5 ms·

Well here's a universalized principled argument against piracy: Given that a content creator is only able to sustainably (i.e. without going broke) create cont

Well here's a universalized principled argument against piracy: Given that a content creator is only able to sustainably (i.e. without going broke) create content provided that they have an income, and given that creating content takes enough time that it is infeasible to both create content and earn income from another source at the same time, then a content creator must be able to earn income from their content if they are going to create it sustainably. Given that consumers want content from content creators whose content they have enjoyed in the past, and given that a content creator must be able to earn income from their content if they are going to create it sustainably, content creators should be able to earn income from their content Given that when a person pirates (or otherwise obtains for free) content the content creator earns no income from their content if everybody were to pirate content, content creators would earn no income from their content Given that if everybody were to pirate content, content creators would earn no income from their content and given that content creators should be able to earn income from their content then not everybody should pirate content Given that if not everybody should perform an action then nobody should perform the action, and if not everybody should pirate content then nobody should pirate content.

planfaster 11y ago
Hi, bweitzman. Thanks for engaging the argument. I will name your "Given" arguments 1 through 5. Argument 1 is strictly correct and the conclusion thus valid: a creator must earn income from their content if they want to continue being a creator. Argument 2 is also correct, and I'd say it supports argument 1, because it is its inverse: if a creator wants to continue being a creator they must be able earn income from their content. I inserted italics to emphasize that 1 and 2 are not circular though they may appear so. Argument 3 argues two things: first, that when a person pirates, the creator earns no income - this is strictly true and part of the definition of pirating ("not paying"); second, that if everyone pirated content, creators would earn no income from their content. Let's pause here. Argument number 3 is conflating two slightly different usages of the phrase "earn income from content". In the first half of the argument (the correct part), this phrase means "earn income from the content in the transaction that would have taken place". That's why it's correct, because no money is earned by the creator from the act of pirating. But in the second half, that phrase means "earn income from their content at all in any way". Let's slow down. If you were arguing "if everyone pirated, creators would earn no income from their content in those pirating transactions", well, that would just be the same argument that was made in the first half, and this would be circular. That's why the argument must be trying to argue this, in long form: Given that when a person pirates, the creator earns no income from that pirate for that content, then if everyone pirates, the creator would earn no income from anyone in any way for that content". Okay. Now that I have highlighted the issue I see with the argument, I will present some examples to illustrate why this more detailed version of argument 3 is wrong. It is wrong because all universals are wrong if one counter-example can be found; and many counter-examples can be found for argument 3; for instance, there are many independent journalists and critics online that put their content up for free (acknowledging they can't control information) but still sell a book version of it, or DVD compilations of it. This is a valid counter-example because here, these creators give away for free the content they produce, but then sell the same content in a more convenient way for the buyer, and make money this way. That means they are making money from the same content that was pirated ("not paid for"[1]) but in another way. I could make other examples of bands that put their music online for free and earn income from that same music by charging for concert tickets (again, another way of earning income from the same content that is "pirated" or given away). But I think this is enough to explain that argument 3 is invalid because it is stuffing two different meanings into the same phrase "earn income from content". If you are able to fix this and turn argument 3 into a valid argument, I would be curious to see that, and you would be advancing the discussion. Arguments 4 and 5 are cogent but invalid because they rely on argument 3 which I believe I have demonstrated to be invalid. Thank you for the challenge!

planfaster 11y ago

Hi, bweitzman. Thanks for engaging the argument. I will name your "Given" arguments 1 through 5. Argument 1 is strictly correct and the conclusion thus valid: a creator must earn income from their content if they want to continue being a creator. Argument 2 is also correct, and I'd say it supports argument 1, because it is its inverse: if a creator wants to continue being a creator they must be able earn income from their content. I inserted italics to emphasize that 1 and 2 are not circular though they may appear so. Argument 3 argues two things: first, that when a person pirates, the creator earns no income - this is strictly true and part of the definition of pirating ("not paying"); second, that if everyone pirated content, creators would earn no income from their content. Let's pause here. Argument number 3 is conflating two slightly different usages of the phrase "earn income from content". In the first half of the argument (the correct part), this phrase means "earn income from the content in the transaction that would have taken place". That's why it's correct, because no money is earned by the creator from the act of pirating. But in the second half, that phrase means "earn income from their content at all in any way". Let's slow down. If you were arguing "if everyone pirated, creators would earn no income from their content in those pirating transactions", well, that would just be the same argument that was made in the first half, and this would be circular. That's why the argument must be trying to argue this, in long form: Given that when a person pirates, the creator earns no income from that pirate for that content, then if everyone pirates, the creator would earn no income from anyone in any way for that content". Okay. Now that I have highlighted the issue I see with the argument, I will present some examples to illustrate why this more detailed version of argument 3 is wrong. It is wrong because all universals are wrong if one counter-example can be found; and many counter-examples can be found for argument 3; for instance, there are many independent journalists and critics online that put their content up for free (acknowledging they can't control information) but still sell a book version of it, or DVD compilations of it. This is a valid counter-example because here, these creators give away for free the content they produce, but then sell the same content in a more convenient way for the buyer, and make money this way. That means they are making money from the same content that was pirated ("not paid for"[1]) but in another way. I could make other examples of bands that put their music online for free and earn income from that same music by charging for concert tickets (again, another way of earning income from the same content that is "pirated" or given away). But I think this is enough to explain that argument 3 is invalid because it is stuffing two different meanings into the same phrase "earn income from content". If you are able to fix this and turn argument 3 into a valid argument, I would be curious to see that, and you would be advancing the discussion. Arguments 4 and 5 are cogent but invalid because they rely on argument 3 which I believe I have demonstrated to be invalid. Thank you for the challenge!