. Pointing out that two different things are two different things is not agreeing that there is a false dichotomy in play.

As any recording, short or long, can be used as "just an instrument involved", you are making a distinction without a difference when it comes to the creative process.