4 ms·

No, but it justifies artificially creating perfect copies of diamonds.

by halgir 5y ago

unishark 5y ago
Of course I chose an analogy which sidestepped IP questions to focus on the moral issue of defending piracy based on the price. If your argument is against IP though, why is the price relevant? You support IP laws as long as the price is one you personally find reasonable, so it's basically a system of voluntary donations then?
- halgir 5y ago
  I haven't personally drawn a hard line in the question of whether or not IP law as a whole is good or bad. I hate to use this cop-out answer, but it depends. I'm sorry for jacking your analogy, but I think it holds water. Diamonds are not inherently valuable (to the degree they are priced at retail). They are valuable because of an exploitative supply chain and social manipulation efforts spanning decades. Which does not justify robbing stores and potentially causing physical or mental harm to innocent shopkeepers. But very much justifies replicating the product to render those practices worthless and hopefully deter them from happening more. The same goes for educational textbooks in many (but far from all) cases. Personally I've had professors who assigned their own books at very reasonable prices and apologize profusely for them costing money to begin with. I've had others who peddled their own expensive books while themselves handing out copies (!) of books by other authors. I wouldn't dream of pirating the former, but I'm pirating the shit out of the latter if I can.
  - unishark 5y ago
    The reason I sidestep the IP issue is I am personally much more favorable to that argument, however I didn't see it as relevant when people are labeling market behavior as "predatory". It's not to corner people into an easier target so much as to restrict the debate to the issue I take actual exception with. This idea of labeling something as "price gouging" as a moral defense for anything really. If someone owns something then they are free to ask whatever price they want, up to refusing to sell it at all. That's what ownership means.
    - halgir 5y ago
      > If someone owns something then they are free to ask whatever price they want, up to refusing to sell it at all. That's what ownership means. Yes, I agree this is what ownership means in principle. I think the more practical view of ownership is what the current monopolist of violence will let you do with what you possess. The monopolist of violence in most cases being your local government. There are many real-world examples of being regulated in what you can or can not do with what you ostensibly own. Whether that's real estate, natural resources or intellectual property. Even IP has expiration dates defined by regulators. Do those expiration dates incontrovertibly define what is morally right or wrong to do with said IP? Were the regulators directed by divine mandate when setting those expiration dates? > It's not to corner people into an easier target so much as to restrict the debate to the issue I take actual exception with. Just so I'm fully aware of what we're currently debating, is it this?: > This idea of labeling something as "price gouging" as a moral defense for anything really. In which case, here's an example in which I personally believe theft is morally justified. Let's say your family is caught in a natural disaster, and you need fresh water to survive. A local opportunist saw the disaster coming and stockpiled all local water sources at low prices, and is now attempting to sell you water for the reasonable sum (when compared to the alternative option of death) of your life savings. I'm curious about your position on this (intentionally extreme) example. Not as a trick question, but because I'd like to know how rigidly you adhere to the concept of ownership being morally just in all cases. If you still believe theft is morally wrong in this case, that's fine - it just means we believe opposite things.
      - unishark 5y ago
        If you want to argue that IP is not real ownership and should not exist, then I cannot make a good counter-argument. Except to say that it is the system we have and to eliminate it would simply shift the debate to whatever new business model the video game or textbook publishers switched to. As for your price-gouging case, an ethical quandary would remain if you were completely broke and dying of thirst no matter how reasonably the water was priced. And/or if the seller was just a neighbor who actually didn't want to sell at all but just keep it for himself. How is it more moral to keep and refuse to sell at any price than to keep unless someone offers you a high enough price? You must either think theft when needed to preserve life is morally justified or not.

No, but it justifies artificially creating perfect copies of diamonds.

by halgir 5y ago

No, but it justifies artificially creating perfect copies of diamonds.

Of course I chose an analogy which sidestepped IP questions to focus on the moral issue of defending piracy based on the price. If your argument is against IP though, why is the price relevant? You support IP laws as long as the price is one you personally find reasonable, so it's basically a system of voluntary donations then?

halgir 5y ago
I haven't personally drawn a hard line in the question of whether or not IP law as a whole is good or bad. I hate to use this cop-out answer, but it depends. I'm sorry for jacking your analogy, but I think it holds water. Diamonds are not inherently valuable (to the degree they are priced at retail). They are valuable because of an exploitative supply chain and social manipulation efforts spanning decades. Which does not justify robbing stores and potentially causing physical or mental harm to innocent shopkeepers. But very much justifies replicating the product to render those practices worthless and hopefully deter them from happening more. The same goes for educational textbooks in many (but far from all) cases. Personally I've had professors who assigned their own books at very reasonable prices and apologize profusely for them costing money to begin with. I've had others who peddled their own expensive books while themselves handing out copies (!) of books by other authors. I wouldn't dream of pirating the former, but I'm pirating the shit out of the latter if I can.
- unishark 5y ago
  The reason I sidestep the IP issue is I am personally much more favorable to that argument, however I didn't see it as relevant when people are labeling market behavior as "predatory". It's not to corner people into an easier target so much as to restrict the debate to the issue I take actual exception with. This idea of labeling something as "price gouging" as a moral defense for anything really. If someone owns something then they are free to ask whatever price they want, up to refusing to sell it at all. That's what ownership means.
  - halgir 5y ago
    > If someone owns something then they are free to ask whatever price they want, up to refusing to sell it at all. That's what ownership means. Yes, I agree this is what ownership means in principle. I think the more practical view of ownership is what the current monopolist of violence will let you do with what you possess. The monopolist of violence in most cases being your local government. There are many real-world examples of being regulated in what you can or can not do with what you ostensibly own. Whether that's real estate, natural resources or intellectual property. Even IP has expiration dates defined by regulators. Do those expiration dates incontrovertibly define what is morally right or wrong to do with said IP? Were the regulators directed by divine mandate when setting those expiration dates? > It's not to corner people into an easier target so much as to restrict the debate to the issue I take actual exception with. Just so I'm fully aware of what we're currently debating, is it this?: > This idea of labeling something as "price gouging" as a moral defense for anything really. In which case, here's an example in which I personally believe theft is morally justified. Let's say your family is caught in a natural disaster, and you need fresh water to survive. A local opportunist saw the disaster coming and stockpiled all local water sources at low prices, and is now attempting to sell you water for the reasonable sum (when compared to the alternative option of death) of your life savings. I'm curious about your position on this (intentionally extreme) example. Not as a trick question, but because I'd like to know how rigidly you adhere to the concept of ownership being morally just in all cases. If you still believe theft is morally wrong in this case, that's fine - it just means we believe opposite things.
    - unishark 5y ago
      If you want to argue that IP is not real ownership and should not exist, then I cannot make a good counter-argument. Except to say that it is the system we have and to eliminate it would simply shift the debate to whatever new business model the video game or textbook publishers switched to. As for your price-gouging case, an ethical quandary would remain if you were completely broke and dying of thirst no matter how reasonably the water was priced. And/or if the seller was just a neighbor who actually didn't want to sell at all but just keep it for himself. How is it more moral to keep and refuse to sell at any price than to keep unless someone offers you a high enough price? You must either think theft when needed to preserve life is morally justified or not.