3 ms·

> and not so ethical Sharing content hardly involves ethics. It's more about economy. EDIT: What I meant is, it's not ethically wrong per se; it's only consi

by hasenj 16y ago

> and not so ethical Sharing content hardly involves ethics. It's more about economy. EDIT: What I meant is, it's not ethically wrong per se; it's only considered bad because it's bad for the economy in the long run. I wanted to make a point. Defending that point would take essays, which I'm not in the mood to write right now. Refer to RMS's essays: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html The only 'questionable' act involved in sharing is violating copyright. I don't think of that as a crime or even as an ethically questionable act.

jordanmessina 16y ago
Thanks for the edit, I was not looking forward to a huge debate over this topic since it's been discussed to death. We all have our own opinions on what's ethical in this area, it's all very gray.
citricsquid 16y ago
> What I meant is, it's not ethically wrong per se; it's only considered bad because it's bad for the economy in the long run. Not really. It's ethically wrong because the creators and distributors of the content want to charge money for it and by pirating you're refusing to pay for it. If they wanted you to dance for it, or send a photo of you wearing a hat, it would still be ethically wrong to pirate it and there'd be no effect on the economy.
- hasenj 16y ago
  You read my post and replied to it without my permission. I want you to send me a photo of you wearing a hat, with a sign saying "I'm really sorry". /sarcasm
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    I don't see your point, sarcasm or otherwise.
    - sp332 16y ago
      The creators / owners of copyright have only artificial, legal ways of making you pay for the content. There is no moral or ethical reason to pay for the content. It's equivalent to saying You read my post and replied to it without my permission. I want you to send me a photo of you wearing a hat, with a sign saying "I'm really sorry". They have no real claim to that.
      - citricsquid 16y ago
        If you'd said in advance that I had to do that before replying, then sure you'd have a point. You can't apply the condition after, I can't give you a DVD for free and then demand payment after you've watched it if there wasn't a prior agreement.
        hasenj 16y ago
        I did, but you didn't read my 30-page legalese fine print. /sarcasm
      - aplusbi 16y ago
        This depends on how much you believe in moral-relativity. There is a concept of ownership and rights (sometimes legally defined) associated with IP. Disregarding those rights can be seen as unethical. There is no precedence in our culture saying that you have the right to disallow comments on your IP, which is why your example is not considered unethical. To take your example to an extreme, is it unethical to trespass on someone's property? Is it unethical to look at someone's property from the street? Our concept of ownership would suggest that the former is unethical, the latter is not, but is that just because we have artificial ideas of ownership? My ethical system includes IP ownership. I think it is unethical to use GPL code without releasing the source, for example.

by hasenj 16y ago

jordanmessina 16y ago

Thanks for the edit, I was not looking forward to a huge debate over this topic since it's been discussed to death. We all have our own opinions on what's ethical in this area, it's all very gray.

citricsquid 16y ago

> What I meant is, it's not ethically wrong per se; it's only considered bad because it's bad for the economy in the long run. Not really. It's ethically wrong because the creators and distributors of the content want to charge money for it and by pirating you're refusing to pay for it. If they wanted you to dance for it, or send a photo of you wearing a hat, it would still be ethically wrong to pirate it and there'd be no effect on the economy.

hasenj 16y ago
You read my post and replied to it without my permission. I want you to send me a photo of you wearing a hat, with a sign saying "I'm really sorry". /sarcasm
- citricsquid 16y ago
  I don't see your point, sarcasm or otherwise.
  - sp332 16y ago
    The creators / owners of copyright have only artificial, legal ways of making you pay for the content. There is no moral or ethical reason to pay for the content. It's equivalent to saying You read my post and replied to it without my permission. I want you to send me a photo of you wearing a hat, with a sign saying "I'm really sorry". They have no real claim to that.
    - citricsquid 16y ago
      If you'd said in advance that I had to do that before replying, then sure you'd have a point. You can't apply the condition after, I can't give you a DVD for free and then demand payment after you've watched it if there wasn't a prior agreement.
      - hasenj 16y ago
        I did, but you didn't read my 30-page legalese fine print. /sarcasm
    - aplusbi 16y ago
      This depends on how much you believe in moral-relativity. There is a concept of ownership and rights (sometimes legally defined) associated with IP. Disregarding those rights can be seen as unethical. There is no precedence in our culture saying that you have the right to disallow comments on your IP, which is why your example is not considered unethical. To take your example to an extreme, is it unethical to trespass on someone's property? Is it unethical to look at someone's property from the street? Our concept of ownership would suggest that the former is unethical, the latter is not, but is that just because we have artificial ideas of ownership? My ethical system includes IP ownership. I think it is unethical to use GPL code without releasing the source, for example.