Canada puts a cap on filesharing penalty: $5,000

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, and I'm not saying owners should have no rights, but I do think looking at the total experience for creator, owner, distributor and consumer is the best way to determine what would be a more fair and beneficial system of IP. As it is, because of their financial power, the legal system favors the owners and I think most other groups suffer because of this (consumers more than artists, sure).

Unless you make a law that restricts what can be put into a contract so that a creator is unable to give up their rights regarding a creation this doesn't seem practical. I don't think consumer should have "rights" persay, regarding what they buy.

Originally posted by Oliver North
however, I really don't think you are trying to say there is some equivalence between filesharing and the physical theft of a person's property?

Lack of total equivalence doesn't mean total lack of equivalence. We refer to it as theft because theft is the closest word we have. "Piracy" is theoretically more specific but not any more helpful.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I take it you mean something like "the idea that society should even have some order or that people should be protected by laws is a moral sentiment, thus, traffic laws are a matter of moral principle"?

No I mean: "Without making a moral argument explain why murder is illegal."

Obviously not all immoral things are illegal but all things that are illegal are illegal because someone considers them immoral. That's why laws get passed, they're society's way of saying that we will use force to punish or prevent this action. You don't punish or prevent things that you consider to be good or even morally neutral.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you make a law that restricts what can be put into a contract so that a creator is unable to give up their rights regarding a creation this doesn't seem practical.

no, but maybe something that doesn't criminalize an artist for playing their own song even if a label owns it.

or the whole Todd McFarlane/Image Comics thing.

Again, I'm not saying I have a perfect idea, I don't think the current system fits the real world though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think consumer should have "rights" persay, regarding what they buy.

we just disagree there

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lack of total equivalence doesn't mean total lack of equivalence. We refer to it as theft because theft is the closest word we have. "Piracy" is theoretically more specific but not any more helpful.

"We" don't call it theft. The crime is violating copyright distribution, not theft.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I mean: "Without making a moral argument explain why murder is illegal."

the pragmatic argument for the monopoly of violence being held by the state doesn't work?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously not all immoral things are illegal but all things that are illegal are illegal because someone considers them immoral.

people consider jaywalking to be immoral? Parking for longer than the meter allows?

If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd argue the causality goes the other way. Societies only function because they make pragmatic choices, that, over time (either cultural or evolutionary, given I'd say our strongest moral principles come from those times) become moral maxims. Things are only immoral because at some point a group interested in encoring their authority found it objectionable or destabilizing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's why laws get passed, they're society's way of saying that we will use force to punish or prevent this action. You don't punish or prevent things that you consider to be good or even morally neutral.

sure, all states use morals to justify their authority. I don't think that can be extended to "all laws are (or must be) based on morality"

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, but maybe something that doesn't criminalize an artist for playing their own song even if a label owns it.

or the whole Todd McFarlane/Image Comics thing.

Again, I'm not saying I have a perfect idea, I don't think the current system fits the real world though.

Its always possible, even probable, that we don't have an ideal system. I think its less that creators need additional rights so much as it is that they need additional leverage. Once an artist totally sells the rights to their song they shouldn't be able to play it without permission, that's unfair to the new owner. The issue is that there shouldn't be something forcing them into the position that they must give up so much control over their creation.

Originally posted by Oliver North
"We" don't call it theft. The crime is violating copyright distribution, not theft.

A lot of people call it theft...

In any event not having a nice concise name for it strikes me as meaningless point.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the pragmatic argument for the monopoly of violence being held by the state doesn't work?

The state doesn't monopolize violence for the hell of it. They monopolize it because they consider it a more moral outcome than allowing murder.

Originally posted by Oliver North
people consider jaywalking to be immoral? Parking for longer than the meter allows?

Someone considers/considered them sufficiently harmful to society that they are actively discouraged by physical force. Jaywalking can endanger people other than the walker. Either way the thinking was "this is bad and we should stop it" when the law was made, I can't imagine a thought process without that.

There are three options that I can think of:
This is good and we should encourage it people to do it, therefore we will stop people from doing it.
This is neutral and laws about it are pointless, therefore we will stop people from doing it.
This is bad and we should discourage it people from doing it, therefore we will stop people from doing it.

Only the third makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd argue the causality goes the other way. Societies only function because they make pragmatic choices, that, over time (either cultural or evolutionary, given I'd say our strongest moral principles come from those times) become moral maxims. Things are only immoral because at some point a group interested in encoring their authority found it objectionable or destabilizing.

Yes, morality probably comes in large part from social evolution. That doesn't make it not morality, though.

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, all states use morals to justify their authority. I don't think that can be extended to "all laws are (or must be) based on morality"

Except that you need to show that it is only a justification and not the actual belief of the lawmakers. If they really believe it then the law is based on morality.

is your point that all laws are based on morals or that they can be based on morals?

because, sure, I can't prove what lawmakers are thinking

EDIT: however, there are obviously arguments for laws that aren't based on moral axioms, maybe save "we don't want society not to function", which is the same super-reductionism I was talking about earlier

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In any event not having a nice concise name for it strikes me as meaningless point.

why is there any ambiguity about the name?

it is a violation of IP law, not of personal property law... this couldn't be more concise

Originally posted by Oliver North
is your point that all laws are based on morals or that they can be based on morals?

That they are. I can't imagine a way of deciding to make something illegal that doesn't involve believing it to be a bad thing. The idea that laws are invented for the hell of it is inconceivable to me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: however, there are obviously arguments for laws that aren't based on moral axioms, maybe save "we don't want society not to function", which is the same super-reductionism I was talking about earlier

Okay, but what are these arguments?

Originally posted by Oliver North
why is there any ambiguity about the name?

it is a violation of IP law, not of personal property law... this couldn't be more concise

I think we're talking past each other, probably because I missed something.

The name is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't a violation of physical property doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure we agree about this.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That they are. I can't imagine a way of deciding to make something illegal that doesn't involve believing it to be a bad thing. The idea that laws are invented for the hell of it is inconceivable to me.

but it isn't "for the hell of it"

its so that major cities of 6 million people don't descend into madness and disorganization.

I guess I think it is too reductionist to say that any form of "bad" is a moral distinction. Something like traffic laws or contract law seems far more about things working effectively rather than morals. I mean, sure, moral arguments can be made, but, and this could totally just be personal, I don't really see these as moral issues.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, but what are these arguments?

well, for instance, in the context of "monopoly of force", the argument would be that allowing regular citizens to use force to enforce the law (vigilantism) is destabilizing and should be outlawed. Again, you can turn this into a moral statement, but it is unnecessary imho.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think we're talking past each other, probably because I missed something.

no, its all me, we got this into some discussion of IP where I'm not really even in disagreement. I think, for sure, artists should be more aware of their rights and are often exploited in the contracts they sign with major corporations, but I'm not against different organizations owning different IP. I'd say its entirely slanted against the consumer at this point, but iirc we disagree about the relevance of this from a legal standpoint.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The name is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't a violation of physical property doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure we agree about this.

I disagree. If we are going to talk about file sharing, I will resist every effort to compare it to theft, and I think the semantics of the issue or the fact it is not a physical transfer of property are entirely relevant, as it changes the dynamics of the crime entirely. Violating someones distribution rights on copyrighted material is not, in any way, the same as taking a piece of physical property that belongs to another person.

If all you are saying is that IP laws still should protect distribution rights, and file sharing should be "illegal" in some context, sure.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
and most artists seem to accept it as necessary losses--they can still make huge amounts of money from selling

Which is sort of cute, considering they don't lose anything.