4 ms·

The notion of private property fails when it comes to things that can be multiplied in quantity practically for free, by a practically unlimited amount. What

The notion of private property fails when it comes to things that can be multiplied in quantity practically for free, by a practically unlimited amount. What I mean when I say private property "fails" is that it is not a useful concept to us as a society in cases like this. The consumption of goods of the aforementioned type are nonrival, meaning my consumption of it does not interfere with your consumption of it. That's why it doesn't really matter.

ModernMech 4y ago
Okay, that's a nice rationalization, and it seems to mirror what the sibling comment said, but it's just a rationalization. You still don't have a right to pirate anything, and the moral argument falls down completely when there are plenty for-pay options available that have no ads whatsoever. With all the options available, it seems to me like selfishness to say that you get to do whatever you want, laws and rights of others be damned. Seems to me if you believe that this model of society is not useful, you should work to change things through legal channels rather than just doing whatever you want to fulfil your desires, regardless of others rights and desires. Would you agree that's also not a useful model for a society?
- Retric 4y ago
  Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Should libraries be allowed to purchase content and then ignore DRM? How about watching YouTube videos of video games you haven’t purchased. This stuff doesn’t have some universal answer everyone will agree with. PS: As for pay for value, people also create value for me by living their life and paying taxes, that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. Sure debate is fine. Changing laws is fine. Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. > At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Not really, because enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. I don’t even begin to see how you can draw a comparison. > that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money. Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them.
    - Retric 4y ago
      > Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws… In practice that’s how all laws work. What percentage of people always drive the speed limit? Hell what percentage of laws have you actually read? In practice people just don’t care about most laws. > enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. Having different moral implications changes the debate but doesn’t mean you can skip the debate. > Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them. That assumes we are in the same country. It’s easy to harm people by paying taxes where they benefit you by paying their own taxes. The world is complex with wars and pollution but also medical research etc.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      Your entire argument rests on conflating law with ethics. Those are very much not the same thing. We can go through a litany of old laws that were unethical, and suggesting that those who lacked the ability to change those laws were thus morally subject to them is not only false, but extremely unethical.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Who lacks the ability to change the laws? Laws are changed all the time and there’s a process to do so. It seems that people here just want to do whatever they want, and I’ve yet to hear an ethical argument as to why that’s okay. The main argument seems to be that people don’t want to watch ads, which… okay, don’t watch ads then. But that doesn’t mean you just get to do whatever you want contrary to established law. There’s plenty of ad free media out there you can buy to satisfy your need for media. Imagine if you managed to change the law and the companies decided to do whatever they wanted regardless. I’m sure you would complain about that, yes?
        Retric 4y ago
        Wow, I didn’t realize I had that power. I declare all copyright laws are hereby abolished. Of course laws are actually imposed on others, which is why they have zero moral weight. Laws are simply an imperfect reflection of society and all it’s issues. PS: Do you think companies actually follow the all laws as written?

ModernMech 4y ago

Okay, that's a nice rationalization, and it seems to mirror what the sibling comment said, but it's just a rationalization. You still don't have a right to pirate anything, and the moral argument falls down completely when there are plenty for-pay options available that have no ads whatsoever. With all the options available, it seems to me like selfishness to say that you get to do whatever you want, laws and rights of others be damned. Seems to me if you believe that this model of society is not useful, you should work to change things through legal channels rather than just doing whatever you want to fulfil your desires, regardless of others rights and desires. Would you agree that's also not a useful model for a society?

Retric 4y ago
Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Should libraries be allowed to purchase content and then ignore DRM? How about watching YouTube videos of video games you haven’t purchased. This stuff doesn’t have some universal answer everyone will agree with. PS: As for pay for value, people also create value for me by living their life and paying taxes, that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Copyright isn’t some inherent property of the in inverse, it’s up for debate. Sure debate is fine. Changing laws is fine. Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. > At best you can argue the right to restrict access to content the same way people used to argue in support of slavery. Not really, because enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. I don’t even begin to see how you can draw a comparison. > that doesn’t somehow create an obligation for me to give them money. Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them.
  - Retric 4y ago
    > Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws… In practice that’s how all laws work. What percentage of people always drive the speed limit? Hell what percentage of laws have you actually read? In practice people just don’t care about most laws. > enslaving people doesn’t have the same moral implications as copyright. Having different moral implications changes the debate but doesn’t mean you can skip the debate. > Yes it does, through paying your own taxes that creates value for them. That assumes we are in the same country. It’s easy to harm people by paying taxes where they benefit you by paying their own taxes. The world is complex with wars and pollution but also medical research etc.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    Your entire argument rests on conflating law with ethics. Those are very much not the same thing. We can go through a litany of old laws that were unethical, and suggesting that those who lacked the ability to change those laws were thus morally subject to them is not only false, but extremely unethical.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Who lacks the ability to change the laws? Laws are changed all the time and there’s a process to do so. It seems that people here just want to do whatever they want, and I’ve yet to hear an ethical argument as to why that’s okay. The main argument seems to be that people don’t want to watch ads, which… okay, don’t watch ads then. But that doesn’t mean you just get to do whatever you want contrary to established law. There’s plenty of ad free media out there you can buy to satisfy your need for media. Imagine if you managed to change the law and the companies decided to do whatever they wanted regardless. I’m sure you would complain about that, yes?
      - Retric 4y ago
        Wow, I didn’t realize I had that power. I declare all copyright laws are hereby abolished. Of course laws are actually imposed on others, which is why they have zero moral weight. Laws are simply an imperfect reflection of society and all it’s issues. PS: Do you think companies actually follow the all laws as written?