[WendyTheWillow]

It’s actually very important that we agree on the structure of the social contract, and this is not “my” system at all, but a description of the system we both rely on to not get stabbed in the street for our lunch money.

[Jochim]

There's nothing social about intellectual property law. It's been shaped by and to the benefit of corporations who would have us paying royalties to the descendants of the man who "invented" the wheel if they had their way.

It goes entirely against how humans think, strangling creativity and innovation. An artist is harmed far more when they're forced to spend years in court, debating whether their chord progression is too similar to a song written by someone who's been dead for 50 years.

[WendyTheWillow]

Couldn’t disagree more; IP is the only way we could have found to properly compensate creators for the value of their work. To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

[etaweb]

Intellectual property is not all about arts and extends beyond it.

> To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

Art is older than intellectual property.

"To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.

[WendyTheWillow]

Throwing out intellectual property absolutely would stop the vast majority of the art made today from being made. We've had an explosion of art once we entered into an understanding that the creators of a work have control over how that work is used. Getting rid of that would kill film, television, and music. Would people still make these things? Yes. But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today.

[justinclift]

> But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today.

Finally you've raised what could be an interesting point. :)

Is there usefulness in the quantity of film / television / music being created today?

Would we be better off as a society if there was... less?

Maybe turning off the fountain of crap would be an improvement? :)

[WendyTheWillow]

No, that's not an interesting point because the obvious answer is yes, more art is generally better than less art.

Either way, it's not up to you to decide utility arbitrarily. Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place? The problem is that people want the art too much, and are willing to break the social contract in order to obtain it.

[Capricorn2481]

Are you aware the earth is older than the last few centuries? How can you even make a claim like this with a straight face? Copyright is rather new, art is ancient. Corporate meddling doesn't help the small indie artists, it boots them out of theaters to fill seats for avengers 7

[WendyTheWillow]

Your prior comments make it abundantly clear you've never heard of social contract theory before, or indeed the study of ethics.

Maybe start reading a few books about it, or take a class? You're trying to argue that ethics literally does not exist, which is quite a tall order.

[ubercow13]

https://youtu.be/PJSTFzhs1O4

[justinclift]

Hmmm, how much real world exposure to art do you actually have?

Have you ever actually published anything for others to purchase?

[WendyTheWillow]

Lots and yes.

[justinclift]

Examples?

[WendyTheWillow]

You first.

[monkeywork]

>IP is the only way we could have found to properly compensate creators for the value of their work. To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

Umm you do realize that some of the greatest works of art were created LONG before "IP" was a thing right? The patronage system did pretty well....

[WendyTheWillow]

If those are all the greatest works, why does anyone bother pirating movies and TV? Oh right, because they're infinitely more entertaining and cost millions to make.

[monkeywork]

I said "some" not "all" of the greatest works.

Since you seem to be a stickler for rules and agreements I'd urge you to re-read the guidelines for posting comments on this site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) as looking through this thread you are definitely flirting with the edges of them.

I'm not sure why piracy is the internet hill you've decided to die on regarding arguments but I'm going to choose to disengage, give zero cares to your views on my morality, and use my own best judgement on when it's moral to pirate or not.

[WendyTheWillow]

That's fine, but your own judgement will either bring you back to some form of what I've been saying in this comment thread, or your judgement will be wrong.

Besides, nobody asked you to reply to me in the first place. You engaging/disengaging was always at your own impulse. Nobody was requesting you say anything at all, so returning to that state concerns only you.

[justinclift]

I thought you were an artist?

But you don't seem to value art...?

[Capricorn2481]

More money = better art, apparently

[WendyTheWillow]

No. That's a non sequitur from what you replied to.

[virtual_void]

Are you are relying on that terminology because you believe piracy to actually be stealing? Depriving a person of something they already own.

[WendyTheWillow]

Nope, stealing involves depravation.

[virtual_void]

Then which specific thing in your conception of the social contact are you equating piracy with?

The post states that piracy isn’t stealing and you agree.

There must be some other thing in your mind that is equivalent.

[WendyTheWillow]

It’s called trespass, I believe the legal phrase is “trespass of chattel” but IANALY.

[virtual_void]

No, that tort specifically relates to depriving someone of, otherwise damaging their property.

We've agreed it's not stealing. We've agreed that not all piracy is immoral, for some definition of immoral.

I think we can agree that this specific tort does not apply.

Which specific thing in the social contract, some simple verb such as "stealing" are you equating piracy with. Then we'll have something concrete to discuss I think.

[WendyTheWillow]

We don't have to discuss anything if you don't like, you replied to me.

Also that's not what trespass means. You don't "deprive" someone of their land when you walk on it without permission, and you don't "deprive" someone of their song when you pirate it.