3 ms·

When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer h

When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is moving. But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of anything. That's copying, which is a different kind of taking. It gets even more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate copy of a song or a movie, and then produces more copies to share with other people. You run the fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "taking" in both senses.

citricsquid 16y ago
My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can "take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical. Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|
- kijinbear 16y ago
  Your actual argument depends on the sense of the word "take" that you use. (a) It is a well-established norm in any modern society that it's immoral to take (move) something without permission. (b) It is not well-established -- or at least, pirates would like to say that it's controversial -- that it's immoral to take (copy) something without permission. (c) It's even less well-established that it's immoral to take (purchase) something with permission and then crack the DRM or produce further copies to share with other people. Nobody disagrees with you about (a). But you're extrapolating that view to (b) and (c), and that part of the argument seems to hinge upon an equivocation of the different senses of "take". Content producers have a shaky argument because they want to use the "moving" sense of the word "take" to argue that (b) is immoral, while using something like the "copying" sense of the word "take" to argue that (c) is immoral. (If ownership of the movie was actually moved when you purchased it, it's none of their business what you do with the DVD you now own!) Don't make the same mistake of equivocation. This is not an argument that piracy is OK. I'm just trying to point out that there are good and bad ways to argue against piracy.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  "Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument" If I don't know what your words are supposed to mean, then I don't know what your argument is supposed to be.

citricsquid 16y ago

My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can "take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical. Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|

kijinbear 16y ago
Your actual argument depends on the sense of the word "take" that you use. (a) It is a well-established norm in any modern society that it's immoral to take (move) something without permission. (b) It is not well-established -- or at least, pirates would like to say that it's controversial -- that it's immoral to take (copy) something without permission. (c) It's even less well-established that it's immoral to take (purchase) something with permission and then crack the DRM or produce further copies to share with other people. Nobody disagrees with you about (a). But you're extrapolating that view to (b) and (c), and that part of the argument seems to hinge upon an equivocation of the different senses of "take". Content producers have a shaky argument because they want to use the "moving" sense of the word "take" to argue that (b) is immoral, while using something like the "copying" sense of the word "take" to argue that (c) is immoral. (If ownership of the movie was actually moved when you purchased it, it's none of their business what you do with the DVD you now own!) Don't make the same mistake of equivocation. This is not an argument that piracy is OK. I'm just trying to point out that there are good and bad ways to argue against piracy.
jamesbritt 16y ago
"Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument" If I don't know what your words are supposed to mean, then I don't know what your argument is supposed to be.