Arius

If you go to kickstarter, there are, right now, dozens of internet-only films that are more than 100% funded. Even if it was impossible to control distribution of movies, and even if there are no customers who perceive any utility in going to a movie theater, there are still means of acquiring financiers and consumers for films. The "Movies will go broke" argument is been made every time a new recording media is developed. Hell, does anyone remember when the Warner Brothers executives testified before congress that the VCR would bankrupt the entire movie industry? Did you know that DVD sales don't cannibalize theater ticket sales? The two aren't considered substitute products by the consumer base. Did you know that Netflix doesn't cannibalize DVD sales? There is no evidence the movie-viewing public is ready to consider downloading movies as a substitute product for theater-viewed movies.

I translate the OP's "Is lying immoral" as "Ought people lie or not". If the question is about a specific instance of lying, then I've misunderstood what we're talking about. I was discussing idealized behavior. Lying can't be UPB, just like theft and rape. Unfortunately, the logical implication is that any should-claim that starts out "People should lie..." is wrong. If all instances of rape are wrong, each instance of rape is wrong. If all instances of lying are wrong, each instance of lying is wrong. Of course, Rape and theft fail UPB because they can't be universalized. Lying can be universalized, but it is incompatible with argumentation. Additionally, Lying is not objective or consistent. It fails UPB for different reasons, but it still fails. As far as not wanting to tell someone the truth... Sometimes I lie to people. When I do, I stop and tell them I just lied (I dislike lying). I then use that as a springboard to discuss my relationship with them, with the goal of discovering why I lied and remedying that problem (i.e. I just lied to you, why do you suppose I did that?). Lying is either a tool for control or a defense mechanism (or possibly both). If I lie to someone, it means I'm uncomfortable with some aspect of our relationship. Generally, I'm either scared or I feel threatened in some way. By facing my choice to lie and understanding why I took that action, I can better understand the terms of my relationships with that person. I'm of the opinion that, should you find yourself lying to someone, it is a clear indicator that there is something wrong in your relationship to that person. However, the morality of lying and the relationship dynamics of lying are (at least in my mind) two entirely different things.

Lying=making false statements (unless you'd like to define it differently) People should lie translates as: False statements are preferable to true statements. That is, you should believe "false statements are preferable to true statements" is a true statement... Perhaps you see the contradiction. Simply, "people should lie" is identical to "false is preferable to true". However, you've already demonstrated a preference for true statements by making an argument which I should believe. I could go through the entire two-guys model, but I believe it is sufficient to point out that lying (as a behavior) is not objective and not consistent. Because lying lacks two of the four properties of a UPB, and because it is contradictory to argue for the preferability of false over true, it cannot be UPB.

Lying isn't UPB. It lacks consistency and isn't objective. Lifeboat scenarios are a distraction.

Financed is easy, documentaries find money all the time. How do you suppose Zeitgiest was funded? What about Thrive? Hell, Alex Jones can get backers for his crazy movies. Financially exploited is another thing altogether. If you mean "used to produce revenue", then the answer is simple: by public exhibition. I don't know if you've noticed, but movies at the theater make tens of millions of dollars in profit. Even with my rampant piracy, those studios still manage to earn a living. Those who hold IP are better off. I don't think anyone argues that holding a patent isn't financially advantageous.

You're forgetting the non-media forms of IP. Genes, chemicals, and processes are all elements of IP which require no media to store. If you're going to use this objection, it is only valid for the portion of IP which requires media. If you examine how Monsanto uses IP, the saving of seed from patented plants is legally addressed as theft. I could go on a rant about how treating seeds as IP creates immiserating trade. Sufficed to say: it does.

Amen!

I would add one an additional argument to your bag: Intellectual property is claim on how people should behave. Ownership is a type of relationship which exists between people. Specifically, "ownership" describes all the activities in which some number of people agree to (and execute) a course of action regarding some object. Because intellectual property does not exist, any restrictions on its use constitute a limitation of the normal behaviors of people. That is (just as an example), if you claim to own the word "the" then I must change my usage of language to accommodate that ownership or risk being in the wrong. Thus, all intellectual property disputes are actually a demonstration of the non-preferability of a behavioral imperative. Simply, non-consensual intellectual property rights are immoral (having nothing to do with the state) because their enforcement is empirically indistinguishable from the initiation of force.