5 ms·

to be more exact, many people here seem to be incapable to tell right/wrong from legal/illegal or taking the easy/hard choice. these are all different from eac

to be more exact, many people here seem to be incapable to tell right/wrong from legal/illegal or taking the easy/hard choice. these are all different from each other. and more importantly, orthogonal to each other. by orthogonal I mean that given a choice, deciding whether it is right, should be done independently of whether it's legal or easier/harder. think about it. even if you had the power to change law, making something legal won't make it any more right, and vice versa. it seems to me that this guy made his choice of returning the CD vs releasing the code on the basis that the former is legal and doing the latter (somewhat securely) is harder. not so much on whether preserving the code, in light of the cultural historical importance is right or wrong. (you don't need to agree with me, but I'd love to hear a solid argument why the latter would be wrong, that doesn't conflate right/wrong with legal/illegal) and even then, it's not entirely indefensible to base your actions just on what's legal or easiest. ethics is hard and especially the law provides a nice shortcut if you don't like to think for yourself too much. Just, don't go pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing. You don't get to do that. He does get a ticket and goodies from Blizzard, though. Sweet. Shouldn't taste bitter at all, at least for a while.

eridius 10y ago
Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. They own that code, they created it and they have the right to control its distribution. Just because Starcraft is a culturally significant game doesn't mean it's ok to violate Blizzard's rights. The argument in favor of releasing the source code just seems to me to be a dressed-up version of "but I really waaaaaant to!". Wanting something doesn't make it right.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. IP rights are a creation of law and not usually (even by those adhering to a view of natural property rights) not viewed as a reflection of natural rights, so you seem to be both rejecting and endorsing legality as the basis of the wrongness here.
  - eridius 10y ago
    The law doesn't grant rights. It merely protects them. And the laws weren't created in a vacuum either. Laws that protect IP rights exist because we as a society believe that IP rights are something worth protecting. Yes, the laws can become divorced from what regular citizens believe they should be; the prime example here is copyright law being extended to cover a crazy amount of time. But I've never heard anyone before express the idea that someone should lose the right to control their own source code after 20 years have passed.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The law doesn't grant rights. Yes, it explicitly does. > It merely protects them. Some people believe that certain legal rights reflect pre-existing natural rights. As I stated in GP, it is quite uncommon, though, even among proponents of natural property rights, to view the legal rights in intellectual property as being in that category. If you believe the IP rights at issue here are natural rights, that's fine, but you should explicitly make the case (or admit that it's a moral axiom you adhere to), rather than just assuming it's an uncontroversial position, because, simply put, it's not.
      - eridius 10y ago
        It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own it. In this case the IP right mirrors the more conventional right of if you create a physical object, you own it. And this is no different than saying if you write a book, you own it. You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership. So no, I don't think I need to try and defend this position, because it's what literally the whole rest of the world already believes.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own The entire idea of IP rights as natural rights (and more generally natural property rights in things which aren't naturally limited in concurrent use the way real and tangible personal property both are) is quite controversial, and even the idea of IP rights as useful policy independent of being natural rights (the position implict in the US Constitution and it's provision authorizing creation of such legal rights) is somewhat (though notably less) controversial. > You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership. The Free Software Foundation is among the many organizations and individuals explicitly rejecting the position that copyright is a natural right. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....

eridius 10y ago

Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. They own that code, they created it and they have the right to control its distribution. Just because Starcraft is a culturally significant game doesn't mean it's ok to violate Blizzard's rights. The argument in favor of releasing the source code just seems to me to be a dressed-up version of "but I really waaaaaant to!". Wanting something doesn't make it right.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. IP rights are a creation of law and not usually (even by those adhering to a view of natural property rights) not viewed as a reflection of natural rights, so you seem to be both rejecting and endorsing legality as the basis of the wrongness here.
- eridius 10y ago
  The law doesn't grant rights. It merely protects them. And the laws weren't created in a vacuum either. Laws that protect IP rights exist because we as a society believe that IP rights are something worth protecting. Yes, the laws can become divorced from what regular citizens believe they should be; the prime example here is copyright law being extended to cover a crazy amount of time. But I've never heard anyone before express the idea that someone should lose the right to control their own source code after 20 years have passed.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The law doesn't grant rights. Yes, it explicitly does. > It merely protects them. Some people believe that certain legal rights reflect pre-existing natural rights. As I stated in GP, it is quite uncommon, though, even among proponents of natural property rights, to view the legal rights in intellectual property as being in that category. If you believe the IP rights at issue here are natural rights, that's fine, but you should explicitly make the case (or admit that it's a moral axiom you adhere to), rather than just assuming it's an uncontroversial position, because, simply put, it's not.
    - eridius 10y ago
      It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own it. In this case the IP right mirrors the more conventional right of if you create a physical object, you own it. And this is no different than saying if you write a book, you own it. You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership. So no, I don't think I need to try and defend this position, because it's what literally the whole rest of the world already believes.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own The entire idea of IP rights as natural rights (and more generally natural property rights in things which aren't naturally limited in concurrent use the way real and tangible personal property both are) is quite controversial, and even the idea of IP rights as useful policy independent of being natural rights (the position implict in the US Constitution and it's provision authorizing creation of such legal rights) is somewhat (though notably less) controversial. > You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership. The Free Software Foundation is among the many organizations and individuals explicitly rejecting the position that copyright is a natural right. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....