4 ms·

I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.

by wyager 5y ago

afavour 5y ago
Of course there is. Pirating streaming media isn’t like stealing bread to feed your starving family, it’s entirely optional. If you don’t agree with the terms of service (i.e. DRM) then don’t use the service. Deciding on your own terms of service is just entitlement. I personally don’t care either way but you can’t say there is no argument against it.
- wyager 5y ago
  Stealing bread actually deprives someone else of a scarce resource, but the marginal cost of making a digital copy of a TV show is ~zero. So you’re right - it is quite different. Stealing bread is much worse than copying a digital file.
  - sosborn 5y ago
    Stealing bread to feed your family when the alternative is starving is not the same as watching Game of Thrones.
    - fwn 5y ago
      You both argue around the question: how does the unlicensed reproduction of media morally compare to stealing. Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft. Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft. You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate. I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds. A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.
      - wyager 5y ago
        I’m actually arguing from a slightly different consequentialist position; I don’t think intellectual property law in general is socially efficient. You have to consider whether the (putative) benefit of IP-based R&D funding exceeds the loss associated with the introduction of artificial scarcity, social cost of IP enforcement, etc. For something like rocket engines or metallurgy, I would say “maybe”. For the latest Star Wars spinoff, I would say “strong no”. Even for rocket engines or whatever, it’s not clear if the patent system is still producing acceptable returns.
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  Then why do public libraries exist? Reading a book is optional. Artists who make TV and movies gain nothing from google being hostile to the people trying to view their work. It’s the publishers and middlemen that are doing this.
  - afavour 5y ago
    I don’t understand the logic here. Libraries pay money for the media they lend out so how is it comparable?
- anoncake 5y ago
  You don't need a justification (like feeding your family) for something that isn't unethical in the first place.

I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.

by wyager 5y ago

I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.

afavour 5y ago

Of course there is. Pirating streaming media isn’t like stealing bread to feed your starving family, it’s entirely optional. If you don’t agree with the terms of service (i.e. DRM) then don’t use the service. Deciding on your own terms of service is just entitlement. I personally don’t care either way but you can’t say there is no argument against it.

wyager 5y ago
Stealing bread actually deprives someone else of a scarce resource, but the marginal cost of making a digital copy of a TV show is ~zero. So you’re right - it is quite different. Stealing bread is much worse than copying a digital file.
- sosborn 5y ago
  Stealing bread to feed your family when the alternative is starving is not the same as watching Game of Thrones.
  - fwn 5y ago
    You both argue around the question: how does the unlicensed reproduction of media morally compare to stealing. Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft. Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft. You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate. I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds. A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.
    - wyager 5y ago
      I’m actually arguing from a slightly different consequentialist position; I don’t think intellectual property law in general is socially efficient. You have to consider whether the (putative) benefit of IP-based R&D funding exceeds the loss associated with the introduction of artificial scarcity, social cost of IP enforcement, etc. For something like rocket engines or metallurgy, I would say “maybe”. For the latest Star Wars spinoff, I would say “strong no”. Even for rocket engines or whatever, it’s not clear if the patent system is still producing acceptable returns.
whitexn--g28h 5y ago
Then why do public libraries exist? Reading a book is optional. Artists who make TV and movies gain nothing from google being hostile to the people trying to view their work. It’s the publishers and middlemen that are doing this.
- afavour 5y ago
  I don’t understand the logic here. Libraries pay money for the media they lend out so how is it comparable?
anoncake 5y ago
You don't need a justification (like feeding your family) for something that isn't unethical in the first place.