10 ms·

They really do have a different moral status though. Copyright and IP are purely pragmatic commercial arrangements. Any wrongness in infringement comes solely f

by hxa7241 16y ago

They really do have a different moral status though. Copyright and IP are purely pragmatic commercial arrangements. Any wrongness in infringement comes solely from it simply being against the rules of a particular game we have decided to play. If we had different rules, such copying would be harmless. The copyright-based industries have tried to present infringement as a fundamental moral wrong. It is not. Quite the contrary, communication is good, as people unconciously know and feel.

rick888 16y ago
"They really do have a different moral status though. Copyright and IP are purely pragmatic commercial arrangements. Any wrongness in infringement comes solely from it simply being against the rules of a particular game we have decided to play. If we had different rules, such copying would be harmless." You're making his point. You could also the same thing about anything.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > You could also the same thing about anything. That is not accurate. Many laws -- those we probably most respect -- are grounded on actual basic factual effects. They have a justification prior to conventional or legal constructs. For example, if you take a material object from me, you deprive me -- directly and physically. That is the core justification of normal property, and there is no such justification for IP.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "For example, if you take a material object from me, you deprive me -- directly and physically. That is the core justification of normal property, and there is no such justification for IP." What about identity theft? You aren't actually "stealing" anything. The original identity is still there. Counterfeiting (currency and things like ipods) is another example. It's illegal and you aren't actually depriving anybody of anything.
    - skorgu 16y ago
      "Identity theft" per se is rarely the problem, it's the credit card (and other) frauds committed using the 'stolen' identity that cause issues. And obviously those frauds deprive both the actually-defrauded party and rightful 'owner' of the identity of the opportunity cost of sorting it all out.

by hxa7241 16y ago

rick888 16y ago

"They really do have a different moral status though. Copyright and IP are purely pragmatic commercial arrangements. Any wrongness in infringement comes solely from it simply being against the rules of a particular game we have decided to play. If we had different rules, such copying would be harmless." You're making his point. You could also the same thing about anything.

hxa7241 16y ago
> You could also the same thing about anything. That is not accurate. Many laws -- those we probably most respect -- are grounded on actual basic factual effects. They have a justification prior to conventional or legal constructs. For example, if you take a material object from me, you deprive me -- directly and physically. That is the core justification of normal property, and there is no such justification for IP.
- rick888 16y ago
  "For example, if you take a material object from me, you deprive me -- directly and physically. That is the core justification of normal property, and there is no such justification for IP." What about identity theft? You aren't actually "stealing" anything. The original identity is still there. Counterfeiting (currency and things like ipods) is another example. It's illegal and you aren't actually depriving anybody of anything.
  - skorgu 16y ago
    "Identity theft" per se is rarely the problem, it's the credit card (and other) frauds committed using the 'stolen' identity that cause issues. And obviously those frauds deprive both the actually-defrauded party and rightful 'owner' of the identity of the opportunity cost of sorting it all out.