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

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes... I'm not arguing that "the public" doesn't exist, and that we don't all live in a society governed by laws drawn up by elected officials etc. But "ergo no-one has any property rights" doesn't seem to necessarily follow from that, particularly not for things they made themselves.

 

[Cheetah]

Intellectual property rights are negative rights, not positive (if I'm using the terms correctly?).

They deny some people from making the same thing someone else has made.

Software patents have always annoyed me to the extreme here. Many years ago Microsoft patented the idea of inverting the colours of the 1-pixel thick mouse pointers when holding them over text, in case the mouse pointer would be indistinguishable from the text. That idea is extremely basic, but everyone else was denied the right to make that, unless they bought a license to Microsoft.

That's literally society limiting people's rights in favour of some individual (a corporation in this case). How is that fair?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Intellectual property rights are negative rights, not positive (if I'm using the terms correctly?).

They deny some people from making the same thing someone else has made.

Software patents have always annoyed me to the extreme here. Many years ago Microsoft patented the idea of inverting the colours of the 1-pixel thick mouse pointers when holding them over text, in case the mouse pointer would be indistinguishable from the text. That idea is extremely basic, but everyone else was denied the right to make that, unless they bought a license to Microsoft.

That's literally society limiting people's rights in favour of some individual (a corporation in this case). How is that fair?

Well patents and IP rights aren't the same thing, and patents run out a lot sooner. As far as I'm aware we're talking about artistic creations, or even specific actual products, not technical innovations.

If you right a novel and hold the rights to the sale of it, are you denying other people from making exact copies of it? I mean technically you are, but are you going to say that's a bad thing or somehow not fair?

 

[Cheetah]

Patents are a subgroup of IP.

Most people who write a novel try to jealously guard their IP right to it, and will seek to deny everyone else the right to make any work which is somewhat similar.

The question of where one person's rights ends and another person's rights starts is always difficult. But we've generally agreed that we want to deny other people's rights to create certain works for some time, in the hope that denying those rights will ultimately increase the volume and quality of works in society.

If that hypothesis holds, then to some extent denying people such rights might be good (assuming increasing the volume and quality of intellectual works is something good).

But it's fully possible for us to add the caveat that people who have intellectual works guarded by society by denying other peoples' rights, might be sentenced to lose those right -- i.e. that other people have their rights to create restored -- if they commit a serious enough crime.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Of course it's possible to add that caveat. My question is how is that justified morally? But of course that question is based on an assumption of some shared baseline agreement on people having an inherent right to the things they create. If we don't have that then the question probably isn't worth discussing, and it seems we don't have that.

Although as I write this I'm leaning more towards it still being a question worth asking. Even accepting the position that IP rights are essentially just perks granted on sufference (which I obviously don't agree with), it still needs to be justified as to why you would strip someone of those rights if they are convicted of some completely unrelated crime. Yes obviousy criminals are already stripped of some rights, but each right stripped needs to be justified as to how it is necessary or a benefit to society. We generally don't accept "we just want to punish them some more" as sufficient justification.

 

[Hygro]

It still is a real killer to independent artists, authors, and innovators just to hit big corporations (and not as much as you might think) and please spineless couch potatoes.

You know what's a killer to independent musicians? Not being able to sample the people "above" you because you don't have thousands of dollars for a sample that would only earn you hundreds of dollars for using.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe try writing and performing music rather than sampling other people then.

 

[Zelig]

If you right a novel and hold the rights to the sale of it, are you denying other people from making exact copies of it? I mean technically you are, but are you going to say that's a bad thing or somehow not fair?

It's not a question of fairness. It's just an explanation of the mechanism by which IP rights function - they take away the rights of non-IP holders.

If I publish a song today, it's probably fair to grant me some exclusive rights to it for some limited time, possibly contingent on me fulfilling some responsibilities as the rights-holder.
It's probably not fair to grant Warner Music exclusive rights to Beethoven's catalog.

Stuff in-between is a gray area.

Even accepting the position that IP rights are essentially just perks granted on sufference (which I obviously don't agree with), it still needs to be justified as to why you would strip someone of those rights if they are convicted of some completely unrelated crime.

Well, I actually quite like the public parks analogy.

Would you allow Bernie Madoff to be the exclusive operator of tours to the Statue of Liberty, collecting rent from any visitors?

You probably shouldn't. You should draw up your Statue of Liberty tour operator contract so that Bernie doesn't get to continue to charge rent on Lady Liberty after he defrauds people of billions of dollars, even if he was running the tour on the up and up.

Yes obviousy criminals are already stripped of some rights, but each right stripped needs to be justified as to how it is necessary or a benefit to society. We generally don't accept "we just want to punish them some more" as sufficient justification.

See, I don't accept retribution as being a legitimate goal of the justice system. The punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to me, I care only about the public good.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I have no problem with revoking IP from those who have done bad things. In fact, I'd say that using the government to enforce IP and deny others the right to use a non scarce good is itself. a serious enough offence.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Would you allow Bernie Madoff to be the exclusive operator of tours to the Statue of Liberty, collecting rent from any visitors?

You probably shouldn't. You should draw up your Statue of Liberty tour operator contract so that Bernie doesn't get to continue to charge rent on Lady Liberty after he defrauds people of billions of dollars, even if he was running the tour on the up and up.

I don't know who that is or what relevance this example has. If he'd personally built a replica of the Statue of Liberty on his own property then I'd say it's fair for him to have the exclusive right to operate tours of it. I'm not sure what you mean by "rent" in this case.

See, I don't accept retribution as being a legitimate goal of the justice system. The punishment or lack thereof is irrelevant to me, I care only about the public good.

Neither do I. I don't see how denying people property rights that you grant to other people, as a result of an unrelated criminal conviction, is in the public good. Mainly because it's not good for anyone to live in a society that has the power to make them a non-person in such a way. I don't know why you think it's in the public good and if you've explained why you think it is I must have missed it.

 

[Zelig]

I don't know who that is or what relevance this example has. If he'd personally built a replica of the Statue of Liberty on his own property then I'd say it's fair for him to have the exclusive right to operate tours of it. I'm not sure what you mean by "rent" in this case.

Famous Ponzi scheme architect, now in prison for defrauding people of billions.

My hypothetical is that independently of his Ponzi scheme, he's secured a 99-year agreement with the government to operate tours of the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island, charges people for the tours, and takes a cut of the profit.

Should the government have structured their tour operator contract such that he gets to continue running and profiting from it from prison?

Neither do I. I don't see how denying people property rights that you grant to other people, as a result of an unrelated criminal conviction, is in the public good. Mainly because it's not good for anyone to live in a society that has the power to make them a non-person in such a way. I don't know why you think it's in the public good and if you've explained why you think it is I must have missed it.

You're not framing it well. I don't see it as "denying people property rights". Again, this is simply moving something to the public domain, and giving the rest of society their rights to the works, ahead of schedule. It follows pretty easily if you accept that creative works are a public good.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Famous Ponzi scheme architect, now in prison for defrauding people of billions.

My hypothetical is that independently of his Ponzi scheme, he's secured a 99-year agreement with the government to operate tours of the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island, charges people for the tours, and takes a cut of the profit.

Should the government have structured their tour operator contract such that he gets to continue running and profiting from it from prison?

Possibly. If that has nothing to do with his conviction then I don't see why that would be an inherently bad thing. But surely a whole bunch of other factors come into this, such as eligibility for government contracts or grants, which surely have their own special set of rules. It's not qualitatively comparable anyway because he didn't build the Statue of Liberty.

You're not framing it well. I don't see it as "denying people property rights". Again, this is simply moving something to the public domain, and giving the rest of society their rights to the works, ahead of schedule. It follows pretty easily if you accept that creative works are a public good.

I'm framing it perfectly well, I'm just not framing it the way you frame it. You're talking about intellectual property rights, and circumstances as to when you would deny these to people. That is literally denying people property rights. There's no need to put that in quotes and the fact that you don't see it that way doesn't make it any less correct a way of stating it or framing it.

You still haven't explained how it follows at all. I'm asking why this right should be denied (or however you choose to frame it) specifically for convicted criminals, but not any other creators. You just seem to be arguing as to why a blanket removal of people's property rights to their own creations is a good thing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have no problem with revoking IP from those who have done bad things. In fact, I'd say that using the government to enforce IP and deny others the right to use a non scarce good is itself. a serious enough offence.

Do you extend this rationale to their other property? What property would you say shouldn't be seized by the government on the assertion of "bad things done", if any?

 

[rah]

The supreme court just struck down excessive seizure.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm kind of surprised how many replies this thread has gotten.

 

[Patine]

I'll jump in and agree with Zelig then. If people get found guilty of something bad enough, then take away their IP rights. If the works are owned by multiple people, those other people are free to press civil suits against the criminal one.

You've really never heard of any intellectual works being created with free or permissive licenses? Nothing about Zelig's suggestion will lead to the drying up of creative entertainment.

I still firmly believe that once you start stacking on unrelated legal aspects to criminal prosecution, you are crossing a legal line, and establishing a legal precedent, where monstrous results can easily be justified. It's a pathway to justifying collective punishment, permanent stripping of all citizenship, and other dystopian policies, once you start casually heading down that path.

 

[Berzerker]

The supreme court just struck down excessive seizure.

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

the biggest thieves wear badges

 

[Patine]

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

the biggest thieves wear badges

I know nothing of police procedure in Ohio. There cities' police forces are even nearly as common material to make police drama TV shows around as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, all the CSI series cities (other than the redundant New York and Miami).

 

[Kyriakos]

Book rights last for many decades; up to 70 years after the author has died. This isnt about the artist but the company/other freeloaders. It also means you cannot translate the work without paying royalties, which in turn means only a clique can afford to even translate it.

 

[Patine]

Book rights last for many decades; up to 70 years after the author has died. This isnt about the artist but the company/other freeloaders. It also means you cannot translate the work without paying royalties, which in turn means only a clique can afford to even translate it.

Not all book rights transfer to a big company, or an apathetic freeloader, after the author's death. Christopher Tolkien, the youngest son of J.R.R. Tolkien, considers his father's works like gold, and very carefully and lovingly shepherds them. The same with Isaac Asimov's daughter.