Utilitarianism vs Rights Based Ethics

[Lord MJ]

I was wondering what all of you think on the subject of Utilitarianism vs Rights Based ethics.

Were utilitarianism says the whether an action is ethical really depends on the effects the action has (and somewhat the intent of the action.) Rights based ethics mainly focuses on whether the actor had the right to commit the act.

Utilitarianism says, if your action harms someone it is wrong (provided of course that greater harm wouldn't result from not doing the action, and there is no alternative action available that would not harm someone).

Rights based ethics says that an action is not wrong if you have the right to do it, and an action is only wrong if someone's rights are violated.

One major criticism people have is that it forces people to do things that they have the right not to do. Or in some cases says it's okay to violate other people's rights.

My response is that in the first case even if you consider having to do something that you do not want to be harmful to you, if you do the math and see that the harm of doing the action is less then the harm of not doing it, then you have to do it anyway. In the second case, if the harm done by violating someone's rights is less then what harm would be done if you don't violate those rights, then violating those rights is the ethical choice. (The whole socialized medicine debate comes to mind when dealing with people who argue it's wrong because the government is taking people's money....)

I really don't see any value in rights based ethics. It seems to be only one step better than egoism as an ethical system. (Egoism basically being a self utilitarianism).

What do you think?

Also I see some people reject utilitarianism because it is altruism. They are two different philosophies, and there are cases when altruistic behavior is every bit as wrong under utilitarianism as being completely egoistic is. If the total amount of harm done by being altruistic is greater than a non altruistic act in a given situation, then the altruistic act is wrong under utilitarianism.

[Kanastrous]

I'm very sympathetic to Utilitarianism.

I think it's less popular than rights-based ethics, because it can require a lot more analysis of the situation-at-hand, than simply looking up the right specific rule, and following it.

And, different people have very different ideas as to what constitutes 'the greater good.'

[Wyrm]

One major criticism people have is that it forces people to do things that they have the right not to do. Or in some cases says it's okay to violate other people's rights.

My response is that in the first case even if you consider having to do something that you do not want to be harmful to you, if you do the math and see that the harm of doing the action is less then the harm of not doing it, then you have to do it anyway. In the second case, if the harm done by violating someone's rights is less then what harm would be done if you don't violate those rights, then violating those rights is the ethical choice. (The whole socialized medicine debate comes to mind when dealing with people who argue it's wrong because the government is taking people's money....)

In utilitarianism, you don't really have rights per se to be violated by another's (or even your own) actions; instead, you have interests that can be caused harm by those actions. Causing harm to people's interests lowers the ethicalness of an action, but it doesn't necessarily make the action unethical. That depends on how the utility of an action measures up to other actions.

I really don't see any value in rights based ethics. It seems to be only one step better than egoism as an ethical system. (Egoism basically being a self utilitarianism).

Actually, rights-based ethical systems have the virtue that ethical actions are compactly and efficiently codified into a set of guidelines. That, in itself, has utility, as you don't have to carry out a decision analysis on each and every one of your available actions. Even if your set of available actions is only reduced and not determined by those rights, this still reduces the amount of work you have to do to come up with a decision. Provided, of course, that the rights themselves are chosen sensibly.

How do we chose these rights sensibly? By utilitarianism, of course!

Unless by 'rights-based ethical system' you specifically mean that the rights themselves are considered sacrosanct, I don't see how the two are contradictory: you can use utilitarianism to choose the right set of rights to give, and have the adoption of a rights-based system with a good set of rights (and a means to revise them as needed) be in itself a utilitarian decision.

The utilitarian calculation doesn't even need to be explicit and carried out in gory detail. For instance, we know what happens when the right to free speech is curtailed, and we don't like the outcomes under such restrictions. Therefore, we consider the right to free speech to be worth having, warts and all.

Also I see some people reject utilitarianism because it is altruism. They are two different philosophies, and there are cases when altruistic behavior is every bit as wrong under utilitarianism as being completely egoistic is. If the total amount of harm done by being altruistic is greater than a non altruistic act in a given situation, then the altruistic act is wrong under utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism doesn't have to be altruistic — such things are very sensitive to your utility function. A utility function that puts your welfare above all others, including society as a whole, will be just as egoist as any rights-based system.

[Darth Wong]

The big problem with rights-based ethics is that it becomes insensitive to changing circumstances. This is very similar to the underlying problem of religious tradition-based ethics. In both cases, you can come up with a set of rules which make perfect sense at the time, but maybe they won't make sense five hundred years down the road. Unfortunately, the nature of the ethics system is that people instinctively oppose any attempt to update it.

We're seeing an example of that right now, with copyright and the changes wrought by the information age. The notion of "intellectual property right" has become traditionalized, and hence people will fight tooth and nail to keep it, and no argument is possible no matter how much overwhelming evidence is available that its traditional definition is now harming society. Once it becomes a "right", people think you are assaulting them if you try to change it.

Just look at how the argument is typically framed:

"You're fucking up the whole goddamned computer industry, and harming society at large."

"Yes, but we're protecting our rights."

"What about the damage you're doing?"

"Yes, but we're protecting our rights."

"You're actually terrorizing people over this, for fuck's sake."

"Yes, but we're protecting our rights."

It's a brick wall, and that's what happens once people get the idea in their heads that something is a "right".

[Kanastrous]

Since I work within the entertainment business, intellectual property rights are of interest, to me.

Is there a reason to change the assumption that the creator of a valuable work, has a right to profit by that work, and that others only have rights to the work as assigned them by that creator?

For me, that's the core of intellectual-property issues. I don't know whether that's what you had in mind, or whether you meant something else, by 'intellectual property rights."

[Rye]

Rights based ethics is essentially more of a dogmatic, doctrinal system than utilitarianism, so it's more open to unprescribed problems, becoming outdated, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Since I work within the entertainment business, intellectual property rights are of interest, to me.

Is there a reason to change the assumption that the creator of a valuable work, has a right to profit by that work, and that others only have rights to the work as assigned them by that creator?

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

For me, that's the core of intellectual-property issues. I don't know whether that's what you had in mind, or whether you meant something else, by 'intellectual property rights."

See above.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Utilitarianism isn't necessarily incompatible with rights as constructs, but they are not intrinsic to the system. In Utilitarianism, rights can be used as rules of thumb. They have value because they are useful for promoting welfare. Why should someone support a construct for any other reason? Would you really care about rights if they didn't do anything for you? Of course not.

The problem comes when people treat them as absolute, and sometimes, utility calculations on the "everyday" level can become impractical and many people don't have the necessary information, so following general rules might lead to good enough results in most cases, where trying to calculate it would drive you nuts or backfire.

The problem is that sometimes, it's unintuitive to follow the rule when you actually do have information available and it's a rare circumstance. In this case, it becomes somewhat vague and subjective combined with the often difficult-to-weigh variables. It gets gray. Do you violate this right or not?

In this case, standard Utilitarianism would conflict, unless you weigh the rights and the long-term "general benefit" of the rule more than any one instance.

Studying it, I have been trying to come up with a way to avoid waffling back and forth, because I don't feel that I am being consistent in the rule/act problem. There are some cases I just couldn't live with following the rule, but in others, it would probably cause a dangerous if we allowed it. So I am trying to work off of a precedent-form of act calculation based on how often the situation would occure.

[Lord MJ]

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

I actually have no problem with that from a copyright perspective. In that case it is a physical work that belongs to the owner. Of course fair use needs to be maintained.

The harm comes in areas like patents. Patent abuse is a source of a lot of headaches and is a serious burden to society.

[Darth Wong]

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

I actually have no problem with that from a copyright perspective. In that case it is a physical work that belongs to the owner. Of course fair use needs to be maintained.

That is not an answer to my question.

The harm comes in areas like patents. Patent abuse is a source of a lot of headaches and is a serious burden to society.

And copyright is not? Ever heard of the DMCA?

[Lord MJ]

And copyright is not? Ever heard of the DMCA?

The DMCA is not really a problem with copyright itself per se, but a flawed piece of legislation that was tacked on to copyright under the influence of greedy corporations. Under the traditional idea of copyright, even if you are violating the DMCA you are not violating someone's copyright. You are only violating copyright if you use someone's copyrighted work without permission, or distribute it without permission, or make unauthorized copies (beyond reasonable fair use provisions of course.)

[Darth Wong]

And copyright is not? Ever heard of the DMCA?

The DMCA is not really a problem with copyright itself per se, but a flawed piece of legislation that was tacked on to copyright under the influence of greedy corporations. Under the traditional idea of copyright, even if you are violating the DMCA you are not violating someone's copyright. You are only violating copyright if you use someone's copyrighted work without permission, or distribute it without permission, or make unauthorized copies (beyond reasonable fair use provisions of course.)

Yes yes, I'm aware of the legal arguments. But let's face reality and be practical here: there is no way to enforce the traditional definition of copyright without draconian measures, like the DMCA. Anyone who says otherwise is just kidding himself; the fact is that technology and traditional copyright are on collision courses, and the DMCA was an inevitable outcome of that collision. If the "greedy corporations" did not act the way they did, then copyright would indeed start eroding. My argument is that it should erode. Don't pretend that this collision is not happening.

[Kanastrous]

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

Because once something valuable (something that generates profit for you) is legitimately yours, it is yours until you sell it, assign its ownership to someone else, or forfeit ownership of it. If you create something valuable, it is yours by virtue of having created it, and it doesn't pass from your ownership, until you sell it, assign it, etcetera.

We don't place a time limit on how long one may own a piece of valuable real estate, or a vehicle, or whatever else someone may own. Once it's yours, it's your until you blah, blah, blah. It doesn't suddenly become the property of whoever else wants it, after an arbitrary time has passed.

After 95 years, the rights to printed works fall into the public domain, anyway (excluding a very small number of five-year-old authors, that's effectively a continuing return that will last the author's whole life).

That's a grope in the direction of a reasoned argument.

I realize that the real-estate analogy is incomplete, since many copies of a work may be run off, while one house remains one house. But it's the right to own and to view and to limited display of the singular work that's resident on the copy-media that is the item of value, not any single one copy, itself.

At an emotional level...speaking as someone whose rights to profits from the work are governed by contracts and agreements with the producing entities...that's *my* work. No one else created my part, whatever part that might be. No one else contracted with the producers, as to what my rights-to-the-work are. No one else holds my Art Director's card, which means that the ADG has negotiated on my behalf. That's true, individually, for virtually everyone on any given show. So I don't feel that anyone else has a right to decide when we have had a proper amount of compensation for our work, and arbitrarily take the right-to-compensation away from us by pirating our work.

And, practically speaking, the IATSE and ADG and MPHW plans that will one day hopefully allow me to subsist on a superior grade of dog food, are funded in part by returns on theatrical and broadcast and streaming and rental revenues. So every extra-legal copy that takes the place of a legitimately purchased copy, is money siphoned out of my own personal pocket...when I've retired, and will presumably really be needing it.

[Darth Wong]

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

Because once something valuable (something that generates profit for you) is legitimately yours, it is yours until you sell it, assign its ownership to someone else, or forfeit ownership of it.

And why is the right to prevent royalty-free copying "legitimately yours"? All you've done is repackage the premise in different wording, in order to justify itself. Nice circular logic.

I realize that the real-estate analogy is incomplete, since many copies of a work may be run off, while one house remains one house. But it's the right to own and to view and to limited display of the singular work that's resident on the copy-media that is the item of value, not any single one copy, itself.

And you have totally failed to explain why that "right" exists or should be treated as equivalent to ownership of tangible property.

At an emotional level...speaking as someone whose rights to profits from the work are governed by contracts and agreements with the producing entities...that's *my* work.

Your emotional reaction is not a valid argument.

And, practically speaking, the IATSE and ADG and MPHW plans that will one day hopefully allow me to subsist on a superior grade of dog food, are funded in part by returns on theatrical and broadcast and streaming and rental revenues. So every extra-legal copy that takes the place of a legitimately purchased copy, is money siphoned out of my own personal pocket...when I've retired, and will presumably really be needing it.

And how about all of those people who work in industries where they work once and get paid once, instead of working once and then getting paid forever? If it's so horrible to contemplate the idea of only getting paid once for your work, then how do those people live? How about inventors, whose patents only last for 17 years?

[Kanastrous]

This right to profit from that work: why should it last for their entire lives?

Because once something valuable (something that generates profit for you) is legitimately yours, it is yours until you sell it, assign its ownership to someone else, or forfeit ownership of it.

And why is the right to prevent royalty-free copying "legitimately yours"? All you've done is repackage the premise in different wording, in order to justify itself. Nice circular logic.

Because ownership of any materials that you create, falls to you, by virtue of being your being the creator. Who else has a superior claim? How can someone else have a superior claim?

And if the creator of a work owns what she creates, it follows that she also holds the right to profit by what she's created.

And if 'royalty-free' copying means illicit copying that deprives the creator of profits derived from the work that she owns, then the right to prevent that 'royalty-free' copying, is legitimately hers.

I'm not an experienced logician, so my terminology and arguments will doubtless be lacking. All I can do about that, is ask your indulgence in pointing it out.

And you have totally failed to explain why that "right" exists or should be treated as equivalent to ownership of tangible property.

That right is enjoyed by the creator, by virtue of their status as the creator. If claim to the work you create is not intrinsically supported by your role in having created it, then I will admit that I'm operating with such a different ethical map that I would have to politely step away from the discussion for lack of comprehension of your side of it.

Valuable property is valuable property, whether it is tangible or intellectual. Since I am unencumbered by training in real-estate or intellectual-property law, it seems to me that if I have built a house that has monetary value, or painted a painting that has monetary value, or made a film that has monetary value, there's a commonality: I've made something valuable that no one else has made. Therefore no one else has the right to benefit by utilizing it, except according to whatever agreement I make with them, allowing them to do so.

Your emotional reaction is not a valid argument.

That's true. Withdrawn.

And how about all of those people who work in industries where they work once and get paid once, instead of working once and then getting paid forever?

Not all work is creative work. Qualitatively different industries can properly offer their workers qualitatively different compensation, and the work performed by, say, a recording studio team is qualitatively different from that performed by, say, an auto assembly-line crew.

If it's so horrible to contemplate the idea of only getting paid once for your work, then how do those people live?

I'm not sure that pointing out someone else's inability to negotiate their deal to their satisfaction, means that others are wrong to negotiate deals that satisfy them.

How about inventors, whose patents only last for 17 years?

Patents last for 20 years; that is, patent filed post-1995.

I'm honestly not sure that's fair, to inventors. In fact, I think that's distinctly unfair to inventors. Which does not mean that I want to see others subjected to similar unfairness.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so I'm asking...do you feel that everyone who wants a free copy of a given creative work, is in some degree entitled to that free copy, simply because they want it?

[Kanastrous]

Boy, I sure wish I could edit these posts.

There's alwys some mis-spelling, repeated word or chunk of nauseating grammar that I never catch, until it's been posted for real...

[Darth Wong]

Because ownership of any materials that you create, falls to you, by virtue of being your being the creator.

Obviously, you're not grasping this whole "justify your position" concept. You seem to think that if you just keep saying that it's true, then you have somehow justified that it should be true. Have you ever heard of the "is/ought fallacy"?

How about inventors, whose patents only last for 17 years?

Patents last for 20 years; that is, patent filed post-1995.

I'm honestly not sure that's fair, to inventors. In fact, I think that's distinctly unfair to inventors. Which does not mean that I want to see others subjected to similar unfairness.

Do you understand the concept of patent, and why it was created? You are demonstrating exactly the mentality I spoke of; you seem to be incapable of discussing this in terms of social benefit; all you can do is keep repeating that it's a right, and it must be upheld at all costs.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so I'm asking...do you feel that everyone who wants a free copy of a given creative work, is in some degree entitled to that free copy, simply because they want it?

Let me ask you: can you give a reason why this should not be allowed, other than simply saying so?

I can think of one reason, and it's the reason behind patent law, but it also does not justify perpetual or lifetime copyright.

[Kanastrous]

Because ownership of any materials that you create, falls to you, by virtue of being your being the creator.

Obviously, you're not grasping this whole "justify your position" concept. You seem to think that if you just keep saying that it's true, then you have somehow justified that it should be true. Have you ever heard of the "is/ought fallacy"?

Well, I am not arguing that because creators own their work, that's why they should own their work (is that what I appear to have been arguing?)

I am arguing that because they create their work, they own their work. The act of creation invests ownership; ownership doesn't invest ownership.

I realize this is a shift from where I started earlier; forgive me for refining my position as I go along.

This is turning into a fascinating experience for me, because I suspect I'm starting to get a glimmer of what it's like to be religiously faithful. And I am not enjoying it.

The truth is, no, right now I find that I can't offer anything beyond the conviction that creating a given work, means that I own the rights to that work. I am left only with the question: if I do not own what I have created, by virtue of having created it, then who else's claim is superior?

There must be some basis to that perspective, though; it appears to be shared by virtually every creative artist I know, or have heard on the matter, and I believe that a lot of non-creative-artists share it, too.

I'll throw in the towel, there. If having created something doesn't make it mine, then I can't imagine that having purchased it, or having it given to me, or having taken it, would make it mine, either.

I suppose one could argue that it is useful to have a framework within which people are assigned ownsership of what they create, in order to encourage people to continue creating things; hopefully things of value that provide wider benefits to others. But that isn't an argument based upon rights; it's an argument based upon presumed utility.

Do you understand the concept of patent, and why it was created?

Maybe. My understanding is that its purpose is to protect the interests and investment of the inventor for a period of time during which she can recoup her expenses and make a profit, after which the invention becomes freely available on the premise that there are wider social benefits to the diffusion of newly-developed inventions throughout the economy and the technology base.

You are demonstrating exactly the mentality I spoke of; you seem to be incapable of discussing this in terms of social benefit; all you can do is keep repeating that it's a right, and it must be upheld at all costs.

I'm thinking about the social benefits of someone scoring a freebie pirated copy of something for which others are paying, and to which I believe the creator has a moral right to payment...and I am failing to see them. Although I am entirely open to seeing those benefits pointed out.

I'm asking...do you feel that everyone who wants a free copy of a given creative work, is in some degree entitled to that free copy, simply because they want it?

Let me ask you: can you give a reason why this should not be allowed, other than simply saying so?

I can think of one reason, and it's the reason behind patent law, but it also does not justify perpetual or lifetime copyright.

The material is the creator's property by virtue of being the creator's creation. I don't believe this is an is/ought fallacy. And if the material is the creator's property, then the creator has superior rights to control its distribution and to profit from it.

So pirated distribution robs the creator of legitimate compensation for others' use and enjoyment of property she created, and therefore owns. Preventing others from denying the creator profits from her work, is a reason that piracy should not be allowed because it unfairly harms the creator.

Another reason is that we don't make a living by giving things away, for free, that cost a great deal of time and money to create. And if I can't make a living creating the stuff I create, then I will find something else to do for a living, and all of my colleagues will do the same, and the product we make, will stop getting made. At least, by paid professionals like us.

Best I can come up with, right now.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The problem I think he's getting at is not whether or not it IS your property forever, simply because you create it, but whether or not it ought to be your property forever, simply because you created it, regardless of the net consequences to society by implementing that standard.

We might very well say it is the case that something you create is always yours, but that's not to say the way it IS is the say as the way it OUGHT to be.

It is the case that life isn't fair. Should it be?

[Covenant]

There must be some basis to that perspective, though; it appears to be shared by virtually every creative artist I know, or have heard on the matter, and I believe that a lot of non-creative-artists share it, too.

I'll throw in the towel, there. If having created something doesn't make it mine, then I can't imagine that having purchased it, or having it given to me, or having taken it, would make it mine, either.

I suppose one could argue that it is useful to have a framework within which people are assigned ownsership of what they create, in order to encourage people to continue creating things; hopefully things of value that provide wider benefits to others. But that isn't an argument based upon rights; it's an argument based upon presumed utility.

I think that's his point, Kana. At some point, a right to something is superceded by utility--and where we aren't talking about human rights and social freedoms, that's not always a bad thing. The real problem isn't the idea of copyright, but that it's now an OLD idea needing revising. Business should evolve as well.

The thing is, one you put something out into the world, it really does cease to be yours, after a fashion. Ideas permeate society, and copyright suits make it hard to do otherwise creative wor, and is just as likely to force an idea into a slow, painful death than it is to keep it alive. The whole concept of idea ownership is tenuous, and copyrights and patents are designed to reward people for the creation of things, but not really designed to turn them into money machines that never end. It's a problem with the way some industries are run, but shifting to more of a conventional businessmodel wouldn't exactly be a bad thing. I sure know I'm sick of profit-sharing and contractual labor. A regular salary is a safer, more fair method of payment--and copyright holders had a limit on the point at which their copyright would last, it might force some changes in those payment practices.

And also, when I make something at the places I work, I don't own it. It's why I can't use that stuff on my demo reel to get a better job, something which constantly frustrates me. The DMCA further eroded fair use policies, which really just turns modern life into a hassle. The same way that the media industries resisted VHS back in the day, and Beta decks and so on, they resist the more modern types of media usage.

I'm no businessman or economist, so I certainly don't know what a BETTER idea is, but trying to attach a copyright in perpetuity to an idea is really a mess. Just because a bad system has been built up around it isn't a really powerful arguement for the continuation of that practice.

Fair use laws would be a nice place to start.

That said, there are SOME benefits to creative copyrights for the movie industry, at the least. The residuals they make from the old materials they sell allows them to keep on more staff, and make more movies. So the money gets recycled through the system, which is a social good, at least in the sense that it allows them to hire on more crew with the promise of being paid in those same sorts of residuals.

It's interesting to see that the Video Game industry is quite possibly MORE PROFITABLE though, and they do most of their business on a salary system, like other businesses. Seems to work just fine... and you can also go download old games for free.

I would, however, be interested in hearing what most people think of as the big problem with perpetual copyright--mostly because I didn't think it affected most people directly. I assume most of you aren't afraid of being sued by a competitor for ripping off one of their character designs or plotlines or pieces of music--so what part of the issue is important for the rest of you?

[Zablorg]

I think I recall a thread I was browsing in my lurking days when you were all reviewing this guys statment "If I don't mind it happening to me, then it must be fine for me to do it to others".

I think you all concluded that he was an asshole...

[4Tran]

The material is the creator's property by virtue of being the creator's creation. I don't believe this is an is/ought fallacy. And if the material is the creator's property, then the creator has superior rights to control its distribution and to profit from it.

That isn't even really true for all artists. If someone made a sculpture and subsequently sold it, then it's sort of implicit that the new owner now controls all of the rights to the piece. The original artist doesn't get to continually profit from this work for the rest of his life. Obviously, musicians and the like don't produce a tangible product the way a sculptor does, but the same kind of logic applies to how the rights work.

I think I recall a thread I was browsing in my lurking days when you were all reviewing this guys statment "If I don't mind it happening to me, then it must be fine for me to do it to others".

This thread is hardly the same. Nobody's saying that artists shouldn't be able to profit off of their works, we're just questioning whether it's reasonable for them to profit from them in perpetuity. Moreover, a reframing of how copyrights work is more likely to benefit artists in the long run than the current system does.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I am not arguing that because creators own their work, that's why they should own their work (is that what I appear to have been arguing?)

No, you're arguing that they own their work because they own their work. In other words, you're justifying your premise by simply repeating it as a fact. I'm afraid that doesn't make the grade.

I am arguing that because they create their work, they own their work. The act of creation invests ownership; ownership doesn't invest ownership.

See, you're doing it again: you're simply saying that "it is because it is".

I realize this is a shift from where I started earlier; forgive me for refining my position as I go along.

This is turning into a fascinating experience for me, because I suspect I'm starting to get a glimmer of what it's like to be religiously faithful. And I am not enjoying it.

The truth is, no, right now I find that I can't offer anything beyond the conviction that creating a given work, means that I own the rights to that work. I am left only with the question: if I do not own what I have created, by virtue of having created it, then who else's claim is superior?

Ask any scientist. Are you aware that the entire field of scientific research is conducted based upon the idea that an idea, once discovered, should be shared with all of humanity? Didn't you ever wonder why Newton never patented reaction forces? Scientific principles and mathematical equations cannot be copyrighted or patented.

There must be some basis to that perspective, though; it appears to be shared by virtually every creative artist I know, or have heard on the matter, and I believe that a lot of non-creative-artists share it, too.

I'll throw in the towel, there. If having created something doesn't make it mine, then I can't imagine that having purchased it, or having it given to me, or having taken it, would make it mine, either.

I suppose one could argue that it is useful to have a framework within which people are assigned ownsership of what they create, in order to encourage people to continue creating things; hopefully things of value that provide wider benefits to others. But that isn't an argument based upon rights; it's an argument based upon presumed utility.

Precisely. Continuing to the patent discussion, patents were originally created as a concept because it was decided that it was a good idea to create monetary incentives to inventors to invent new things. Particularly since it often costs a lot of money to develop a new technology, and nobody would do it without this kind of incentive. In short, patents exist not because of some intrinsic "your idea, your property, nobody else can use it without paying you" ethical axiom, but because it was decided that society would benefit. But at the same time, it was deemed obvious that if you did not put limits on patent protection, then society would not reap the benefit of this policy because of the ensuing monopolistic and extortionist behaviour. See the parallels to the music industry?

Maybe. My understanding is that its purpose is to protect the interests and investment of the inventor for a period of time during which she can recoup her expenses and make a profit, after which the invention becomes freely available on the premise that there are wider social benefits to the diffusion of newly-developed inventions throughout the economy and the technology base.

Precisely. The whole concept was invented to create a social benefit, and not because there is some intrinsic or universal moral axiom that any original idea you have is some kind of exclusive "property" forever.

I'm thinking about the social benefits of someone scoring a freebie pirated copy of something for which others are paying, and to which I believe the creator has a moral right to payment...and I am failing to see them. Although I am entirely open to seeing those benefits pointed out.

I'm afraid you've got this backward. In order to justify criminalizing something, you have to show that there is a social benefit to criminalizing it. People don't have to show that there is a social benefit to not criminalizing it, since the act of criminalizing something inherently harms the interests of many members of society by definition. You must show that there is some significant social benefit to completely offset this harm. And the social benefit associated with copyright is the same as it is for patent: incentive to create. Unfortunately for you, there is no real evidence that such a generous incentive as lifetime copyright is necessary in order to get artists to create; realistically, you know that there would still be art even if copyright were quite limited.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[snip]

ALL property rights - and especially nebulous "intellectual property" rights - are not inviolate. It is established fact that a pressing public interest overrides them - after all, the government can seize with compensation your home for public infrastructure, schools, or defense. If the country is invaded or there is a rebellion they can take away your civil liberties.

[WesFox13]

Yeah Copyright laws are a bit messed up. I think that a much more fair type of law should be, "If a creation (I.E. a cartoon series, video games, stories etc.) has not been expanded upon or the franchise of that creation has not been bothered or even touched within 5 to 10 years the said creation immediately goes into the public domain.". Do you think my idea sounds fair?