NationStates

Morality is not absolute, and the law is subjective.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:In my opinion it is somewhat shallow to have no sense of morality without some higher code. Shouldn't we all have an inner idea of what's right and what's wrong?

We very much do, with few exceptions. The problem is, that idea differs between cultures and even individuals. That's where having a higher moral code is useful. The law, however, should not be used for that purpose. That is the place of less formal guidelines, such as community rules and religion.

I break copyright laws because copyright is bullshit and should be abolished.

Atheris wrote:I break copyright laws because copyright is bullshit and should be abolished.

Ah, then you have no problem leeching from innovators.

Ayytaly wrote:

Atheris wrote:I break copyright laws because copyright is bullshit and should be abolished.

Ah, then you have no problem leeching from innovators.

Nope.

Atheris wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
Ah, then you have no problem leeching from innovators.

Nope.

Broken windows, buddy.

Atheris wrote:I break copyright laws because copyright is bullshit and should be abolished.

If, for example, I wrote a book, I should be able to profit off that labour. And if I choose, in this fantasy world where I wrote a book, to release the book online free of charge, I should be able to stop other people from profiting from my labour, if I so choose.

Copyright isn't bullshit and it certainly shouldn't be abolished. People destroying the artistic integrity of other peoples' work, people profiting off other peoples' ideas without permission? They're bullshit.

Extortionate pricing and delivery models? They're bullshit.

Forsher wrote:

Atheris wrote:I break copyright laws because copyright is bullshit and should be abolished.

If, for example, I wrote a book, I should be able to profit off that labour. And if I choose, in this fantasy world where I wrote a book, to release the book online free of charge, I should be able to stop other people from profiting from my labour, if I so choose.

Copyright isn't bullshit and it certainly shouldn't be abolished. People destroying the artistic integrity of other peoples' work, people profiting off other peoples' ideas without permission? They're bullshit.

Extortionate pricing and delivery models? They're bullshit.

Counterpoint: people should also be free to make their own material based off your book should it spark their creativity. Not necessarily to profit off it (at least, not without giving you your due), but a free fangame, for instance, that represents itself as a fanwork and not as your work, should be able to be freely made without said fan(s) having to worry about being sued.

Jebslund wrote:

Forsher wrote:
If, for example, I wrote a book, I should be able to profit off that labour. And if I choose, in this fantasy world where I wrote a book, to release the book online free of charge, I should be able to stop other people from profiting from my labour, if I so choose.

Copyright isn't bullshit and it certainly shouldn't be abolished. People destroying the artistic integrity of other peoples' work, people profiting off other peoples' ideas without permission? They're bullshit.

Extortionate pricing and delivery models? They're bullshit.

Counterpoint: people should also be free to make their own material based off your book should it spark their creativity. Not necessarily to profit off it (at least, not without giving you your due), but a free fangame, for instance, that represents itself as a fanwork and not as your work, should be able to be freely made without said fan(s) having to worry about being sued.

I don't think that's a counterpoint.

Let's suppose that I am legally empowered to prevent their profiting from my labour but I can't act to stop their not profiting. That's still a copyright regime. It's not as expansive as what we have now, but it is a copyright regime.

Of course, I would argue that I was also saying copyright should be available to punish bad actors trying to destroy the artistic integrity of my work even if they weren't profiting off it. The classic example of this is bands copyright trolling politicians they disagree with when said politicians co-opt their music. And if you want to, say, dispute the entire messaging of my universe, you shouldn't be able to use my characters and/or worldbuilding to do it... contrast Harry Potter versus Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (er, spoilers) with The Coral Island vs Lord of the Flies... even if you otherwise would (since you're not profiting) be.

I guess if you were just responding to that sub-point, then it is a counterpoint. Though, I admit, I am willing to entertain the notion that reproduction and/or incorporation of the work itself would be necessary here (whatever other faults it possesses HPMOR doesn't lift text from the books).

Forsher wrote:
Copyright isn't bullshit and it certainly shouldn't be abolished. People destroying the artistic integrity of other peoples' work, people profiting off other peoples' ideas without permission? They're bullshit.

Capitalism is bullshit and copyright need not exist without it. Creators are entitled to credit but in a mutual aid society, profit would not be an issue.

Forsher wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Counterpoint: people should also be free to make their own material based off your book should it spark their creativity. Not necessarily to profit off it (at least, not without giving you your due), but a free fangame, for instance, that represents itself as a fanwork and not as your work, should be able to be freely made without said fan(s) having to worry about being sued.

I don't think that's a counterpoint.

Let's suppose that I am legally empowered to prevent their profiting from my labour but I can't act to stop their not profiting. That's still a copyright regime. It's not as expansive as what we have now, but it is a copyright regime.

True, but you touch on my response to this later.

Forsher wrote:Of course, I would argue that I was also saying copyright should be available to punish bad actors trying to destroy the artistic integrity of my work even if they weren't profiting off it. The classic example of this is bands copyright trolling politicians they disagree with when said politicians co-opt their music. And if you want to, say, dispute the entire messaging of my universe, you shouldn't be able to use my characters and/or worldbuilding to do it... contrast Harry Potter versus Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (er, spoilers) with The Coral Island vs Lord of the Flies... even if you otherwise would (since you're not profiting) be.

Not having read HPMoR, I can't comment on that particular example, but I disagree with your general sentiment that you should be able to stop people from using parody to criticise your work. Two major types of parodies are parodies, using the characters and worldbuilding, criticising the author's message, and parodies, using the same, criticising how the author chose to convey it. It's the same, from my point of view, as me using a metaphor to make a point and you refuting said point by using my metaphor to illustrate the flaws in my point, or by using a logical extreme of my metaphor to criticise my use of that metaphor to make that point (or, indeed, as a way of pointing out a flaw in my point by taking said point to its logical extreme using the logical extreme of the metaphor). Dragon Ball Z Abridged (DBZA) is one example of a parody using worldbuilding and characters from another person's work to criticise said work.

Forsher wrote:I guess if you were just responding to that sub-point, then it is a counterpoint. Though, I admit, I am willing to entertain the notion that reproduction and/or incorporation of the work itself would be necessary here (whatever other faults it possesses HPMOR doesn't lift text from the books).

This. I was countering that sub-point, not your stance on copyright as a whole. And I agree so far as reproducing the work itself or incorporating the work itself, rather than the worldbuilding/characters, without any valid transformation of said work, should be forbidden by copyright.

Law is not morality, but I believe that it is best if morality and ethics inform law. Nothing too strict or dogmatic, however, something suited to how people can best govern themselves and determine their own destinies, as much as they can. Just my 2 cents, pbuh you all, mashallah.