3 ms·

> 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

> 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
      Are you eligible to vote? Can you run for Congress? Can you get involved in politics? If yes, that’s the power you have. In America, laws aren’t imposed, they are implemented via a democratic process, and that’s what gives them moral weight. Maybe in your country if things are different you might have a point. To your PS, I do believe companies break the law, and I complain just as much when they do. IMO anyone pirating content, on some perceived notion that they are acting ethically, lose all standing to complain about lawbreaking by corporations or others who may rationalize breaking the law under their own ethical framework (e.g. it’s ethical to break the law if it means more profit for myself).
      - Retric 4y ago
        > and I complain just as much when they do. That’s a mismatch between how you want the world to work and how the world actually works. If you realize companies are going to ignore the law then getting update about it is no more rational than complaining about gravity. > In America, laws aren’t imposed, they are implemented via a democratic process Being the outcome of a democratic process doesn’t somehow prevent them from being imposed. As to voting or running for congress, residents of DC elect a non voting member of congress which has exactly as much power as you might imagine. They then can’t create local laws without approval from the members of congress who can actually vote. Congratulations, you are a member of the least democratic democracy in the world today. So even by your standards it’s laws have no moral weight.
        ModernMech 4y ago
        All I’m hearing are justifications and rationalizations for lawlessness and selfishness. At least corporations are transparent about their motives - greed. With piracy, the pretzels people twist themselves into in order to justify their actions are astounding to me. Why can’t any of there pirates here admit they are just selfish and feel like they are above the law? At least it would be honest.
happytoexplain 4y ago
>Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. Why? "Fine" vs "not fine" is not 1-to-1 with "legal" vs "illegal", clearly.

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
    Are you eligible to vote? Can you run for Congress? Can you get involved in politics? If yes, that’s the power you have. In America, laws aren’t imposed, they are implemented via a democratic process, and that’s what gives them moral weight. Maybe in your country if things are different you might have a point. To your PS, I do believe companies break the law, and I complain just as much when they do. IMO anyone pirating content, on some perceived notion that they are acting ethically, lose all standing to complain about lawbreaking by corporations or others who may rationalize breaking the law under their own ethical framework (e.g. it’s ethical to break the law if it means more profit for myself).
    - Retric 4y ago
      > and I complain just as much when they do. That’s a mismatch between how you want the world to work and how the world actually works. If you realize companies are going to ignore the law then getting update about it is no more rational than complaining about gravity. > In America, laws aren’t imposed, they are implemented via a democratic process Being the outcome of a democratic process doesn’t somehow prevent them from being imposed. As to voting or running for congress, residents of DC elect a non voting member of congress which has exactly as much power as you might imagine. They then can’t create local laws without approval from the members of congress who can actually vote. Congratulations, you are a member of the least democratic democracy in the world today. So even by your standards it’s laws have no moral weight.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        All I’m hearing are justifications and rationalizations for lawlessness and selfishness. At least corporations are transparent about their motives - greed. With piracy, the pretzels people twist themselves into in order to justify their actions are astounding to me. Why can’t any of there pirates here admit they are just selfish and feel like they are above the law? At least it would be honest.

happytoexplain 4y ago

>Just deciding for yourself that you get to break laws because you want to watch a show is not fine. Why? "Fine" vs "not fine" is not 1-to-1 with "legal" vs "illegal", clearly.