2 ms·
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the same logic could be applied to e.g. game console emulators. ...and as much as I hate to say it, I do think
by Wowfunhappy 4y ago
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the same logic could be applied to e.g. game console emulators.
...and as much as I hate to say it, I do think the logic might be correct in both situations. (I say this as a heavy user of console emulators—albeit also as someone who does go through the trouble to legally dump his own games.)
- criddell 4y agoI don't know that it's really an apples-to-apples comparison. Console emulators are a copyright issue and those are generally (but not always) civil matters.
- jfim 4y agoIt depends on how you see it. One way to look at it is to say "I derived this rule based on what the ratio of licit to illicit usage is, thus it should apply everywhere." From that perspective, then yes, your observation that it would apply to both situations is correct. Another way to look at it is "for this particular scenario, what is the optimal outcome?" If you're running a game console emulator for a system that's not being sold anymore, with games that are not being sold anymore, one could argue that that scenario would be net positive considering the lack of harm; in other words, you get to enjoy the game, while nobody gets hurt, so it's positive overall. The first perspective is called "rule utilitarianism," while the latter is called "act utilitarianism," in case you want to learn more about those.