Copyright

by Nina Paley




Repost This

Filed Under:
copyright, moral arguments, moral imperative


Is Copyright a Moral Imperative?

from the strange-morality dept



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 7:41am

    In before...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 7:56am

    Because if we supported the artists we liked, it would make the overpromoted artists feel bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pitabred (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 7:56am

    Moral imperative?

    Moral imperatives shouldn't be enshrined in law. Morals like "no murder" should be laws because they affect other people. Copyright? It's just a government handout, and research is showing that it doesn't actually increase the total amount of culture available to people, so it's basically contrary to the purpose of a government like ours which is to theoretically make laws to benefit ALL of the citizens, not just a select few. But then you have lobbying...

    Er, am I ranting to the choir? I think I need more coffee before responding to a story like this...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mr. LemurBoy (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 8:03am

      Re: Moral imperative?

      Enshrining moral imperatives in law reminds me of how some rules were enforced back when I was in school. If you got caught, you were forced to spend X number of hours volunteering at a local charity. I didn't have any issues with charity work as a punishment, but using the word 'volunteer' always sat poorly with me. If I was forced to do it, it was no longer volunteering.

      Same with morals being made a law. If you only do something because the law says you must / must not, it's no longer really a moral decision.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 8:07am

        Re: Re: Moral imperative?

        If you got to pick the charity I guess it's volunteer work on some level. You could have 'volunteered' to serve your punishment with a different charity, for example.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:15am

        Re: Re: Moral imperative?

        This is just a semantic issue. The intent or tradition with a lot of charity work is that it is volunteer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all people who do such work actually volunteered.

        In the same respect, sometimes you could "volunteer" for the military in a time of war in lieu of going to jail for a crime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      @J_Plotkin, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 10:04am

      Re: Moral imperative?

      I agree. Normative laws should result from moral imperatives (murder example works perfectly).

      Copyright has nothing to do with morality; it has to do with economics. Suggesting otherwise neglects the very essence of what a copyright is, a government granted (temporary) monopoly over a work...nothing more, nothing less.

      Does this make me part of the choir?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greevar (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: Moral imperative?

        Define "temporary" as it applies to copyright. I don't see anything temporary about it, which is part of the problem.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Moral imperative?

          Define 'limited' as it applies to copyright. I don't see anything 'limited' about it, which is part of the problem.

          Apparently there are some 'hard' words in the constitution that we need to have someone 'dumb down' for those who are supposed be following it....

          Perhaps we could get the same wordsmith who explained the internet to Congress as 'a series of tubes', I'm sure they would be able to understand very simple explanations of 'temporary' and 'limited' if someone threw enough money at them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 8:45am

    wtf nina

    you just trolled techdirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Nina, another amazingly horrible cartoon. Technically, fine, nice colors and all. But the point is a false dichotomy. You can support the bands you like with or without copyright, there is no issue. Having one does not block the other.

    Once again, you fail as the very basic level.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:32am

      Re:

      "You can support the bands you like with or without copyright"

      Yep, you can support bands you like with copyright. And bands you don't like. And bands you wish would fall off the face of the planet. And bands you may or may not be contemplating pushing off the face of the planet yourself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:33am

      Re:

      I agree. She seems to be stuck on a lot of false dichotomies. I'm not sure she'd have much material without them, come to think of it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zot-Sindi, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      Missing the point.

      What the comic is getting at is that you have these people say stuff like "OH MY GOD! if we take copyrights away how can we support the artists!!!!!!!!" yet when you mention just supporting them via other methods it's like... "what... you except people to donate/give away&pray? LOL!!!!!" in other words... don't support the artists because you WANT to, but because you HAVE to, or risk becoming a dirty pirate thief freetard

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Zot-Sindi, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:52am

        Re: Re:

        ** & losing your net or facing jailtime or being sued or whatever ridiculous punishments they have for dirty pirate thief freetards

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 10:04am

        Re: Re:

        The point is not missed, the "point" is a false dichotomy.

        You don't have to support the artists, but if you are going to enjoy their efforts, you really should support them. That means listening to their music via licensed sources (radio, example) or buy buying their stuff via Itunes or whatever.

        If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it.

        Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Nina is portraying an "either or" choice that is just not there.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Atkray (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 11:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Umm

          "If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it."

          I think you have inadvertently revealed your true nature.


          artists make art

          manufacturers make product

          If you consider what you create a product then don't force me to pay for it, that is wrong

          If you consider what you create art then you put it out there an hope that others will appreciate your creation and support you so you can continue to create.

          If no one supports you then either get a different means of supporting yourself or self select out of the gene pool.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 11:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            art is a product, like it or not. You can't slice it differently. Art is "produced".

            Sorry to disappoint you and wipe out a truly weak argument.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Greevar (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 11:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Troll harder, your kung fu is weak.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Greevar (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 12:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              By the way, art is as much a product as speaking is a product. Art is communication. The only "product" there is to speak of is the substrate it's stored on. But I forget, you don't deal in facts, you jump to conclusions that suit you and make up arguments that pretend to support it, or you forgo trying to rationalize it at all. Your arguments frequently amount to childish babble such as "You're wrong cause I said so!"

              Try to form a real argument and support it with facts. This "because I said so!" business is getting old.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 12:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You fail again. Art isn't art until something is produced, be it a painting, a song, or some other form of speech. But it is a product, otherwise it would just be an idea, and we all know how little everyone here thinks of ideas.

                "product" doesn't mean commercial good, just something produced.

                Amazing how hard you will argue to try to find something wrong, while ignoring my main point. Troll much?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 2:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Art isn't art until something is produced, be it a painting, a song, or some other form of speech. But it is a product, otherwise it would just be an idea, and we all know how little everyone here thinks of ideas."

                  Art isn't art... That's circular logic. If I have a slab of granite, and turn it into a statue, that doesn't mean it wasn't valuable before hand. If anything, I've reallocated my scarce goods. The same goes with creating a song based on a rhythm, theme, or a prior idea. I'm communicating my skills based on how I can change existing materials into a "product" ( to use your word) that others consider valuable.

                  It seems you don't value those materials and believe the end product is the lasting value of "art". But that isn't the case.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Nina Paley (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You don't have to support the artists, but if you are going to enjoy their efforts, you really should support them. That means listening to their music via licensed sources (radio, example) or buy buying their stuff via Itunes or whatever.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have obviously never tried making money through those licensed channels. You crack me up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            darryl, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 4:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            to make money from 'licensd channels' you have to have a product that people are willing to pay for.

            Obviously you have tried to make money that way, and found you were unable to do it.

            Just because you failed does not mean someone who actually has talent will also fail.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 6:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              darryl, before you criticize, you can look at Sita Sings the Blues and how much money she's made with a free offering.

              Something you have yet to show. I'll believe Nina before I believe you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You don't have to support the artists, but if you are going to enjoy their efforts, you really should support them. That means listening to their music via licensed sources (radio, example) or buy buying their stuff via Itunes or whatever.

          Thereby giving 70-98% of your money to middlemen for doing nothing - I don't call that supporting the artist

          If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it.

          Since when does that mean honouring a distribution and copying monopoly (which , by the way is almost always held by a third party.)

          Such monopolies are immoral.

          There is no logical connect between having created the work and being granted a distribution or copying monopoly. The fact that you seem to think there is is merely the result of three centuries of constant repetition of the mantra by those whose real motivation was always self interest.

          If I want to support an artist I'll do it by sponsoring new work, going to live events or a straightforward donation.

          None of these things relies on the immoral mechanism of copyright.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Any Mouse (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      Explain how copyright is then a moral imperative? YOu skip that point of the cartoon, which speaks to me that you are trying to move the conversation away from what is morally justified.

      Copyright is not necessary for the artists to get paid, thus no moral imperative.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 4:12pm

      Re: But the point is a false dichotomy.

      Wow, it’s like you agree with what she’s saying, but your way of saying it is “you fail at saying it”.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 9:31am

    Nina another excellent cartoon with a good and valid point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Aug 22nd, 2011 @ 10:01am

    To try and stir a real discussion

    When it comes to artistic expressions, the only real moral imperative I find persuasive is attribution; I can understand the importance of people know who is behind the book/picture/play they're shelling their money for.

    However that is more a trademark and plaigiarism issue than copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This