4 ms·

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

by hasenj 16y ago

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.
    - sp332 16y ago
      I have heard that it's different in other countries, but the system in the USA is pretty clear that IP is a legal construct, and is only used as an incentive, not an inherent right. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence (and who were both later elected to the office of President), thought that IP had no basis in reality. http://classicliberal.tripod.com/madison/detached4.html http://classicliberal.tripod.com/madison/detached4.html and http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....
      - aplusbi 16y ago
        Just because US law defines IP as an incentive not an inherent right doesn't mean that culturally it's only a incentive. You have poorly defined what "ethical" means. So far the only clarification you have made is that legal and ethical are too different things. Some people disagree and define "ethical" as "law-abiding" which means that copyright infringement is unethical. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that there is a degree of relativism to your statement. Just because you don't think that copyright infringement is unethical doesn't mean that people who do are wrong. I'm not really a proponent of moral-relativism but ultimately I have to accepted that ethics are a human construct and as such disagreement will arise over its precise definition. For example, I think eating meat is unethical but most people don't. Does that make me wrong?
        sp332 16y ago
        I'm just using "ethical" to contrast things that would be wrong no matter what the law says. Breaking the law is unethical - that's why we don't need a "Rule 1: Don't break the rules." Stealing would be unethical even if there were no law. But copying something without the author's permission isn't unethical except when the law says so.

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

by 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.
  - sp332 16y ago
    I have heard that it's different in other countries, but the system in the USA is pretty clear that IP is a legal construct, and is only used as an incentive, not an inherent right. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote most of the Declaration of Independence (and who were both later elected to the office of President), thought that IP had no basis in reality. http://classicliberal.tripod.com/madison/detached4.html http://classicliberal.tripod.com/madison/detached4.html and http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12....
    - aplusbi 16y ago
      Just because US law defines IP as an incentive not an inherent right doesn't mean that culturally it's only a incentive. You have poorly defined what "ethical" means. So far the only clarification you have made is that legal and ethical are too different things. Some people disagree and define "ethical" as "law-abiding" which means that copyright infringement is unethical. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that there is a degree of relativism to your statement. Just because you don't think that copyright infringement is unethical doesn't mean that people who do are wrong. I'm not really a proponent of moral-relativism but ultimately I have to accepted that ethics are a human construct and as such disagreement will arise over its precise definition. For example, I think eating meat is unethical but most people don't. Does that make me wrong?
      - sp332 16y ago
        I'm just using "ethical" to contrast things that would be wrong no matter what the law says. Breaking the law is unethical - that's why we don't need a "Rule 1: Don't break the rules." Stealing would be unethical even if there were no law. But copying something without the author's permission isn't unethical except when the law says so.