What if Martians were copying our movies?

james_gnz · #1 by **james_gnz** » Dec 19, 2015 10:52 am

Is the answer to this question as obvious as I think it is? If not, why not?

Fenrir · #2 by **Fenrir** » Dec 19, 2015 10:56 am

Han would still shoot first.

Animavore · #3 by **Animavore** » Dec 19, 2015 11:04 am

I don't have any movies to my credit so I certainly wouldn't be harmed.
I don't think Martians are obliged to adhere to copyright laws. They haven't signed a contract.

Arcanyn · #4 by **Arcanyn** » Dec 19, 2015 11:10 am

I think the Martians would be harmed.

igorfrankensteen · #5 by **igorfrankensteen** » Dec 19, 2015 7:48 pm

If there was life on Mars, and it was copying our movies, would we have been (unknowingly) harmed?

Seriously?

This reads to me like it's another leading question, designed to support an unspecified agenda. Please say why you ask.

The answer to the version of the question that I think is actually behind this one, is absolutely yes.

Stealing from someone hurts them, and by extension, hurts anyone who depends on a world without legalized theft. The fact that the thievery isn't instantly discovered and prosecuted, or that the harm caused, takes a long time to be evident, is beside the point.

Thommo · #6 by **Thommo** » Dec 19, 2015 8:55 pm

If there was life on Mars, and it was doing cash in hand work IT consultancy work remotely without paying tax, would we have been (unknowingly) harmed?

Arnold Layne · #7 by **Arnold Layne** » Dec 19, 2015 9:33 pm

The OP is bollocks.

Next.

crank · #8 by **crank** » Dec 19, 2015 10:11 pm

Obviously we would be harmed, we'd be giving another species all the reasons they'd need to want to eliminate us.

james_gnz · #9 by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 8:09 am

Animavore wrote:I don't think Martians are obliged to adhere to copyright laws. They haven't signed a contract.

I guess what you're saying is that copyright law is justified on the basis of international agreements? I think this makes sense.

james_gnz · **#10** by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 9:56 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:Seriously?

This reads to me like it's another leading question, designed to support an unspecified agenda. Please say why you ask.

Okay, sure. My view is that copyright is not a moral right.

It seems to me that discussions about whether or not copyright is a moral right often end up kind of circular. e.g. Those who think copyright is a moral right may argue that it's a moral right because copyright holders are harmed by copying, and that copyright holders are harmed by copying because it violates their moral rights, whereas those who don't think it's a moral right may argue that it's not a moral right because copyright holders aren't harmed by copying, and that copyright holders aren't harmed by copying because it doesn't violate their moral rights. (Or something like this.)

I'm not sure the argument can be progressed by trying to work back to "first principles", and hoping to reach agreement on those, because I'm not sure we can easily identify which are the "first principles", or that we'd necessarily agree on them if we could. I think, perhaps, for either side to make a convincing argument, they'd need to show an inconsistency in the other side's position. In particular, I think perhaps one side would need to find a statement that both sides can agree on, but that contradicts with the other side's position, and not theirs.

I wondered if this thought experiment showed a contradiction in the position that copyright is a moral right.

igorfrankensteen wrote:The answer to the version of the question that I think is actually behind this one, is absolutely yes.

But what's your answer to this question, and is there a contradiction between the two?

igorfrankensteen wrote:Stealing from someone hurts them, and by extension, hurts anyone who depends on a world without legalized theft. The fact that the thievery isn't instantly discovered and prosecuted, or that the harm caused, takes a long time to be evident, is beside the point.

I'd agree with that, but I don't think copying is stealing, and I think this is an argument that might end up kind of circular.

james_gnz · **#11** by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 10:02 am

Thommo wrote:If there was life on Mars, and it was doing cash in hand work IT consultancy work remotely without paying tax, would we have been (unknowingly) harmed?

I guess you're saying that copyright, like tax, is justified on the basis of democratic agreement? I think this relates to the suggestion that it's justified on the basis of international agreements, and also makes sense.

james_gnz · **#12** by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 10:03 am

Arnold Layne wrote:The OP is bollocks.

Next.

Could you be more specific?

Arnold Layne · **#13** by **Arnold Layne** » Dec 20, 2015 10:35 am

james_gnz wrote:
Arnold Layne wrote:The OP is bollocks.

Next.

Could you be more specific?

You don't know?

james_gnz · **#14** by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 10:59 am

Arnold Layne wrote:The OP is bollocks.

Next.

james_gnz wrote:Could you be more specific?

Arnold Layne wrote:You don't know?

I don't know your objection.

I'm With Stupid · **#15** by **I'm With Stupid** » Dec 20, 2015 11:09 am

If said films were available on Mars to purchase legally, then yes, the would arguably be harming the producers of them. Basically, I don't think anyone is harmed if a North Korean gets a pirated copy of the new Star Wars film or a Saudi Arabian man accesses some gay porn because they were never going to sell them in those territories anyway.

Animavore · **#16** by **Animavore** » Dec 20, 2015 11:37 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:If said films were available on Mars to purchase legally, then yes, the would arguably be harming the producers of them. Basically, I don't think anyone is harmed if a North Korean gets a pirated copy of the new Star Wars film or a Saudi Arabian man accesses some gay porn because they were never going to sell them in those territories anyway.

Which raises the question: is it ok to hop across the border to a country which has no copyright laws to binge watch some movies every couple of months? After all, it's ok for me to go to Amsterdam and smoke weed.

crank · **#17** by **crank** » Dec 20, 2015 1:16 pm

The US has no problem writing laws allowing them to incarcerate its citizens for what is done on the other side of the planet. Or in wanting to charge a non-citizen for doing something in another country that isn't against the law in that country or in his. Our copyright law keeps getting expanded, by new legislation written by the MPAA et al, the same with computer crime law, which pretty much ensures everyone who uses a computer is a felon many times over.

Nicko · **#18** by **Nicko** » Dec 20, 2015 2:12 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:If said films were available on Mars to purchase legally, then yes, the would arguably be harming the producers of them. Basically, I don't think anyone is harmed if a North Korean gets a pirated copy of the new Star Wars film or a Saudi Arabian man accesses some gay porn because they were never going to sell them in those territories anyway.

Thommo · **#19** by **Thommo** » Dec 20, 2015 3:59 pm

Animavore wrote:
I'm With Stupid wrote:If said films were available on Mars to purchase legally, then yes, the would arguably be harming the producers of them. Basically, I don't think anyone is harmed if a North Korean gets a pirated copy of the new Star Wars film or a Saudi Arabian man accesses some gay porn because they were never going to sell them in those territories anyway.

Which raises the question: is it ok to hop across the border to a country which has no copyright laws to binge watch some movies every couple of months? After all, it's ok for me to go to Amsterdam and smoke weed.

I think that's a really good question.

james_gnz · **#20** by **james_gnz** » Dec 20, 2015 11:04 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:If said films were available on Mars to purchase legally, then yes, the would arguably be harming the producers of them. Basically, I don't think anyone is harmed if a North Korean gets a pirated copy of the new Star Wars film or a Saudi Arabian man accesses some gay porn because they were never going to sell them in those territories anyway.

Okay, so the moral right depends on availability? I guess for me this raises the issue of what is (sufficient?) availability. I'm wondering whether financial position has a role in this. e.g. If someone in one country has $350 a week to live on, and someone in another country has $14 a week to live on, would a copy be sufficiently available to both people if it's available at $100? Do you have a clear idea of sufficient availability in mind?