7 ms·

Why? "The ability to do X gives you the right to do so" is not a moral argument in the slightest. In fact, it is inherently anti-moral, because the entire point

Why? "The ability to do X gives you the right to do so" is not a moral argument in the slightest. In fact, it is inherently anti-moral, because the entire point of moral codes is "just because you can do X doesn't mean you should do X". I mean, if you can't do something, there's no point in prohibiting it, because it can't be done.

throwaway8879 8y ago
Some of us are immoral, or at the very least amoral. Not everything has to be based on morals.
- eridius 8y ago
  Talking about "the right to do so" is either a legal or a moral judgement, and the parent said this in the context of both a legal and a non-legal (and therefore moral) perspective.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    No. One could argue for a right while accepting that there isn't an inherent moral value attached to it.
austincheney 8y ago
This isn't really about morality, because if were there would be a harm. Nobody is being harmed here. This is about technology, specifically content on the web. In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. If you really REALLY want to make this about morality then I would argue restricting access to available content is the greater moral offense, because it is an inherent violation of liberty.
- otterley 8y ago
  If you make software for a living, you’re likely earning income in large part due to the fact that not just anyone can copy your software for free. Writing news is work of perhaps a different subject, but it can’t be denied that like software development, a significant amount of real work goes into that. How can you justify that the authors shouldn’t be able to reasonably expect to have control over their work and expect to be paid for it, if their consumers deem it valuable?
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > Writing news is work of perhaps a different subject Don't care because that is not the subject of this issue not matter how much you wish it were. The subject is whether or not a paywall is adequate for restricting access to content on a public medium. If that restriction is so easily bypassed it is clearly ineffective and inadequate. If you really cared about your business and revenue you would solve this problem instead of complaining about failed value assessments. > control over their work Journalists don't have control over their work. Publishers do. This is the same failed argument the music and movie industries peddled from around 1998-2008. Instead of wasting your energy on distribution control spend it on what you are good at and return superior value to your work.
- eridius 8y ago
  > In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. That's just plain wrong. There's nothing special about technology that means you get to throw all your existing moral principles out the window. The ability to technically do something does not confer you the right do it, either legally or morally. Maybe if I draw an analogy to patents it might make sense? It seems most people in technology agree that taking something unpatentable and adding "do it on a computer" shouldn't make it patentable. Morality is no different. Taking something immoral, like taking someone else's intellectual property without paying for it, and saying "but do it on a computer" doesn't suddenly make it moral. Taking someone else's IP isn't immoral because you're depriving them of the paper it's printed on (that part is just petty theft), it's immoral because you're depriving them of the right to control the distribution of their IP and the right to get compensated for the work they did in exchange for giving you the right to use the IP.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Which moral principle is in violation? You are serving content and then complaining about people reading it. If you are so interested in protecting your IP then why are you giving it to me anonymously? In no way have I altered your means of distribution.
    - eridius 8y ago
      If I choose to serve my IP to Google in full for free, that doesn't mean I'm choosing to serve it to everybody in full for free. Just because you can trick me into thinking you're Google doesn't give you the moral or the legal right to my content.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        Actually it completely does. You don’t own my computer, software, or it’s settings. In accessing your content I am committing no act of fraud or theft since the user agent string is not a qualified identifier. Are you directly giving it to Google via encrypted tunnel? I am not redefining how any technology works or making any alteration to your distribution or your service. Yet, you are still giving it to me free and anonymous. Some people think taxes are immoral, but that doesn’t give them the right or ability to redefine the tax code. HTTP is not immoral. The real issue here is you are lost and confused because you don’t know how to secure your product. Your negligence in accounting for your business, financial model, and IP is not my lack of morality. Fix your technology.

throwaway8879 8y ago

Some of us are immoral, or at the very least amoral. Not everything has to be based on morals.

eridius 8y ago
Talking about "the right to do so" is either a legal or a moral judgement, and the parent said this in the context of both a legal and a non-legal (and therefore moral) perspective.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  No. One could argue for a right while accepting that there isn't an inherent moral value attached to it.

austincheney 8y ago

This isn't really about morality, because if were there would be a harm. Nobody is being harmed here. This is about technology, specifically content on the web. In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. If you really REALLY want to make this about morality then I would argue restricting access to available content is the greater moral offense, because it is an inherent violation of liberty.

otterley 8y ago
If you make software for a living, you’re likely earning income in large part due to the fact that not just anyone can copy your software for free. Writing news is work of perhaps a different subject, but it can’t be denied that like software development, a significant amount of real work goes into that. How can you justify that the authors shouldn’t be able to reasonably expect to have control over their work and expect to be paid for it, if their consumers deem it valuable?
- austincheney 8y ago
  > Writing news is work of perhaps a different subject Don't care because that is not the subject of this issue not matter how much you wish it were. The subject is whether or not a paywall is adequate for restricting access to content on a public medium. If that restriction is so easily bypassed it is clearly ineffective and inadequate. If you really cared about your business and revenue you would solve this problem instead of complaining about failed value assessments. > control over their work Journalists don't have control over their work. Publishers do. This is the same failed argument the music and movie industries peddled from around 1998-2008. Instead of wasting your energy on distribution control spend it on what you are good at and return superior value to your work.
eridius 8y ago
> In technology the ability to do something absolutely is the right to so do unless you have already agreed otherwise. That's just plain wrong. There's nothing special about technology that means you get to throw all your existing moral principles out the window. The ability to technically do something does not confer you the right do it, either legally or morally. Maybe if I draw an analogy to patents it might make sense? It seems most people in technology agree that taking something unpatentable and adding "do it on a computer" shouldn't make it patentable. Morality is no different. Taking something immoral, like taking someone else's intellectual property without paying for it, and saying "but do it on a computer" doesn't suddenly make it moral. Taking someone else's IP isn't immoral because you're depriving them of the paper it's printed on (that part is just petty theft), it's immoral because you're depriving them of the right to control the distribution of their IP and the right to get compensated for the work they did in exchange for giving you the right to use the IP.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Which moral principle is in violation? You are serving content and then complaining about people reading it. If you are so interested in protecting your IP then why are you giving it to me anonymously? In no way have I altered your means of distribution.
  - eridius 8y ago
    If I choose to serve my IP to Google in full for free, that doesn't mean I'm choosing to serve it to everybody in full for free. Just because you can trick me into thinking you're Google doesn't give you the moral or the legal right to my content.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Actually it completely does. You don’t own my computer, software, or it’s settings. In accessing your content I am committing no act of fraud or theft since the user agent string is not a qualified identifier. Are you directly giving it to Google via encrypted tunnel? I am not redefining how any technology works or making any alteration to your distribution or your service. Yet, you are still giving it to me free and anonymous. Some people think taxes are immoral, but that doesn’t give them the right or ability to redefine the tax code. HTTP is not immoral. The real issue here is you are lost and confused because you don’t know how to secure your product. Your negligence in accounting for your business, financial model, and IP is not my lack of morality. Fix your technology.