proving "moral grounds" would be a very abstract affair
Oh we're avoiding all talk of things that are abstract now?
Tell me then: What colour is a property right? What's it taste like? How much does it weigh? What is it shaped like? Where did it come from?
making it impractical
If you want to talk purely about practical reality then it's technically impossible Nintendo to prevent mass-scale infringement of their copyrights anyway so in that case why should anyone care what the law says?
If you don't believe morality or normative arguments like "should" have relevance here then you don't really have any grounds to complain when people that can ignore the law choose to do so.
From the moment their rights were violated, they were able to counteract.
"Able to" this. "Able to" that. A study recently found that a quarter of all worldwide internet bandwidth use is dedicated to the violation of copyright laws. Nintendo isn't able to prosecute all of the people downloading their games let alone the ones who just want to listen to a poorly-compressed MP3 of the Rainbow Road theme.
As I said to the other dumbass
Lol. You're mad.
you don't need to check whether or not a trespasser has done "quantifiable harm" before kicking him or her out of your property
Copyright and land rights aren't the same thing lol. You can't go around calling people names about that where not even the legal system would agree there.
"Your Honor! Copyright is about the control of intellectual property just like drugs laws are about controlled substances. Therefore when you think about it copyright infringement is really the same thing as cocaine!"
That's not how things work here.
We're not inside a court room. We're having a philosophical disagreement on a public forum. That's exactly how things work here.
You can't just say "The law says this is fine so it must fine and everyone who disagrees has to shut up" and expect anyone to buy that. You want to make the claim that the law is right and we should keep it around? You have to justify that claim.
breaching copyrights is harmful in itself
No it's not. If the harm goes away the second a party stops saying "I am harmed" then there was never any material harm to begin with. The harm was as abstract as those morals you say don't matter.
(That's not to say that copyright infringement can't *ever* be harmful. I fully acknowledge circumstances exist where it would result in quantifiable harm and in those cases neither I nor any other reasonable person would oppose its continued illegality. This specific case however is not one of those circumstances.)
Nintendo can do whatever they want
In strictly legal terms maybe. In ethical or practical terms? Nope.
It's the same as someone fetching an old bike off your garage and then claiming: "hey yo, you you don't put it to use for years, so I can ride now".
You know if you acknowledged the basic differences between intellectual property and physical property like a normal person then maybe you'd be able to make better analogies.
If someone takes your bike you no longer have that bike. Do you think that if someone downloads a song then Nintendo has lost that song forever? Like there was only one copy of Bob-Omb Battlefield in the entire world and now thanks to GilvaSunner it's in the hands of some random Youtube surfer?
I hate to break it to you but if that's the case then the sole copy of Bob-Omb Battlefield to ever exist has been lost to Nintendo forever... uhhh 291,000 times according to the top result on Youtube.
If you are really interested in debating, please don't make things up. It not only looks bad, but is definitely dishonest.
I agree! It looked very bad when you made up that GilvaSunner was monetising his videos.
And when you made up that copyright can be lost like land rights if not defended.
And when you made up a bunch of nonsense about how Universal "lost King Kong's copyright".
And when you made up that physical property rights are the exact same thing as intellectual property rights.
And when you said it was unreasonable to expect 20 year old music to enter the public domain even though for centuries it could enter the public domain after only 14.
It also looked incredibly bad when you said that the law shouldn't conform to any kind of moral standards though at least in that case you were at least being honest.
There is no positive "right to access to music".
Sorry but you're wrong. Moral rights exist whether the law recognises them or not.
"The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions-knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas- became, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use. -Justice Lous Brandeis
I wonder what is this "North American constitution" you speak of.
I'm not certain why or how you can think it makes you look good to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about just because I didn't use some formal title that no one ever uses.
Yeah I didn't capitalise a letter. My bad lol?
I don't think that really compares to you not understanding the meaning of the phrase "The Congress shall have the Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
And the fever dream goes on. Do you realize that you have just confirmed your own mental inepcy? If Nintendo harms you by taking away access to their music, then I ask you: what is the quantifiable harm being done to you?
Wow. It's honestly a little impressive how you thought this was some sort of devastating own when... I detailed the quantifiable harm being done to me in literally the next line.
Like I specifically said the words "And incidentally that harm to me is actually quantifiable" and went on to describe how to quantify it.
Were you so proud of yourself for "mental inepcy" that you just didn't notice that I had answered your apparent ace-in-the-hole rhetorical question... before you even asked it?
Your proposed quantification is, to say the least, fantastic...
Oh good you did see it.... and you still decided to make that above comment anyway lmao
If you can explain how the idea of physical goods having value denoted by monetary pricing is "fantastic" then by all means do so.
They should go out of their way and let me listen to OSTs of games I already own!
Stop right there. I never said anything about listening to the OSTs of games that one already owns.
If you already own the game you don't have the moral right to listen to the OST -- you do however have the moral right to be able to rip a copy of that music for your own personal use.
That's a different conversation though.
But it's not like rights actually originate from your desires.
I agree! Moral rights originate from a system of ethics and not desires.
Nintendo desires to stop people from listening to certain songs; they lack both the moral grounds and the practical capacity to do so.
Please, stop strawmanning this. I get it, you want to listen to the music.
Yeeeah... no. I actually don't like listening to game music all that much lol.
(And if I did I wouldn't use Youtube.)
((And if I did use Youtube then GilvaSunner's removal wouldn't impact me anyway since there's like 12 other channels on the same site offering the same albums.))
I oppose what Nintendo is doing on principle.
Yeah, [heroes] steal content. Nice.
"Prometheus did not want to live amongst the clouds on Mount Olympus. He was too busy for that. While the gods were spending their time in idleness, drinking nectar and eating ambrosia, he was planning how to make the world wiser and better than it had ever been before.
So instead of living on Olympus, Prometheus went out amongst men to live with them and help them and he quickly noticed that they were no longer happy as they had been during the golden days when Kronos, the titan, was king. He found them living in caves and in holes of the earth, shivering with the cold because there was no fire, dying of starvation, hunted by wild beasts and by one another—the most miserable of all living creatures.
"If they only had fire," said Prometheus to himself, "they could at least warm themselves and cook their food; and after a while they could learn to make tools and build themselves houses. Without fire, they are worse off than the beasts."
Prometheus went boldly to Zeus and begged him to give fire to the people, so that so they might have a little comfort through the long, dreary months of winter.
"I will not!" said Zeus, "Not one spark will I share with them! For if men had fire they might become strong and wise like us, and after a while they would drive us out of our kingdom. Besides, fire is a dangerous tool and they are too poor and ignorant to be trusted with it. It is better that we on Mount Olympus rule the world without threat so all can be happy."
"Mankind shall have fire, despite what Zeus has decided," he said to himself. And with that thought, he snuck quietly into Zeus' domain and stole a spark from Zeus' own lightning bolt. Prometheus touched the end of the long reed to the spark, and the dry substance within it caught on fire and burned slowly. Prometheus hurried back to his own land, carrying with him the precious spark hidden in the hollow center of the plant.
When he reached home, he called some of the shivering people from their caves and built a fire for them, and showed them how to warm themselves by it and use it to cook their food. Men and women gathered round the fire and were warm and happy, and thankful to Prometheus for the wonderful gift which he had brought to them."
it just so happens that you can't force them to engage on that business front. That's up to them, not to us.
Disallowing them from going after someone like GilvaSunner under certain specific conditions isn't "forcing them to engage on a business front." Engaging on that business front would just be an action that Nintendo could take to void GilvaSunner's moral claim.
They'd be perfectly free to continue not-selling their OSTs until the end of time.
I own a lot of unused stuff here at home. Following your logic, I shouldn't complain in case someone steals, say, my 20 year old Pokémon TCG Gameboy cartridge, because, after all, it's just "sitting on my basement".[quote]
Your TCG Gameboy cartridge is a physical good. By definition someone stealing it from your possession deprives you the ability to derive value from that good.
Preventing you from deriving value from that good is a quantifiable harm btw.
(Do you notice how your analogy breaks down for the same reason that you can't answer the question that started this? Funny coincidence that.)
[quote]I don't know if you have ever heard about a little thing called analogy, but I believe even you can grasp the fact that rules that affect what is big can affect what is small, mutatis mutandis.
Your analogy is based on the idea that we should treat physical property and intellectual property the same. We don't and never have lol. Not morally. Not practically. Not legally.
In the end, your whole broken thesis would mean the dismantling of property rights
Ah yes. The "slippery slope" argument: We can't let gay people legally marry because then we'd have to let people legally marry dogs and rocks and then the entire institution of marriage would collapse!
Or. You know. We could just make same-sex marriage legal and also keep dog-marriage and rock-marriage illegal.
You know. That thing that countries actually did and which has not resulted in a godless Bacchanalia of bestiality and... rockiality?
We can't even slightly relax copyright laws one iota or else people will steal my Gameboy!
Or. You know. We can. And they won't.