4 ms·
I think you're right about the points being extreme, but who's to decide that a broke kid taking Photoshop is better than a broke adult? And why is it not the
by earbitscom 15y ago
I think you're right about the points being extreme, but who's to decide that a broke kid taking Photoshop is better than a broke adult? And why is it not the fairest proposition to say that neither is entitled to this luxury product?
- rrreese 15y agoSorry to be clear I mean that ignoring moral or ethical implications, some one who is broke and pirates something they can not afford is not harming that rights holder. Regardless of their age. Not harming in a financial sense anyway, you could argue that there is one sort of moral harm maybe.
- bmelton 15y agois not necessarily harming that rights holder. If my neighbor comes by and borrows the ladder from my garage, it probably isn't hurting me. Probably. There are a number of scenarios I can think of in which it does in fact harm me, some morally, some financially. That doesn't change the fact that it's my ladder, and my neighbor has no right to take it without my permission.
- rrreese 15y agoAbsolutely agree with you. I would object though, if after your neighbour took your ladder you claimed financial loss despite not being hurt. I would also object if your neighbour claimed they have the moral right to take it since "you weren't using it any way". Or even worse that since you don't offer ladder rentals it's your fault they took it without permission. Both those extremes are, well extreme.