3 ms·

Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. If the content is on the disc or shipped as

by LocalH 3y ago

Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. If the content is on the disc or shipped as part of the files of the base game, then it should be accessible without additional purchase. Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content". Imagine this taken to the logical extreme. I sell you a printer. It comes with an amount of ink. However, I've decided that instead of allowing all of the ink to be used, I will limit the printer to only give you X number of pages per cartridge, regardless of actual ink content. Buuuuut, you can also pay me $5 for the "ability" to use all of the ink in your cartridges instead of only part of it. Would it be wrong for hackers to unlock my printers to use all of the ink without having to pay a subscription fee?

umvi 3y ago
Seems morally dubious. When you purchase software, it doesn't mean you automatically own the bytes and can do whatever you want with them. There are things call licenses that dictate what you are allowed to do, and you agree to the license when you decide to use the software. If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway. Just because money has changed hands doesn't mean you now have free reign to do whatever you want with the bytes. If someone sells you linux for $1000, that doesn't mean you are allowed to make it closed source for further development because the GPL license you agreed to prevents you from doing so.
- buildbot 3y ago
  This is an amusing attempt at a defense if what Tesla is doing given that they are currently violating said GPL license for Linux…
- kelnos 3y ago
  I don't think I agree with your moral stance. If I buy a car, then, yes, "my hardware my choice". Software should be no different. I personally think end user license agreements are immoral. If you want to attach conditions to use, you should have to spend the time to work out a proper contract, executed by both parties, with consideration provided on both sides. But I still think that's weird. To use your "commercial use" example, if I buy a lawnmower, the company that sells it to me should not be able to dictate that I can only use it for personal use, on my own lawn. If I want to use it to mow my neighbors' lawns and charge them for it, they can't stop me. Copyright licenses like the GPL are interesting. I've released software under the GPL in the past (though these days I usually choose more permissive licenses like Apache or MIT). The GPL itself is essentially a hack that rides on our current awful copyright law in order to creatively subvert it. If our copyright laws were more reasonable and more aimed toward benefiting the public commons, we may not even have a need for the GPL; it's even possible that big parts of it would be unenforceable in a more reasonable copyright regime. Just a note on this: > If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway While this may be true under current law, there's nothing inherent in the universe that makes it this way. We as a society have decided that, legally, some things are out of bounds when it comes to contractual obligations. As an extreme example, you can't contractually sign yourself into slavery. No court (in the US and quite a few other places, at least) would consider that contract valid. The idea that you can sign away your rights to use a piece of software commercially is not some absolute moral good. We could decide as a society that this sort of thing isn't ok, and enshrine it into law.
gruez 3y ago
> Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. And what's the "moral perspective" in question? Is it just "whatever benefits the consumer"?
qeternity 3y ago
> Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content". This is called price discrimination and it’s a great thing. You’re talking about under/over charging but that’s absurd: there is no such thing. People pay what something is worth to them. What you’re advocating for creates actual economic inefficiencies: the people who don’t want the DLC must either pay a higher price, or not make the purchase at all, and the people who would happily pay for the additional DLC now get a net cheaper price, despite a willingness to pay more.
mbesto 3y ago
> I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. I personally do not like services that exhibit rent-seeking behavior, but what, precisely, is IMMORAL about the practice?

by LocalH 3y ago

umvi 3y ago

Seems morally dubious. When you purchase software, it doesn't mean you automatically own the bytes and can do whatever you want with them. There are things call licenses that dictate what you are allowed to do, and you agree to the license when you decide to use the software. If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway. Just because money has changed hands doesn't mean you now have free reign to do whatever you want with the bytes. If someone sells you linux for $1000, that doesn't mean you are allowed to make it closed source for further development because the GPL license you agreed to prevents you from doing so.

buildbot 3y ago
This is an amusing attempt at a defense if what Tesla is doing given that they are currently violating said GPL license for Linux…
kelnos 3y ago
I don't think I agree with your moral stance. If I buy a car, then, yes, "my hardware my choice". Software should be no different. I personally think end user license agreements are immoral. If you want to attach conditions to use, you should have to spend the time to work out a proper contract, executed by both parties, with consideration provided on both sides. But I still think that's weird. To use your "commercial use" example, if I buy a lawnmower, the company that sells it to me should not be able to dictate that I can only use it for personal use, on my own lawn. If I want to use it to mow my neighbors' lawns and charge them for it, they can't stop me. Copyright licenses like the GPL are interesting. I've released software under the GPL in the past (though these days I usually choose more permissive licenses like Apache or MIT). The GPL itself is essentially a hack that rides on our current awful copyright law in order to creatively subvert it. If our copyright laws were more reasonable and more aimed toward benefiting the public commons, we may not even have a need for the GPL; it's even possible that big parts of it would be unenforceable in a more reasonable copyright regime. Just a note on this: > If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway While this may be true under current law, there's nothing inherent in the universe that makes it this way. We as a society have decided that, legally, some things are out of bounds when it comes to contractual obligations. As an extreme example, you can't contractually sign yourself into slavery. No court (in the US and quite a few other places, at least) would consider that contract valid. The idea that you can sign away your rights to use a piece of software commercially is not some absolute moral good. We could decide as a society that this sort of thing isn't ok, and enshrine it into law.

gruez 3y ago

> Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. And what's the "moral perspective" in question? Is it just "whatever benefits the consumer"?

qeternity 3y ago

> Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content". This is called price discrimination and it’s a great thing. You’re talking about under/over charging but that’s absurd: there is no such thing. People pay what something is worth to them. What you’re advocating for creates actual economic inefficiencies: the people who don’t want the DLC must either pay a higher price, or not make the purchase at all, and the people who would happily pay for the additional DLC now get a net cheaper price, despite a willingness to pay more.

mbesto 3y ago

> I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. I personally do not like services that exhibit rent-seeking behavior, but what, precisely, is IMMORAL about the practice?