6 ms·

What do you mean when you say that it's "unethical"? I understand that something is "unethical" when it contravenes some code of correct behavior. I'm not sure

What do you mean when you say that it's "unethical"? I understand that something is "unethical" when it contravenes some code of correct behavior. I'm not sure what code is contravened in the following scenario: * Steve sells secrets for a fee. * I want to buy a secret from Steve but he refuses to sell to me specifically. * Steve sells his secret to Bob. * Bob is willing to tell Steve's secret to me for free, so he does so. It seems to me that in this scenario everyone got what they wanted. Steve got to sell his secret to Bob and not to me, and Bob and I got to learn Steve's secret. I think it would be unethical to force Steve to sell his secret to me if he doesn't want to, but I don't see what's unethical in learning his secret from someone else even if he refuses to sell it to me directly.

fragmede 3y ago
Steve didn't want you to have them. Depending on what they actually are, it could be important. If you're North Korea, and they're the secret to nuclear weapons, Bob is in a lot of trouble with Steve. Or if it's Steve's mom's ashes, and you did something to her that Steve didn't like. Regardless of how you got them, you got them, when Steve didn't want you to have them. You might as well have broken into Steve's house and stolen them yourself. That you had a third party, Bob, to get you those secrets doesn't contravene the fact that Steve didn't want you to have them.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  Of course, I used the word "secret", but it really is the wrong word. A secret is something you don't tell anyone, because you can't afford the wrong person finding out. The game we play with copyright is pretending that cultural artifacts are secrets, even though culture by definition exists in the transmission from one person to another. If Steve didn't want me to have his secret at all he shouldn't be selling it to Bob or anyone else.
WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's a fair question, but you are ethically responsible for knowingly obtaining ill-gotten goods, and pirated media violates the original purchaser's agreement with the IP owner. Basically, Bob agreed with Steve that Bob would not give anyone else the secret, and Steve only sold Bob the secret because he made that agreement, but then Bob turned around and gave it to you for free. So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical. Again, all kinds of modifiers and caveats apply to the severity here. I really have little sympathy for Steve when he's a gazillionaire already, and the marginal value lost isn't meaningful enough to stop Steve from making more secrets, but technically speaking it appears to be an immoral act to pirate.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Well, it's sort of an "all bets are off" deal. The purpose of copyright was a tradeoff: exclusivity, for a while, but then cultural content is available and preserved. The latter part of the deal has been broken. And this is a deal with no teeth. There's no penalties to the copyright holder for something just becoming completely unavailable, despite that availability being part of the original intent. So, if they let down their end of the social contract, anything goes.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >ill-gotten goods I reject that there's such a thing as "ill-gotten bits". >So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical. If unethicality is transitive like this then the concept of what's ethical or unethical dissolves into meaninglessness. Everyone's actions affect everyone else in form or another. How many murders and thefts am I currently indirectly benefiting from just by existing, or by using this computer? Even if I count just the ones I know about and the ones I can infer, I think the number is too large to care about. I'm willing to concede that Bob's behavior is unethical, but not that "my" behavior is, by transitivity.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    But I'm not talking about "affecting", I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct! We can look at law as an example of an application of ethical concepts; it's illegal to knowingly purchase stolen goods. That said, if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods. You also probably don't have a great deal of respect for property ownership generally, or capitalism, so there are more foundational issues that can't really be resolved in this context.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      >I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct! "Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them and is now trying to give them to you, probably in exchange for money. If Bob purchases a secret from Steve and tells me "hey, do you want to hear this thing Steve told me? I'll tell you for free", at what point does the secret Bob tells me become "stolen"? How can an action that takes place after the acquisition of a thing have an effect on the legitimacy of the owning of the thing (in this case, a copy of the secret)? It seems to me that the only possible answers to these questions are "never" and "it can't", respectively. >if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods. I believe in the ownership of bits. If we understand that control is a fundamental part of ownership, then it stands to reason that bits (or, more accurately, sequences of bits) are owned by keeping them secret. Therefore, if you reveal a secret you give up ownership of it, in the same way that you give up ownership of something when you hand it over to someone else. That aside, do you think bits are exactly the same as physical goods? Why would you think that someone who rejects ownership of bits rejects ownership of property in general?

fragmede 3y ago

Steve didn't want you to have them. Depending on what they actually are, it could be important. If you're North Korea, and they're the secret to nuclear weapons, Bob is in a lot of trouble with Steve. Or if it's Steve's mom's ashes, and you did something to her that Steve didn't like. Regardless of how you got them, you got them, when Steve didn't want you to have them. You might as well have broken into Steve's house and stolen them yourself. That you had a third party, Bob, to get you those secrets doesn't contravene the fact that Steve didn't want you to have them.

fluoridation 3y ago
Of course, I used the word "secret", but it really is the wrong word. A secret is something you don't tell anyone, because you can't afford the wrong person finding out. The game we play with copyright is pretending that cultural artifacts are secrets, even though culture by definition exists in the transmission from one person to another. If Steve didn't want me to have his secret at all he shouldn't be selling it to Bob or anyone else.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

It's a fair question, but you are ethically responsible for knowingly obtaining ill-gotten goods, and pirated media violates the original purchaser's agreement with the IP owner. Basically, Bob agreed with Steve that Bob would not give anyone else the secret, and Steve only sold Bob the secret because he made that agreement, but then Bob turned around and gave it to you for free. So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical. Again, all kinds of modifiers and caveats apply to the severity here. I really have little sympathy for Steve when he's a gazillionaire already, and the marginal value lost isn't meaningful enough to stop Steve from making more secrets, but technically speaking it appears to be an immoral act to pirate.

at_a_remove 3y ago
Well, it's sort of an "all bets are off" deal. The purpose of copyright was a tradeoff: exclusivity, for a while, but then cultural content is available and preserved. The latter part of the deal has been broken. And this is a deal with no teeth. There's no penalties to the copyright holder for something just becoming completely unavailable, despite that availability being part of the original intent. So, if they let down their end of the social contract, anything goes.
fluoridation 3y ago
>ill-gotten goods I reject that there's such a thing as "ill-gotten bits". >So Bob lied, and you know Bob lied, and you benefit from Bob lying, so it's unethical. If unethicality is transitive like this then the concept of what's ethical or unethical dissolves into meaninglessness. Everyone's actions affect everyone else in form or another. How many murders and thefts am I currently indirectly benefiting from just by existing, or by using this computer? Even if I count just the ones I know about and the ones I can infer, I think the number is too large to care about. I'm willing to concede that Bob's behavior is unethical, but not that "my" behavior is, by transitivity.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  But I'm not talking about "affecting", I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct! We can look at law as an example of an application of ethical concepts; it's illegal to knowingly purchase stolen goods. That said, if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods. You also probably don't have a great deal of respect for property ownership generally, or capitalism, so there are more foundational issues that can't really be resolved in this context.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    >I'm talking about the direct action of knowingly obtaining stolen goods. That's not indirect, that's direct! "Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them and is now trying to give them to you, probably in exchange for money. If Bob purchases a secret from Steve and tells me "hey, do you want to hear this thing Steve told me? I'll tell you for free", at what point does the secret Bob tells me become "stolen"? How can an action that takes place after the acquisition of a thing have an effect on the legitimacy of the owning of the thing (in this case, a copy of the secret)? It seems to me that the only possible answers to these questions are "never" and "it can't", respectively. >if you don't believe in ownership of "bits", then you probably don't care about this even if it were unethical to you to obtain stolen goods. I believe in the ownership of bits. If we understand that control is a fundamental part of ownership, then it stands to reason that bits (or, more accurately, sequences of bits) are owned by keeping them secret. Therefore, if you reveal a secret you give up ownership of it, in the same way that you give up ownership of something when you hand it over to someone else. That aside, do you think bits are exactly the same as physical goods? Why would you think that someone who rejects ownership of bits rejects ownership of property in general?