4 ms·
You are correct. I suppose it is a lot more nuanced. I believe a sound argument for copyright/DMCA would require: 1. Arguments to be made for the social utili
by expensive_news 3y ago
You are correct. I suppose it is a lot more nuanced.
I believe a sound argument for copyright/DMCA would require:
1. Arguments to be made for the social utility in laws enabling such business models to exist, and
2. ethical considerations that come into play when said laws are violated (for example, a creator operating under the assumption of those laws being followed loses out on revenue when those laws are broken)
I still think there are cases to be made for both of these claims, but this might be one reason why the two sides are so at odds with each other.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoI agree there's more nuance to this. Your original application of Kant's imperative is wrong, but it's not a total loss either - I feel it could be rescued with a more precise line of argument. I particularly like the bit from your point 2. here: > a creator operating under the assumption of those laws being followed loses out on revenue when those laws are broken I'm not 100% certain - I'm trying to think this through now - but I feel that this is an ethics issue, related to honesty and fairness.