|
|
|
|
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 7:56:33 AM | A man is thinking of writing a book, but that puts him in a bit of an ethical dilemma. Some of the terrific minds that turn up (surprisingly) in a lonelyhearts forum might be able to help him out of his dilemma.
He is an ethical man who does not acknowledge the thing we generally call "property", preferring instead the concept of "fair use" of resources. This extends to "intellectual property." The concept of "I said it so it's mine and I want a royalty" is personally abhorrent to him (except for giving non-monetary rightful acknowledgment for it's creation to the original author - give credit where it's due).
While the book may not be given away (the costs of publishing/distributing should be covered), the man does not feel "right" taking a royalty, but he may soon find himself monetarily impoverished if his non-profit business fails.
Is it right for him to take a royalty (or is he being inauthentic and therefore a hypocrite)?
If so, should he only take enough to get by and contribute the difference to some charity or foundation? | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:11:17 AM | | I think your ethics are admirable, but unfortunatly untill everyone agrees and we live in a society that supports this vision you have no choice but to take a royalty. If you cant survive you cant write, if you have to work in a burgerjoint to pay your bills, you cant write, in the society we live in you are entitled to compensation for your work, thats our reality right now. and if your work and writing is going to progress your vision for fair use of resources I dont think you are being hypocritical. Lots of people working in the persoanl growth and sustainable living sectors are making a good living and also with more money behind them are reaching out to a larger audiance. Its a process Dukky, you cant jump to from A directly to Z without the steps in the middle. Publish your book, make a living, make a good living if you can and spend your profits spreading the word! Give workshops, etc. Let me know where I can buy a copy! | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:16:44 AM | I'd take what's neccessary to cover the cost of the book and donate the remainder. I think taking any remaining profit and the hypocracy of it as u say would create a bad name for him and a lot of people would be turned off from buying it in the first place. I'd also write a disclaimer saying "the profits from this book" blah blah blah...just so people know and don't put it down while scoffing.
Good luck. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:19:28 AM | @ Scenicgirl
Isn't that being inauthentic? You know..."Do as I preach, not as I do?" | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:33:05 AM | | well I wouldn't think you were being inauthentic, I'm sure you would need to think it out more and clearly state in your book that any profit is going to be invested into progressing your vision. I dont think money is evil however it is a resource, its the misuse of money that is evil. some who do (think its evil) may think you are being inauthentic. I can only speak for myself. I dont think you should suffer, be hungry or not have the basic requirements to work comfortaably in order to wish for a better society. Thats counterproductive! | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 8:55:47 AM |
A man is thinking of writing a book, but that puts him in a bit of an ethical dilemma. Some of the terrific minds that turn up (surprisingly) in a lonelyhearts forum might be able to help him out of his dilemma.
The only ethical dilemma I see is, killing trees to print a book when it could just be published on the internet.
While the book may not be given away (the costs of publishing/distributing should be covered), the man does not feel "right" taking a royalty,...
One time fee for the author is all you need, then the knowledge could be shared with all that have a pc with an internet connection. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 9:22:05 AM | I don’t see an ethical dilemma. If I understand correctly, the purpose of writing the book is to promote and educate a concept that will benefit society.
If good people do not speak up, then the evil ones will rule.
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
--Albert Einstein
People not only have a right, but an obligation to promote and defend the good, even if it requires using resources, which may be contrary to our beliefs.
Why not write the book and donate proceeds to the freeman society. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 9:25:19 AM | No matter what you do, you have to follow the laws of "intellectual property", if you take writings from someone else, and it is proven that those were someone else's writings that is consider plagiarism, and are the "intellectual property" of the person who wrote it.
Thereby you have to get permission to publish those works.
Of course there are ways around these kind of things, but that is something said writer has to figure out as authentic, and ethical... | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 9:38:52 AM | No matter what you do, you have to follow the laws of "intellectual property"
False. Nobody can be lawfully bound by a law to which they do not subscribe.
Rights and obligations are determined by consensus between the parties concerned. Where there is no consensus, there is no law binding the parties either to the right, or the obligation. One comes under the jurisdiction of laws of the other party when denying them a right they claim in such a way that causes them harm. Does it "harm" someone not to pay them a compliment, or give them tribute?
Of course there are ways around these kind of things, but that is something said writer has to figure out as authentic, and ethical...
The above would be the way "around" it. Is it ethical? In terms of acknowledging an author, I would say it injures him to deny him credit for his work (and could even be fraudulent to imply such work is one's own), but that no injury results in not giving him tribute or royalty, when the rights to royalties are not claimed for oneself.
Further discussion about this would be a digression from topic, better discussed on another thread, but for now, consider the author bound only by those obligations that are entailed in claiming a right. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 9:49:03 AM |
the man does not feel "right" taking a royalty, but he may soon find himself monetarily impoverished if his non-profit business fails.
There is nothing wrong with providing a service and benefiting from it. As long as the service was provided without deception, and the benefit was given freely. All humans need to survive, and the only way we can within this society we are born into, is to trade services and or products.
Where I think your ethics come in to question is when a service is provided for the purpose of gaining unfair compensation through monopoly, (or virtual monopoly) of providing that service, in order to achieve wealth, and power over others. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:01:14 AM | | I guess the question is, do you think anyone is entitled to have the government impose laws which ensure that person profits from his chosen profession? You are entitled to whatever you can get someone to pay for the work you do. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:12:06 AM | "False. Nobody can be lawfully bound by a law to which they do not subscribe." -JustDukky
-That statement is just asinine. Might makes right....or if it's not right, it still determines who wins.
As to the original question:
"preferring instead the concept of "fair use" of resources" - JustDukky
-If I understand your intent correctly, then I would say that it depends on whether the person is capable of surviving through the 'fair use' of resources while the current system is still in place around him. If someone is able to make 'fair use' without participating in the exchange of goods and services through the use of money, then I would say the person is a hypocrite for doing so. If however, the current system prevents 'fair use' from being even minimally functional, then I don't think that it's unreasonable for the person to continue to work within the current system for at least what is necessary for survival. However, dying for your beliefs is often effective in winning converts. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:36:02 AM |
Is it right for him to take a royalty (or is he being inauthentic and therefore a hypocrite)?
If so, should he only take enough to get by and contribute the difference to some charity or foundation?
I entertain a philosophical view which rests on the word symbiosis. It is hypocritical if the man does not take the royalty and suffers because of it. Furthermore who would own the rights to the intellectual property? If not the man, then most likely someone else who would gladly use the ideas from the property to earn what should have been for the man. If the man had kids and the royalty would help in establishing their future then the man would have done a great injustice by preventing this royalty from helping his children. I think its a misunderstanding to believe that in this situation not taking the royalty is ethically correct. If he does take the royalty then he is at liberty to help charitable foundations and himself. If he doesn't then he can't help charitable foundations and himself. The latter is less wise and less ethical. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:51:49 AM | Everyone has their own ethical barometer, and their own measurement of authenticity. In my experience, it depends how large (or small) their conscience and/or their self-awareness is.
The concept of "I said it so it's mine and I want a royalty" is personally abhorrent
This denotes a sense of entitlement. No wonder this man finds it personally abhorrent.
While the book may not be given away (the costs of publishing/distributing should be covered), the man does not feel "right" taking a royalty, but he may soon find himself monetarily impoverished if his non-profit business fails.
Receiving a royalty for a publication is not about being paid for a writer's intellectual ideas. It is about being paid for one's time and energy spent in writing, and publishing a book.
Is it right for him to take a royalty (or is he being inauthentic and therefore a hypocrite)?
He would only be hypocritical if he was receiving a royalty on a book that was about selfless service, and how writers should not be paid for the distribution of their ideas.
Inauthenticity. He can copyright the book, but offer a disclaimer or even a dedication, that the ideas presented in this book, are meant to be shared, and plagiarism is acceptable.
I have seen some authors do this, despite their publishers point of view.
If so, should he only take enough to get by and contribute the difference to some charity or foundation?
This would depend on the intentions of the writer. I believe it is okay for a writer to receive monetary compensation for their effort. What they choose to do with that is their own choice, and how they view their relationship with the world around them...
If this man wants to publish this book, on his own, then he may want to only charge for the covering of cost and distribution. But then there is that non-profit business...if the book is a reflection of the non-profit business, then he could justify the cost of the material as a sustainable income for the promotion of the non-profit business... | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:01:50 AM |
Might makes right....or if it's not right, it still determines who wins.
Only if you don't believe in justice. Don't confuse the laws of nature (that there is no justice and life is intrinsically unfair) with natural law (that introduces fairness (justice) to society to level the playing field.)
Justice exists because we have created it. That's (theoretically at least) why we have courts and judges.
If someone is able to make 'fair use' without participating in the exchange of goods and services through the use of money, then I would say the person is a hypocrite for doing so.
Would you say that someone who picks a fruit from a tree in order to eat in order to live is being a hypocrite if nobody owns the tree? If you owned the tree, would it be right for you to deny him sustenance by right of your shotgun? What if it were the only tree left, and the whole planet depended on it for oxygen? Would it be right or wrong to shoot you (since you have a shotgun and might use it) and take your tree from you to ensure you never cut it down? What made it your tree? Your shotgun? What makes it our tree? Because we get the drop on you?
Sorry, this fascist "might makes right" principle may be the one some subscribe to, but I never will. I'd rather just say that we can't "own" anything that we don't physically need for survival. The best we can do is claim something and hope there is no rightful claim that conflicts with ours, and if so, negotiate a settlement.
dying for your beliefs is often effective in winning converts.
Granted, but I would say dying to establish one's moral right and obligation to live and let live might be a little extreme, not to say paradoxical. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:08:30 AM |
He would only be hypocritical if he was receiving a royalty on a book that was about selfless service
So the ethics may be attached to the subject matter? What if it IS about that? What if it ISN'T -- Does it make a difference ethically speaking?
I have seen some authors do this, despite their publishers point of view.
Woody Guthrie GAVE his music away (during the depression no less), putting it into the public domain immediately. I always loved his music. I loved it all the more when I found out that little factoid. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:09:22 AM | It depends on what the book is about and the points you are trying to make. Could taking money for it undermine the ideas being brought forth? Are their opponents to your idea that could use that as ammunition to undermine your ideas?
If taking money can in anyway skew the perception of your ideas being discussed then I say no, don't take money. Find a free means of publication such as an on-line book. Some authors have gained notoriety in some circles they would have otherwise not had if they charged for their work but published it for free download on the internet.
In a case where I felt my ideas were important enough to publish, I wouldn't let a couple of $100 dollars in fees stop me. If I can't invest that much in my own ideas, who else will?
If taking money relates to your own ethics and not to the ideas being discussed in the book, then this is about being compensated for a professional career choice. What you do with the proceeds is up to you.
I personally feel somewhat similar as you. If I were getting a windfall from my ideas, I'd likely take what I need to survive than give back in a way that I wanted to. My money..my choices where to invest it. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:13:44 AM |
My money..my choices where to invest it.
What if you didn't believe it was your money, but the "property" of anyone who needed it enough to claim some? | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:24:36 AM | Dukky...to write a book and try to make the world a better place. What an honorable thing to do :).
If the man writing the book was a good man who played fair his whole life then perhaps he deserves to live out the rest of it in comfort. Money is comfort before the book. Who knows, aloooong way down the line, the mans book might of changed that. It is the times we live in. If that mans survival in a money driven world requires money for him to maintain and continue the spreading of his wisdom in the comfort he deserves....then let him survive in comfort. The message of his book would not be lost. At a push, it may be lost to a tiny number who would seek to discredit the author.
In my view, that's awright. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:40:48 AM |
Rights and obligations are determined by consensus between the parties concerned.
Within the scope of consensus, the majority rules, and does not mean an unanimous decision has been achieved. It is applicable when a group has to make a decision, and a goal must be achieved. (Sucks sometimes, doesn't it. Ostracization vs. non-compliance...and the result of that...whole other discussion.)
An unanimous decision is achieved through mutual agreement amongst peers. Key term being "peers". Easier to attain within a smaller group...
So the ethics may be attached to the subject matter? What if it IS about that? What if it ISN'T -- Does it make a difference ethically speaking?
There is a distinction between ethics and authenticity. The two are not synonymous, however they may be interchangeable. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:46:58 AM |
Would you say that someone who picks a fruit from a tree in order to eat in order to live is being a hypocrite if nobody owns the tree? If you owned the tree, would it be right for you to deny him sustenance by right of your shotgun? What if it were the only tree left, and the whole planet depended on it for oxygen? Would it be right or wrong to shoot you (since you have a shotgun and might use it) and take your tree from you to ensure you never cut it down? What made it your tree? Your shotgun? What makes it our tree? Because we get the drop on you?
Well isn't that how wars are started? A wants resource C but B also wants resource C. There has to be conflict and competition. Its only natural. And its the way nature works. The fittest survive. Fortunately the judicial system, human rights and the likes are leveling the playing field. Its what I would like to call social evolution.
Its nice to embrace benevolence in such an altruistic way, but humans are not purely altruistic. There has been countless times in the history of man where the nice guys have been utterly trampled on or taken advantage of because of this type of altruism.
I'd rather just say that we can't "own" anything that we don't physically need for survival.
What does this mean? Does this mean that if a person has all the basics that they need to survive then anything more is excess and they therefore should not own it? If I understand correctly then I can say its a nice way of thinking but not true to reality. Humans want to survive. A great method of survival is through a group. The most important group is family. This family doesn't have to be blood but where one has such a family there should be loyalty and dedication. The view of not owning anything after all basic needs are met is detrimental to a family because the more one owns the more likely it is for a family to survive. It effectively destroys the basic infrastructure a society is built on and opens up more conflict and competition.
The view here seems very socialistic. Socialism works for a small number of people but in the grand matter of things it really isn't effective. Human nature makes it easy to turn something altruistic into something very ugly. Some people embrace ethical egoism, according to which one's actions ought to further one's own interests. Everyone is guilty of that in some way (even those believing solely in altruism). That's why "intellectual property" is important and should be supported. If one chooses to not want royalty or ownership of ones idea then that is their business. But if it is asked whether or not it is more ethical to not want ownership of an Idea then in defense to artists who make a living on "intellectual property" I have to wholeheartedly disagree. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:50:22 AM |
The above would be the way "around" it. Is it ethical? In terms of acknowledging an author, I would say it injures him to deny him credit for his work (and could even be fraudulent to imply such work is one's own), but that no injury results in not giving him tribute or royalty, when the rights to royalties are not claimed for oneself.
Due credit is my point...
As well if a person has legal copy rights to their work, then you will have infringed upon their rights... It is considered intellectual property, especially if it is copy righted. Expressed permission has to be given of its use.
You did not state what kind of works you were using. "intellectual property" on the internet is a new area of law, and is sketchy in some areas.
In my classes, if I use any piece of a source, I have to site that person. If it is copy righted material, and I were to have my work published, and or filed with the university library, I would have to have expressed written consent to use any part of that source.
I am NOT writing a book, however in my Masters work, I may be required to have a published thesis, which would require reputable primary sources...
Does it cause harm?
People get offended about all sorts of things, and claim all sorts of mental anguish, proving harm is up to the person who feels they have been harmed... 
DISCLAIMER, THIS IN NO WAY IS LEGAL ADVICE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SEEN AS SUCH... Just a friendly exchange on possible legal rights, and what may or may not harm another... Any advice on this matter would be best suited by speaking to a copy write attorney... | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:20:44 PM |
At a push, it may be lost to a tiny number who would seek to discredit the author. In my view, that's awright.
But the hypocrisy...Oh, the humanity!! How much does the author need?
I've always dreamed of spending a few million on a first-rate observatory...but at my latitude & altitude, it would largely be a waste of good equipment. It could be built at high elevation nearer the equator, but then I'd have to move there to use it much and my "property" would then be dictating to me how I should live my life.
I've wanted a Bugatti Veyron ever since they came out (and still do -- 250+mph), but somehow I'd feel rotten spending 2 million on a car for a few thrills when I'd be driving past people who can't even feed their families.
Einstein (bless his heart) was a humble man in many ways. He was obsessed by his work (a la Van Gogh - another of my heroes) and wouldn't have cared if he got a nickel for it; he could do no other. After he "wised up" (got older), all he wanted was to continue his work in an environment close to his peers (Princeton IAS), a bar of soap to wash with, a couple of slip-on sweaters and some tobacco for his pipe. Who could begrudge him that for Chrissake...Look what he gave us in return!
As an aside (digression from topic), I used to laugh at the "less gifted." In the days of my vile, selfish, money-grubbing, take-what-you-can-and-run, miserably unhappy existence, I used to laugh at (and simultaneously feel bad for - I was a bit human even then) the "downs syndrome" kids, thinking they were kind of a waste of resources if they couldn't even "earn their keep."
I did eventually notice that they seemed to be irrepressibly happy, while I was kinda miserable, and formulated a hypothesis that happiness and intelligence were inversely related. The more you know, the unhappier you are. If someone was happy, it was only because he didn't know what was really going on. If knowledge is power, it is also misery.
One day, I had an experience that I can only describe as nirvana. I finally assembled the jigsaw puzzle of life and saw the Big Picture. I was not unlike Scrooge on that fateful Christmas morning. People thought I was nuts until I finally came to enough of my senses and shut my mouth. Nobody thinks I'm back to "normal" because I'm nothing like the man I was, but they seem to appreciate the change, so it couldn't have been a bad one. Ever since then, I have been "as good a man and as good a master, as the good olde towne ever knew." and every breath I take is filled with the pure joy of living.
I know now how we should live our lives to achieve true happiness, and I want everyone to share this ecstasy. I want us all to live in this heaven and to banish hell from the earth because it no longer has a place here. Most of all, I wish someone would listen, because it would be so easy to change the world, simply by changing ourselves into better people, one at a time...
Oh yes...The "downs kids" they are the most valuable people on the planet...They can teach even the most brilliant & arrogant of us the most valuable lesson of all... how to be happy. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:35:12 PM |
As an aside (digression from topic), I used to laugh at the "less gifted." In the days of my vile, selfish, money-grubbing, take-what-you-can-and-run, miserably unhappy existence, I used to laugh at (and simultaneously feel bad for - I was a bit human even then) the "downs syndrome" kids, thinking they were kind of a waste of resources if they couldn't even "earn their keep."
I did eventually notice that they seemed to be irrepressibly happy, while I was kinda miserable,...
Now I see your point and can agree. Especially because of the following...
In 2006, the NEF (New Economics Foundation) released the results of a comprehensive study they’d done on happiness in various countries in the form of the Happy Planet Index. The goal was to find a way to measure the success of a society other than things like GDP or HDI. Its a little simplistic to call the index a measure of happiness since its really intended to be a measure of a society’s capability to sustain and produce a happy populace. Which is more different than you might think. For those that are interested the Wikipedia page on the HPI discusses it pretty thoroughly.
Anyway, Vanuatu came out on top all things considered. In fact the top ten are nearly all third-world countries. But this isn’t too surprising to those who have spent time in a third-world country, since it doesn’t take long to realize that financial success ≠ societal happiness.
The link between happiness and materialism is a hazy one. But I think ownership or due credit for ones Ideas is something that should continue. If one wants to make money and be greedy about it is a different story. | |
|
| What would you do and why?
Posted: 7/28/2009 12:47:39 PM | "Justice exists because we have created it." - JustDukky
-Well, now you are talking about 'we', while I though we were talking about the individual. "False. Nobody can be lawfully bound by a law to which they do not subscribe." Was your original statement, which I dispute on the grounds that the individual lacks sufficient power to override the law (unless of course that individual is the ruler, king, lawmaker, supreme authority etc). I do not at all dispute that a group of individuals, of sufficient size or strength, could refuse to be bound by a law to which they do not subscribe.
If you are part of a group, that you are not capable of leaving, and that has established a law with which you disagree, you are free to attempt to act against that law. However, the legality of it's enforcement is defined by the side with the power. You may claim that their decisions or laws are unjust, but that doesn't change the fact that they can restrain or punish you with their superior power.
If you can leave the group and they have insufficient power to enforce their laws on you, then sure, you cannot be legally bound by the law with which you disagree. However, I have yet to see this in practice (at least in recent times), and don't believe that it is currently possible.
Natural law may be used to criticize positive law, but it is up to those who have (regardless of how they got it) sufficient power to determine which will 'win' out. If you happen to experiment with your immunity to laws that you don't agree with, please let me know how that works out so that I can change my views accordingly.
-Keep in mind that the statement that I made about 'Might makes right' was qualified. I don't actually believe that power makes the wielder 'right', but I do believe that power gives them the ability to impose their laws upon others (unless a superior power stops them).
As far as the example of the tree, are you asking for my opinion? Or are you asking for my opinion based on my interpretation of your statements in the OP? That was what I attempted to do in my first post, by trying to put myself in his place. Without a detailed definition of what is meant by 'fair use' or an adequate description of his personal version of ethics, it was conjecture at best. Can you elaborate on what is meant by 'fair use'? Since you mentioned it's opposition to 'property', I assumed that it was either a form of communal ownership or 'right to use' based on need. The opposition to receiving royalties seemed to imply the latter. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
