Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Becoming consistent

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

Alone,

Look, the music topic is complicated because of all the different ways music is already allowed to be played and stored, like you pointed out with cache and so forth, as agreed by the original producers and distributors of the music.

The main issue is that you are not doing with another person's property what they do not wish you to do, whether you think it is stupid or not. If you have reason to believe that they do not want you to use a torrent site, you shouldn't use it. That is theft, only because they do not want you to use it. It is their choice to make. If you have reason to believe that they don't care, as in the case of the Southpark creators, or the TV show Bullshit! creators, or when Radiohead offered In Rainbows for free from their site for a while, then do as you wish, since they have essentially given up in a limited fashion their rights to their work.

But you should put forth a reasonable effort to find out which case it is: torrent or no torrent? It is reasonable to assume that if you can't find any information on the subject about a given artist, they do not want you to use a torrent site, or any other commonly unaccepted site. Torrent sites do not offer advertiser or subscription support. They are not outlets that distributors try to market their bands' music through, generally.

This topic is complicated because the outlets and accepted usage with music change all the time. A few years ago major music distributors were not participating in online streaming and selling of music, and online previewing, or playback via mp3 players. But, as it is widely known, they are now.

Use your best judgement. The main issue is the original property owner's wishes, and whether you are violating them or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Borrowing requires permission. when you download music illegally (without its creators consent) then you obviously do not have permission and "borrowing" without permission is called THEFT no matter how much you equivocate and evade reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue is that you are not doing with another person's property what they do not wish you to do, whether you think it is stupid or not. If you have reason to believe that they do not want you to use a torrent site, you shouldn't use it.

Again, "property" on this topic is being defined in the same way as when you "own" a Car or some object, and because of the nature of what the internet is that conception of property doesn't apply. Property and Intellectual Property are not the same and cannot be treated the same Morally.

The only thing they can rationally "own" when uploading something to the internet or through the creation of any digital media is the intellectual property... i.e., I couldn't reproduce a song and claim I was the original artist. I'll say again that the prerequisite for participation on the internet (because of the nature of what the internet is) is to conceed that what you upload will be copied and shared endlessly (instantly), and that a preview from Amazon is no different than a preview from Isohunt. Sharing/copying are the premises upon which the internet exists. Everything from information, news, video, music, etc... everything on the internet is instantly copied a million times over and shared over a million different networks. That is why it's there.

It is their choice to make.

Is it?

This is like saying...

"Sure you can borrow the car, but don't drive it because its my choice to make."

"Sure, you can borrow my Mp3 player, but you can't listen to songs on it because its my choice to make."

"Sure, I gave you free will but if you choose incorrectly you're going to hell because its my choice to make."

"We'll upload this song to the internet to promote our band, but no one can copy it or share it because its our choice to make."

It's complete unintelligible nonesense. Irrational expectations/demands are caused by misformed conceptions of reality. The correct conception of the reality of the internet is that it exists as an information replicator and everything on it is shared with or without your permission... you have no control over it. Any expectation that exists based on a misformed concept of the reality of the internet is dismissable as irrational because only rational expections can come from valid conceptions of reality.

This topic is complicated because the outlets and accepted usage with music change all the time. A few years ago major music distributors were not participating in online streaming and selling of music, and online previewing, or playback via mp3 players. But, as it is widely known, they are now.

...and the reason they are now is because the corrective mechanism of reality as absolute is altering their originally flawed conception of what the reality of the internet is. Their previous conceptions of the reality of the internet were irrational, and could not be maintained because it is what it is.

Use your best judgement. The main issue is the original property owner's wishes, and whether you are violating them or not.

I am, I preview an album... buy it if I like it... delete it if I don't.

They freely offer the previews over the internet, I choose the form in which I preview it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, "property" on this topic is being defined in the same way as when you "own" a Car or some object, and because of the nature of what the internet is that conception of property doesn't apply. Property and Intellectual Property are not the same and cannot be treated the same Morally.

Intellectual property is the product of your mind. It is still property.

I couldn't reproduce a song and claim I was the original artist.

This has NOTHING to do with who gets the credit for being the artist. This has to do with ownership over the product of somebodies thinking. Did you write the song? NO. Is it your song? NO. To take it without the creators permission is THEFT.

If I design a new motor and you steal the plans, this is STEALING! It doesn't matter that you don't claim to be the original inventor. The fact stands that you stole the product of someone else's mind.

I'll say again that the prerequisite for participation on the internet (because of the nature of what the internet is) is to conceed that what you upload will be copied and shared endlessly (instantly), and that a preview from Amazon is no different than a preview from Isohunt.

No that is not a prerequisite to using the internet. This is tantamount to saying that since I have cash in my wallet, I concede that others will steal it from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should read the posts of those you're responding to before you make remarks like this. Is reading the thread too much to ask? I think not.

Now, I stated earlier that reviews are of no value to me. The judgments of others hold no value, even people I have more in common with than I have differences here on this forum. The only review that has any meaning to me is my review, because music is a personal experience and there is no possibility for another reviewer to walk into experiencing an album with my identity.

I'm confused. I read the entire thread before responding. I also re-read the thread after the above assertion. I still do not see where you mentioned your problem with reviews.

Anyway, no matter. Let's consider this: do you think a novelist should have no copyright control of how his/her work is distributed? Do you think you, not satisfied with the previews on amazon or the chance to browse at the book store or the recommendations from other readers, should have the right to read the ENTIRE work before deciding whether you want to pay for it or not?? Should you be able to try out a fairground ride that looks fun before paying for the ticket???

There are many reasons why torrents are different from radio, MySpace, previews etc. Most of them financial - playing on the radio is free for the listeners but the band still gets paid for it. Contracts have been arranged with MySpace or YouTube. Amazon have indicated that previews help them sell more copies. There are many good reasons like that, but the one ESSENTIAL reason why illegal downloading is different from those other sources is that you do not have PERMISSION from the copyright holder. Like someone else pointed out, 'borrowing' without permission is a contradiction in terms. Contributing to the marketplace by STEALING is a contradiction in terms also.

You mentioned how digital files are not property because they are not tangible objects like cars. Strictly speaking you have made an error here because 'property' is ALWAYS intangible. A car itself is not property. Property means the owner's right of disposal. You hold property in land, the land itself is not property. That may sound like more of a technicality here but the owner's right to disposal is the essential point in this whole discussion.

Fair use means exactly what it sounds like - the use of a product for what the licencor permitted. If a licence or a contract is involved in the purchase of a good then you have no right to violate it. Ferrari sell a special model of the Enzo range which costs £1 000 000 but once purchased remains at the Ferrari garage and can only be driven at the Ferrari test track. It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that sounds, those are the terms of the sale. Those terms are PART of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrational expectations/demands are caused by misformed conceptions of reality. The correct conception of the reality of the internet is that it exists as an information replicator and everything on it is shared with or without your permission... you have no control over it. Any expectation that exists based on a misformed concept of the reality of the internet is dismissable as irrational because only rational expections can come from valid conceptions of reality.

This would seem to justify any act of theft that would be committed by the majority of people encountering the situation. Your basic argument seems to be that when someone uploads media to the Internet, they MUST expect that people are going to copy and share it, because that's what people do; thus, uploading content surrenders your rights to it.

Let's say I drive my expensive car out into the ghetto, or any poor part of town. I leave the windows down and my iPod in plain view, and I just leave it there for a few days. Any rational person must expect that the iPod (perhaps even the car) won't be there when they get back. Does this mean that the act of leaving the car there NECESSARILY indicates a surrender of one's rights to it and its contents? Are the thieves justified? Obviously not.

Behaving irrationally with your property is not the same as surrendering your ownership of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'm glad to say I deleted all the songs in my iTunes which I have acquired unfairly. I'm trying to change myself to be more in tune with the Objectivist standard.

Apart from respecting intellectual property, is there any area where you guys have found it difficult to be consistent with the Objectivist standard?

Edited by The Individual
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I drive my expensive car out into the ghetto, or any poor part of town. I leave the windows down and my iPod in plain view, and I just leave it there for a few days. Any rational person must expect that the iPod (perhaps even the car) won't be there when they get back. Does this mean that the act of leaving the car there NECESSARILY indicates a surrender of one's rights to it and its contents? Are the thieves justified? Obviously not.

It is my painful experience that your windows do not have to be down, it does not have to be an I-pod (it can be a beat up CD player worth at most 5 bucks), it can be for two hours, not a few days, and it can be in a public parking lot for the DC metro *near* a bad neighborhood. Your window will be smashed and the CD player disappear. And of course the cost of the window is less than the deductible. And, the replacement window isn't curved right, so you get to drive home cross country through rainstorms coming in through the gap in the window.

At least the schmuckmonkey didn't get my laptop, which was actually worth more than the window he broke, and was in the trunk.

Anyhow, I for some reason didn't have great difficulty over the downloaded (back in my day it was "cassette recorded off someone else's vinyl or CD") music thing. Even before college when I had no money to speak of, I managed to legally own 80% of the music I had (though I wanted probably three times as much). I believe the mindset these folks have is that it isn't actually *stealing*, and all the scolding from authority figures about how they could go to jail and pay fines with so many zeros you get tired writing them means as much to them as the scolding about smoking (either tobacco or pot) and drinking does. They just want their tunes, and someone is standing in their way.

I noticed even back than that 80-90 percent of the people in that age group have, as their only passion (other than sex, that is), the music they listen to. And some scold thinks they will listen about IP when they can just make a quick copy to get to their damned-near-highest value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, "property" on this topic is being defined in the same way as when you "own" a Car or some object, and because of the nature of what the internet is that conception of property doesn't apply. Property and Intellectual Property are not the same and cannot be treated the same Morally.

Have you ever asked yourself why people have the right to property? It's not a primary - it's derived from the right to life. The right to property means the full ownership of your effort - of any value you produce. Morally there is no difference between intellectual values and physical values, because in each case one person did the work, and therefore one person should benefit (excluding the trickle effects from improved thinking/processing/etc).

Take the motor example: your being able to copy my motor design may not have "cost" me anything, since all you did was borrow the blueprints and use your own materials, etc. But my work was far more than the motor I made for myself - it's the design work. You copying it means you are claiming a value I produced - the design - as your own. That means you are taking the unearned. Apart from just being a violation of someone's rights, it makes a mockery of the concept of justice.

Also, since the US economy is shifting more and more towards services, especially intellectual services like software and engineering design, treating IP as somehow beneath more tangible property would condemn a significant portion of the population to a minimal standard of living, at best. I for one like the benefits that come with recognizing other people's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Have you ever asked yourself why people have the right to property? It's not a primary - it's derived from the right to life. The right to property means the full ownership of your effort - of any value you produce. Morally there is no difference between intellectual values and physical values, because in each case one person did the work, and therefore one person should benefit (excluding the trickle effects from improved thinking/processing/etc).

Take the motor example: your being able to copy my motor design may not have "cost" me anything, since all you did was borrow the blueprints and use your own materials, etc. But my work was far more than the motor I made for myself - it's the design work. You copying it means you are claiming a value I produced - the design - as your own. That means you are taking the unearned. Apart from just being a violation of someone's rights, it makes a mockery of the concept of justice.

Also, since the US economy is shifting more and more towards services, especially intellectual services like software and engineering design, treating IP as somehow beneath more tangible property would condemn a significant portion of the population to a minimal standard of living, at best. I for one like the benefits that come with recognizing other people's rights.

By that example, then, what is your opinion on covering someone's song? You would use your own materials (instruments) and your own effort in learning how to play the song, but ultimately, aren't you still using the original writer's "design" (harmony, melody, the like), and thus taking the unearned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that example, then, what is your opinion on covering someone's song? You would use your own materials (instruments) and your own effort in learning how to play the song, but ultimately, aren't you still using the original writer's "design" (harmony, melody, the like), and thus taking the unearned?

Exactly. The test is - are they your original ideas, or are you relying on someone else's ideas? In this case, you're relying on their song writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been struggling to be more consistent in a couple of ways. In my thoughts and in my actions, to put it simply.

I've still got bad ways of thinking buried in my mind that pops up and makes me think or act in irrational ways.

Oh, and I've been trying not to be a cybersex manwhore with every random n00bish e-girl I meet. :pimp: Something Peikoff said in his lecture on being principled really struck something with me and snapped me out of it. It was that being inconsistent is how evil prospers. I'd been trying not to haul off and cyber with people I don't value, but I'd been relenting and doing so anyway. Since I came to that realization, I really have had no desire to do the deed. At least not with with such lowly people as I had been doing it with.

Peikoff gave me the gift of standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the place where I have the most problem with inconsistency is with the social side of Objectivism. I have a problem with being insecure and caring way too much about what other people think, and I have a problem with controlling my impulses and staying reasonable all of the time. My doctor says that's the fault of some disorder, but I don't care what is at fault, I just want to fix it. I've never had problems, though, with quitting stealing. I used to download a lot of things illegally, but I haven't done that in forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my first post on this forum, so I'll start by saying "Hello, everyone!" I haven't been lurking long, I promise.

Based on the OP, I deleted my entire collection (quite a large one...) of downloaded music and movies. I feel good about it, although I suspect I'll miss some of my 'weird music'. That said, I'll be much happier listening to it, knowing that I bought it myself. Which in most cases, I'll be doing presently anyway, as I can't pretend that I'm "poor" or that it's out of my spending limits (not that that would be an excuse).

Actually, I'm more PO'd with myself for having DL'd in the first place. I'm not an Objectivist yet, although I'm very interested, and am leaning further every day. But even with the premises I had already adopted, though, I should have known better. Everyone should. As much as it took Ayn Rand to get me thinking clearly about it, it is in a sense quite 'obvious'.

I have a question about ethics, too. If a product is not available (like, at all) where you live, is it acceptable to download it online? I'm referring to things like weird anime and wacky CDs from Nowheresville, Japan. Sometimes they actually cannot be bought in Canada. Is it still wrong to download that?

I might say here that I suspect the answer is NO it's NOT acceptable, but I'd like the opinions of people who know more about Objectivism than I presently do. That said, feel free just to refer me to a Rand book whose principles explicitly deal with something like this, and I'm happy to put in the work myself.

It seems to me that it is wrong to obtain anything that someone else has made of their own labor, paying nothing in so doing, so that you gain by someone else's effort - by the sweat of their brow, so to speak - and get a "free ride". This is why I would say it is "still wrong". On the other hand, if the product is not available, there is no way the person could have made a profit off of me - I literally NEVER would have bought the product, so it doesn't feel like stealing. And back to the first hand again, I don't think that really matters, because even if it doesn't feel like stealing, the first principle still holds - even if the 'victim' isn't victimized, the idea of 'something for nothing' based on someone else's labour is seemingly against Objectivism.

Feel free to disagree, or give other reasons why you do agree. I'm only an "Initiate", after all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a major disagreement in this thread is whether it's okay to download music. Just to constructively add to the discussion, I'd like to put an interesting thought your guys' way.

There are no inherently good or evil actions. No good in itself or evil in itself. Good and evil is judged from the perspective of the individual. Downloading music isn't evil in itself. You believe it's evil because you think it's like walking up to someone and grabbing a loaf of bread out of their hands. There are two reasons you don't steal material property. One, because it benefits you to uphold rights universally. And two, because you're going to have to face the consequences of your actions.

Now, let's look at "illegal" downloading. It's a really fuzzy area ethically, because you aren't actually depriving someone of their property. You are taking a copy. It doesn't detriment them really. Though it doesn't benefit them either. And the only consequences are the big wigs raining down thousands of dollars in fees for "damages" unfairly for every song, which isn't right anyway.

I'd say I have to agree with the "try before you buy" preference. If you download a song and you like it, it is in your selfish interest to support the artist by buying their music so they'll make more. If you download a song you hate, you're better off just keeping your money. It's not like you're going to be listening to the song anymore anyway.

If you're rationally selfish, I think it's fine to download music, because you'll pay the artists whose music you like and you'll withhold your monetary support from those you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to say I deleted all the songs in my iTunes which I have acquired unfairly. I'm trying to change myself to be more in tune with the Objectivist standard.

Apart from respecting intellectual property, is there any area where you guys have found it difficult to be consistent with the Objectivist standard?

Avoiding a tendency to rationalism, having true integrity in action to all of my values (ie not letting a feeling control me and choose to procrastinate or something else), trying to base my self-esteem solely on my evaluation of my mind rather than external things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a major disagreement in this thread is whether it's okay to download music. Just to constructively add to the discussion, I'd like to put an interesting thought your guys' way.

There are no inherently good or evil actions. No good in itself or evil in itself. Good and evil is judged from the perspective of the individual. Downloading music isn't evil in itself. You believe it's evil because you think it's like walking up to someone and grabbing a loaf of bread out of their hands. There are two reasons you don't steal material property. One, because it benefits you to uphold rights universally. And two, because you're going to have to face the consequences of your actions.

Now, let's look at "illegal" downloading. It's a really fuzzy area ethically, because you aren't actually depriving someone of their property. You are taking a copy. It doesn't detriment them really. Though it doesn't benefit them either. And the only consequences are the big wigs raining down thousands of dollars in fees for "damages" unfairly for every song, which isn't right anyway.

I'd say I have to agree with the "try before you buy" preference. If you download a song and you like it, it is in your selfish interest to support the artist by buying their music so they'll make more. If you download a song you hate, you're better off just keeping your money. It's not like you're going to be listening to the song anymore anyway.

If you're rationally selfish, I think it's fine to download music, because you'll pay the artists whose music you like and you'll withhold your monetary support from those you don't like.

If you "sample" someone's music by taking their property without the compensation they require (you don't just listen to a sample on Amazon or something, which they allowed), then you've withheld monetary support, by definition, the whole time that you've stolen the property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about ethics, too. If a product is not available (like, at all) where you live, is it acceptable to download it online? I'm referring to things like weird anime and wacky CDs from Nowheresville, Japan. Sometimes they actually cannot be bought in Canada. Is it still wrong to download that?

Actually, you can get it delivered to you from Japan. Yesasia.com is a good place to start. Also, try to contact a shop in Nowheresville, Japan and see if they will ship you manga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...