3 ms·

It was (probably a poor) analogy, not a comparison. I was simply trying to come up with something else that is both understandable to me, and yet still mind bo

by bmelton 11y ago

It was (probably a poor) analogy, not a comparison. I was simply trying to come up with something else that is both understandable to me, and yet still mind boggling. I was definitely not attempting to conflate the two. As for the rest, it's very possible that despite how much thought I've put into it, I'm completely wrong. Offtopic, but your focus on the word "simply" made me wonder if I'd said it. I hadn't, so I'm curious as to the focus on it. To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. It doesn't matter to me whether it's freely available on the pirate bay, or locked up in their sock drawer; they created it, not me, and if they want me to have it, they'll either give it to me, or make it available to me to purchase. Anything else violates their wishes on their thing.

TillE 11y ago
> To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. This is an extraordinary amount of personalized respect to give faceless companies who are literally only acting as they do in order to extract the maximum amount of money from "content" they did not create.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I think this is where a lot of people will disagree with you. Personally, I don't believe a person who created something should get that level of control. It's fine to control your possessions, i.e. things that can belong to only one person at the same time, and that happen to belong to you now. But I see absolutely no reason for which you should be able to control information. Not just music or games, and not just digital. Information - as abstract as it gets. That is, if you and only yourself have it, it's of course immoral for me to coerce you to give it to me, or to take it from you against your will. But if you give (a copy of) that information to a third party, the third party now owns a copy, and should have the same rights about it as you have. Which includes giving that information to me, for free. There's no other way for it to work that makes sense. Just like you don't have a right to tell something to someone and then issue a gag order, you shouldn't have such right to any other form of information. Of course, exceptions are being made because of the economy, but then let's be clear - piracy is bad because of economic reasons, not moral ones. Morally you're privileged by being able to limit distribution of information in the first place.
mercer 11y ago
Fair enough. You didn't say 'simply'; I just wanted to emphasize that the problem I have is that you appear to be reducing something that opinions are clearly divided on, and something that I'd say is clearly complicated, to a 'simple' matter. > To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. It doesn't matter to me whether it's freely available on the pirate bay, or locked up in their sock drawer; they created it, not me, and if they want me to have it, they'll either give it to me, or make it available to me to purchase. That's what I would call an argument that comes across as 'simple'. Self-evident, almost. But because so many intelligent, moral people disagree, there's probably some element in there that you're oversimplifying (from the perspective of those who hold a different point of view). Not acknowledging that is what bothered me, but of course it's fair enough if you hold this view and express it as your perspective. Anyways, I do see your point, and I do respect it. The way I see it, nobody can fault you for choosing to be more 'restrictive' or 'narrow' in your ethical framework (where 'narrow' is not meant as an insult)!

by bmelton 11y ago

TillE 11y ago

> To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. This is an extraordinary amount of personalized respect to give faceless companies who are literally only acting as they do in order to extract the maximum amount of money from "content" they did not create.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I think this is where a lot of people will disagree with you. Personally, I don't believe a person who created something should get that level of control. It's fine to control your possessions, i.e. things that can belong to only one person at the same time, and that happen to belong to you now. But I see absolutely no reason for which you should be able to control information. Not just music or games, and not just digital. Information - as abstract as it gets. That is, if you and only yourself have it, it's of course immoral for me to coerce you to give it to me, or to take it from you against your will. But if you give (a copy of) that information to a third party, the third party now owns a copy, and should have the same rights about it as you have. Which includes giving that information to me, for free. There's no other way for it to work that makes sense. Just like you don't have a right to tell something to someone and then issue a gag order, you shouldn't have such right to any other form of information. Of course, exceptions are being made because of the economy, but then let's be clear - piracy is bad because of economic reasons, not moral ones. Morally you're privileged by being able to limit distribution of information in the first place.

mercer 11y ago

Fair enough. You didn't say 'simply'; I just wanted to emphasize that the problem I have is that you appear to be reducing something that opinions are clearly divided on, and something that I'd say is clearly complicated, to a 'simple' matter. > To me, if someone creates (or has) something unique, and doesn't want someone else to have it, then they should not. It doesn't matter to me whether it's freely available on the pirate bay, or locked up in their sock drawer; they created it, not me, and if they want me to have it, they'll either give it to me, or make it available to me to purchase. That's what I would call an argument that comes across as 'simple'. Self-evident, almost. But because so many intelligent, moral people disagree, there's probably some element in there that you're oversimplifying (from the perspective of those who hold a different point of view). Not acknowledging that is what bothered me, but of course it's fair enough if you hold this view and express it as your perspective. Anyways, I do see your point, and I do respect it. The way I see it, nobody can fault you for choosing to be more 'restrictive' or 'narrow' in your ethical framework (where 'narrow' is not meant as an insult)!