4 ms·

"Clearly, people think it is their choice." And that is where the author disagrees. People think it is their choice to either pay or not pay and get for free w

by pilom 15y ago

"Clearly, people think it is their choice." And that is where the author disagrees. People think it is their choice to either pay or not pay and get for free without consequences. That is wrong. If you choose to download without paying, you can't take the moral high ground because what you did is wrong.

wybo 15y ago
You can take the moral high ground. Because laws can be wrong, an breaking wrong laws can be right. Imho the economics of scarcity that is behind copyright is morally problematic. Thus breaking copyright laws could be right under some circumstances. Also see the following for some more reasons, and some alternatives: http://wybowiersma.net/pub/papers/Wiersma,Wybo,Enclosures_of_the_mind_intellectual_property_from_a_global_perspective.pdf http://wybowiersma.net/pub/papers/Wiersma,Wybo,Enclosures_of...
mikeash 15y ago
This is just the kind of junk I'm talking about. I get that the author disagrees. The problem is that neither he nor you back it up with any reasoning. You're just declaring that you're right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. What's the point of that? The simple fact is that copyright infringement is not a universally-agreed wrong the way e.g. murder is. If you want to convince people that it should be, that's fine, but if you argue from the assumption that it already is, that's circular reasoning and won't convince anyone.
- SteveJS 15y ago
  An intellectual argument about morals requires a basis upon which to argue. There are psychology researchers doing work in this area: http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular?
  - nessus42 15y ago
    Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular? If you ask me, the only moral arguments that aren't going to be circular are those that are based on Utilitarianism (or some similar form of Consequentialism). Of course, the parties debating then have to agree on this basic premise, or they are going to get nowhere fast. But, if you ask me, those who reject all forms of Utilitarianism are just profoundly kidding themselves. This fact is shown quite clearly by the fact that no one would accept a moral theory that results in the most miserable of all possible worlds, even if it seemed at the start that the premises of the moral theory were reasonable ones. E.g., property rights being amongst the most important rights, or what have you.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    I agree that it gets tough (although I think the Golden Rule answers the temple question, and a lot of others). The thing is, in this case, they aren't even trying. The whole "you don't have a choice" bit rests on the assumption that piracy is immoral, and the posts themselves serve simply to remind people of that. It's rather condescending, and entirely pointless if they don't accept the assumption that piracy is immoral, which they almost certainly do not.
    - SteveJS 15y ago
      It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation. I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations." I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.
      - mikeash 15y ago
        The Golden Rule just needs a little more depth to be applied here. You have zero holy places, but if you had property, you'd want people to respect it. Therefore, you should respect other people's property. I think it's very much condescending if you treat the immorality of piracy as a base assumption held by both parties. If you treat it simply as your own base assumption, that's fine. But treating it as a base assumption of the other side and then arguing against their behavior based on that qualifies in my book.
- davidw 15y ago
  Here's my point of view: "intellectual property" exists as a solution to the under provisioning of public goods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good It's not perfect; indeed, it's a 'messy compromise'. Currently, one that's tilted too far in favor of producers. However, consumers should also realize that producers can't just create stuff for free: it takes time to write books, lots of money to do movies, and selling music helps bands do what they do full-time, rather than as a hobby, and thus create more music that you, a fan, presumably are happy with. I'm not sure what the 'right' answer is, but I have a feeling that it won't be simple and 'easy', but rather a bit messy. I think that easy access to 'legit' stuff is definitely part of the solution though. By making the legal route the easiest one, it takes away a big excuse. Something more people need to think about is life "at the margin", in the economics sense of the term. Don't think about Lady Gaga and Windows and stuff like that: think about people who are on the edge between making a living with some form of IP and having to pursue it only as a hobby.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pilom 15y ago
  Ok I see the difference. I'll answer more to your point. When a person creates a work, they have a right to decide how that work is given to others. They can leave it in their closet. They can sell a couple copies to friends. They can give it away to everyone and say "if you like this, please give me a dollar!" They can say, "here is one copy for you but I want it back if you ever decide you don't want it any more." The creator of the work can place whatever restrictions they want on the work. That is my basis for calling people wrong. People who pirate argue that they disagree with the creators choice for how a work should be distributed. Thus because they disagree with it, they will just take it anyway. That is why it is wrong.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    No, you're just asserting it without backing it up again. "[Creators] have a right to decide how that work is given to others." You just state this, as if it's a universally held fact, and then base the rest of your post off of it. Clearly a whole lot of people do not believe that creators have a right to decide this.

by pilom 15y ago

wybo 15y ago

You can take the moral high ground. Because laws can be wrong, an breaking wrong laws can be right. Imho the economics of scarcity that is behind copyright is morally problematic. Thus breaking copyright laws could be right under some circumstances. Also see the following for some more reasons, and some alternatives: http://wybowiersma.net/pub/papers/Wiersma,Wybo,Enclosures_of_the_mind_intellectual_property_from_a_global_perspective.pdf http://wybowiersma.net/pub/papers/Wiersma,Wybo,Enclosures_of...

mikeash 15y ago

This is just the kind of junk I'm talking about. I get that the author disagrees. The problem is that neither he nor you back it up with any reasoning. You're just declaring that you're right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. What's the point of that? The simple fact is that copyright infringement is not a universally-agreed wrong the way e.g. murder is. If you want to convince people that it should be, that's fine, but if you argue from the assumption that it already is, that's circular reasoning and won't convince anyone.

SteveJS 15y ago
An intellectual argument about morals requires a basis upon which to argue. There are psychology researchers doing work in this area: http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular?
- nessus42 15y ago
  Is it moral to wear shoes into a Indian temple? How do you argue that without going circular? If you ask me, the only moral arguments that aren't going to be circular are those that are based on Utilitarianism (or some similar form of Consequentialism). Of course, the parties debating then have to agree on this basic premise, or they are going to get nowhere fast. But, if you ask me, those who reject all forms of Utilitarianism are just profoundly kidding themselves. This fact is shown quite clearly by the fact that no one would accept a moral theory that results in the most miserable of all possible worlds, even if it seemed at the start that the premises of the moral theory were reasonable ones. E.g., property rights being amongst the most important rights, or what have you.
- mikeash 15y ago
  I agree that it gets tough (although I think the Golden Rule answers the temple question, and a lot of others). The thing is, in this case, they aren't even trying. The whole "you don't have a choice" bit rests on the assumption that piracy is immoral, and the posts themselves serve simply to remind people of that. It's rather condescending, and entirely pointless if they don't accept the assumption that piracy is immoral, which they almost certainly do not.
  - SteveJS 15y ago
    It can't quite be the Golden Rule .. "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you". I'm an atheist. I have zero holy places to profane. And yet I do think it is immoral to profane someone's holy place, despite my belief that it is a social creation. I don't believe many serious people would ascribe to this 'GR' moral logic: "I don't care if someone appropriates my creations" (because I give mine away, or I have none) ergo "I am morally sound in appropriating others creations." I agree with you that it may be pointless to argue piracy is immoral with someone who thinks it is moral. However, I don't think it is actually condescending to have that as a base assumption.
    - mikeash 15y ago
      The Golden Rule just needs a little more depth to be applied here. You have zero holy places, but if you had property, you'd want people to respect it. Therefore, you should respect other people's property. I think it's very much condescending if you treat the immorality of piracy as a base assumption held by both parties. If you treat it simply as your own base assumption, that's fine. But treating it as a base assumption of the other side and then arguing against their behavior based on that qualifies in my book.
davidw 15y ago
Here's my point of view: "intellectual property" exists as a solution to the under provisioning of public goods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good It's not perfect; indeed, it's a 'messy compromise'. Currently, one that's tilted too far in favor of producers. However, consumers should also realize that producers can't just create stuff for free: it takes time to write books, lots of money to do movies, and selling music helps bands do what they do full-time, rather than as a hobby, and thus create more music that you, a fan, presumably are happy with. I'm not sure what the 'right' answer is, but I have a feeling that it won't be simple and 'easy', but rather a bit messy. I think that easy access to 'legit' stuff is definitely part of the solution though. By making the legal route the easiest one, it takes away a big excuse. Something more people need to think about is life "at the margin", in the economics sense of the term. Don't think about Lady Gaga and Windows and stuff like that: think about people who are on the edge between making a living with some form of IP and having to pursue it only as a hobby.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pilom 15y ago
Ok I see the difference. I'll answer more to your point. When a person creates a work, they have a right to decide how that work is given to others. They can leave it in their closet. They can sell a couple copies to friends. They can give it away to everyone and say "if you like this, please give me a dollar!" They can say, "here is one copy for you but I want it back if you ever decide you don't want it any more." The creator of the work can place whatever restrictions they want on the work. That is my basis for calling people wrong. People who pirate argue that they disagree with the creators choice for how a work should be distributed. Thus because they disagree with it, they will just take it anyway. That is why it is wrong.
- mikeash 15y ago
  No, you're just asserting it without backing it up again. "[Creators] have a right to decide how that work is given to others." You just state this, as if it's a universally held fact, and then base the rest of your post off of it. Clearly a whole lot of people do not believe that creators have a right to decide this.