Watching movies at home?

[steveh_131]

If the law states it isn't illegal, then it isn't. I think the various changes in copyright laws over the years certainly don't help things (in terms of inconsistency). Clearly creating IP laws long after many works were created generates issues there. I think it's perfectly acceptable to sell/transfer the rights as one sees fit.
I think perhaps use of public domain works muddys the waters and perceptions of IP (making it more confusing)

It's not illegal, I agree, but is it immoral?

Is it immoral to skip past commercials? That's how TV creators get paid. Commercials. If people stop watching them then companies will stop buying them and the creators go broke. So, is it immoral to skip them?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Skipping commercials is choice as much as getting up and going to the bathroom during one. I'm not Alex in Clockwork Orange with my eyelids peeled open and force fed visuals lol
I see what you're getting at, but volume knobs & power buttons accomplish the same thing.

Immoral? I suppose that depends on the individual. Given the circumstances, I do not feel it is immoral. At the same time, I would have no issue if $ went to the surviving family of Bach (or whomever they may have sold rights to over the years). I do feel it is a bit immoral for capitalizing on recreations of his work (ie a symphony) without compensating the owners of the work.
But again... given the circumstances, who gets compensated with the way things are set up now? (ETA: <- With respect to public domain works. If no limits were granted on current & future IP, we wouldn't need to worry about them from here on out.)

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Copyright can be renewed, apparently in perpetuity now. Can you name me, for example, a single Disney movie made under Walt himself that has reverted to public domain? He certainly died long enough ago they would all have. "It's a Wonderful Life" is public domain only because someone wasn't paying attention. You (or your successors) must take an action to maintain it, but likewise, if you don't periodically take the action of paying your property tax, the county will remove your rights to your house by selling it to someone else at auction. (That's just an example, not an invitation to debate about property taxes). The way patents are handled confounds the subject, though, and in fact I'm not in favor of those expiring any more than copyright.

Commercials are an interesting subject. For myself, in more cases than not, a commercial will inspire me not to buy the product. Sometimes they are entertaining enough I'll watch them, but still won't buy the product. Only very, very rarely will one sell me. Like once-a-year rarely, if even that. In other words, the advertisers aren't getting their money's worth out of me anyway, and I don't see them ever doing so. Is it immoral for me to skip them? They do waste my time, but I see the point in them and don't demand their removal. Their presence is the price we pay for what we want, in lieu of cash. Otherwise we could have those tiresome money begging rituals every year on every channel, not just PBS.

 

[steveh_131]

Copyright can be renewed, apparently in perpetuity now. Can you name me, for example, a single Disney movie made under Walt himself that has reverted to public domain? He certainly died long enough ago they would all have. "It's a Wonderful Life" is public domain only because someone wasn't paying attention. You (or your successors) must take an action to maintain it, but likewise, if you don't periodically take the action of paying your property tax, the county will remove your rights to your house by selling it to someone else at auction.

So you're alright with stealing somebody else's property because they forgot to do some government paperwork?

Only very, very rarely will one sell me. Like once-a-year rarely, if even that. In other words, the advertisers aren't getting their money's worth out of me anyway, and I don't see them ever doing so.

Most pirate's probably wouldn't buy the works they're pirating either. Does that justify their infringements, if it does yours?

If you guys agree that copyrights and patents should never expire, then I at least applaud your consistency. But I find it fairly ridiculous to imagine a world where each and every innovation was permanently patented. We couldn't even build a car that a middle class family could afford.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So you're alright with stealing somebody else's property because they forgot to do some government paperwork?

do you even try to get along with people? Good gravy.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

So you're alright with stealing somebody else's property because they forgot to do some government paperwork?



Most pirate's probably wouldn't buy the works they're pirating either. Does that justify their infringements, if it does yours?

If you guys agree that copyrights and patents should never expire, then I at least applaud your consistency. But I find it fairly ridiculous to imagine a world where each and every innovation was permanently patented. We couldn't even build a car that a middle class family could afford.

Well, to the extent that an expired copyright puts something in public domain, it "legally" becomes "not stealing" to watch/read/listen to it because they've essentially abandoned it, but now that you mention it, I do think you shouldn't have to keep greasing the .gov's palm or whatever to keep your copyright (I've never had this issue myself, so I'm not sure quite what's involved).

Permanent patenting might not be as onerous as you think, though. The guy that invented intermittent wipers, for example, was awarded $3.00 for each car Ford, GM and Chrysler had made with them in his patent infringement suit, which set him up pretty well, but even at the time, $3 was a pretty small part of the price of a car. I was a Lilly brat, so I have an appreciation for the pharmaceutical industry, and the expiration of patents is the biggest reason they charge so much for what they make. They take so much risk with each compound, and have to patent it so early in development, that they have only one way to make it worthwhile to even bother.

Now, I did say I accept the commercials as the cost of what I want to see, and I have in the past paid actual (at least fiat) money for channels that didn't have them, but my comment was just to indicate that those commercials don't have the desired effect on me, so they're pretty much a waste. But that's just me.

 

[steveh_131]

do you even try to get along with people? Good gravy.

I've been perfectly polite. I'm not the one throwing around words like 'thief' for any person who uses any idea without paying the creator.

Well, to the extent that an expired copyright puts something in public domain, it "legally" becomes "not stealing" to watch/read/listen to it because they've essentially abandoned it, but now that you mention it, I do think you shouldn't have to keep greasing the .gov's palm or whatever to keep your copyright (I've never had this issue myself, so I'm not sure quite what's involved).

I know what it becomes legally, but how does that make it morally acceptable? Do you watch movies or read books that are 'public domain', knowing that the creators don't get paid?

Permanent patenting might not be as onerous as you think, though. The guy that invented intermittent wipers, for example, was awarded $3.00 for each car Ford, GM and Chrysler had made with them in his patent infringement suit, which set him up pretty well, but even at the time, $3 was a pretty small part of the price of a car.

$3 seems small, but how many parts are in an automobile? What about the guy who invented ball bearings? Should he get $3 for every set of bearings we install in a vehicle? That's at least a hundred bucks right there, just for bearings. What about the seals? I could go on.

Now, I did say I accept the commercials as the cost of what I want to see, and I have in the past paid actual (at least fiat) money for channels that didn't have them, but my comment was just to indicate that those commercials don't have the desired effect on me, so they're pretty much a waste. But that's just me.

But you still watch them, right? That's the implied contract. You get free shows, they get your eyes on their commercials. Otherwise you're stealing.

 

[mbills2223]

I've been perfectly polite. I'm not the one throwing around words like 'thief' for any person who uses any idea without paying the creator.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

If it's been abandoned, the morality is stripped from the argument. Abandonment should just not be a result of failure to keep up with some .gov bureaucratic rules.

I do watch the commercials, or at least I'm present when they air, as much as they can hold my attention. Having my eyes on them does not, however, imply that I must buy the product. I doubt they expect 100% sales, but in my case they generally run negative. Once again, that's just me. They pays their money and they takes their chances. It's obviously worth it to them to advertise, or they'd stop.

Ball bearings may not license for as much as intermittent wipers, but then I'm not sure if they were ever patented in the first place. Some inventions predate the USPTO.

 

[jkaetz]

Food for thought, one pays for cable or satelite TV + a premium for HBO/Cinimax/etc... + another premium for a DVR. Said person uses the DVR and records a movie from the premium channels complete in all its digital glory. That person can now watch the movie on repeat for the rest of time if they wish and the hardware holds out. Yet if that same person who is paying $$$$ for legal access to digital entertainment acquires the same movie from a source on the internet the powers that be want them punished as if they just stole a car.

This is the part that people have a hard time grasping/accepting. Since people can't grasp why making a digital copy of something for personal use is illegal, the powers that be have tried to get copyright infringement equated with physical theft. While older forms of piracy did involve a physical theft, copyright infringement involves no such thing. Copyright infringement for personal use has no comparable. Most other forms of copyright infringement of intellectual property involves attempting to make a profit with it. People making a digital copy of a movie, music, or book for their own personal enjoyment is a far cry from making a profit over someone's hard work.

With the rise of 3d printing and scanning you can bet there will be more examples of this type of copyright infringement for people to argue over as it becomes much easier for normal people to duplicate the useful tool or part that you saw at a friends house or store.

 

[steveh_131]

They pays their money and they takes their chances. It's obviously worth it to them to advertise, or they'd stop.

One could make the same argument about any creator who distributes their works. They take their chances. It's still obviously worth it to them to create those works, in spite of piracy.

Ball bearings may not license for as much as intermittent wipers, but then I'm not sure if they were ever patented in the first place. Some inventions predate the USPTO.

They may predate the USPTO, but that doesn't mean they should predate your moral code. Does it? Should you be tracking down the guy who invented ball bearings and making sure to pay his family for all of them that are currently used in your automobile?

This is the part that people have a hard time grasping/accepting. Since people can't grasp why making a digital copy of something for personal use is illegal, the powers that be have tried to get copyright infringement equated with physical theft. While older forms of piracy did involve a physical theft, copyright infringement involves no such thing. Copyright infringement for personal use has no comparable.

This is very true, except it really does have plenty of comparables. Do we make up every joke that we tell? Do we write every story that we tell? Do we write every song that we sing?

People have been creating, sharing and selling creative content for thousands of years. They somehow managed to make money at it, despite the lack of government interference.

Digital piracy has simply increased the scale at which this takes place. The principles are the same. This scale may raise the difficulty of profiting from the direct sale of your creative works, but creative minds have invented plenty of new revenue streams. Ads, merchandising, 3d theaters, endorsements. In fact, these are the streams that the actual artists primarily use to make their money, while the giant corporations monetize the direct sales.

These corporations are profiting greatly by selling us this myth of intellectual property and using the government as a leg-breaker. A free market, on the other hand, would encourage artists to embrace these new revenue streams and also embrace the real, tangible value of low-cost digital distribution of their work. In other words, get the government out of it and allow the market to flourish.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Food for thought, one pays for cable or satelite TV + a premium for HBO/Cinimax/etc... + another premium for a DVR. Said person uses the DVR and records a movie from the premium channels complete in all its digital glory. That person can now watch the movie on repeat for the rest of time if they wish and the hardware holds out. Yet if that same person who is paying $$$$ for legal access to digital entertainment acquires the same movie from a source on the internet the powers that be want them punished as if they just stole a car.

The entertainment provider (cable co, etc) is paying for the rights to offer that content. The subscriber in turn, pays for the rights to view and/or record (dvr fees, premium channels, etc).
Paying a DSL outfit for internet access doesn't give the subscriber a right to download copyright content anymore than paying the electric bill does.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Now how in heck am I supposed to track down the family of the guy that invented, what, a sphere? If they even knew their ancestor had done that, they could enforce the rights themselves, even though they predate the current legal framework. I'm not in love with the USPTO, nor saying they don't deserve it, but it smells kinda like that abandonment thing.

Creators of advertisement do what they do and distribute it as they see fit. Authors, musicians etc. do also. If You distribute something without the intention of collecting remuneration for each copy, there's no problem with that. If you're hoping for such remuneration, and distribute it in a way to collect that, someone making a copy without paying you is denying you the price you have decided to charge, and that is, in fact, theft. Yes, libraries exist and books are available to be borrowed. Do not, however, try to make that mean that the intellectual property has no value. It makes me wonder, though, if any author has ever refused libraries the right to lend his books. I suspect that the copyright is typically passed to the publisher and the author has no say.

 

[steveh_131]

Now how in heck am I supposed to track down the family of the guy that invented, what, a sphere?

Your difficulty in finding the appropriate beneficiary is irrelevant. You shouldn't be using their idea without paying them. If you can't pay them, don't use it.

Isn't that what you would say to a college kid downloading music he can't afford to buy?

If you're hoping for such remuneration, and distribute it in a way to collect that, someone making a copy without paying you is denying you the price you have decided to charge, and that is, in fact, theft.

Again, theft constitutes depriving someone of their property. The owner is not deprived of his property. The property is simply duplicated. They may be deprived of a potential sale of their creative work.

Do you think it ought to be criminal to deprive someone of a potential sale?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

My difficulty in finding the appropriate beneficiary notwithstanding, if they show up with sufficient evidence that I owe them money for the use of the idea, great for them. If they're not actively protecting the idea, that's on them, t'ain't my job. Copyright just provides a legal framework to make a claim; you still have to do the legwork yourself.

If the publication of a work is predicated on its encoding and sale on some medium, the copying of that work to a different medium without permission does in fact deprive the rightsholder of the price of a sale, whether that's fiat money, gold, dogecoin, deciduous forests, or whatever, and that price is property.

 

[steveh_131]

My difficulty in finding the appropriate beneficiary notwithstanding, if they show up with sufficient evidence that I owe them money for the use of the idea, great for them. If they're not actively protecting the idea, that's on them, t'ain't my job. Copyright just provides a legal framework to make a claim; you still have to do the legwork yourself.

Come on, now. Is this a moral issue or isn't it? Their inability to legally collect from you has no bearing on the morality. You are stealing from the inventor of the ball bearing, whether they can take you to court or not.

Your justification is no different than someone who is able to duplicate the works without getting caught. They have to do the legwork themselves, and if they can't, my conscience is clean?

If the publication of a work is predicated on its encoding and sale on some medium, the copying of that work to a different medium without permission does in fact deprive the rightsholder of the price of a sale, whether that's fiat money, gold, dogecoin, deciduous forests, or whatever, and that price is property.

You have every right to declare this as your moral code, but it needs its own name. It isn't theft and it has nothing to do with natural property rights. Also, I disagree with it. Thoughts and ideas are no longer your property once you publish them and you have no ethical rights to them.

I suppose we have no way to argue this completely subjective point further, but I still maintain that you fail to adhere to your own proclaimed moral code regularly. And this is because the code is so arbitrary and unsustainable that society would collapse if it was enforced the way physical property rights are.

 

[hoosierdoc]

How has your question mark key not disintegrated yet?

 

[steveh_131]

How has your question mark key not disintegrated yet?

Hmm. You raise a good point. Who invented the question mark, and why isn't his estate compensated each time we use it?

 

[hoosierdoc]

You are right, I did. But you missed it.

 

[steveh_131]

You are right, I did. But you missed it.

Your point seemed to be that I ask too many questions.

Our disagreement relates to just how 'good' that point is.