6 ms·

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 loo

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?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Your definition of stolen goods is circular; stolen goods aren't stolen because someone stole them; they're stolen because consent was not granted by the owner. You can however contingently be sold a good, which means you are only allowed to have the good if you agree to certain conditions. Once you violate those conditions, you are forfeiting your ownership of that good if that's what you agreed to (and it is in the case of most digital content). As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car. What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. Are you ethically obligated to not lie? If so, when Bob tells Steve that he (Bob) isn't going to share Steve's secret with anyone else without Bob's permission, he would then break his word if he subsequently shared Bob's secret with you. You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable. This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    >Your definition of stolen goods is circular No, it's not circular. A good is a stolen good if it has been stolen. That's not circular. There's a distinction between something being stolen and something being a stolen good, and the definition of the latter rests upon the definition of the former. I didn't define "stealing" because I didn't think it was necessary, as I thought we all know what it means. But it seems we actually don't agree on what "stealing" means. I think you "steal" something if you remove someone's possession of an item without their permission. If there's such a thing as agreement between two parties that if violated can void one of the parties rights to exploit an item then that's not stealing. When you purchase something you acquiring complete ownership over the thing. If there's strings attached that can turn the purchase into a "theft" then it's not a purchase. Perhaps it's a lease of some kind. >As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car. You're using control in a different sense than I. What I mean is that you can decide what to do with the object as you like, with regards to the object itself. No, you can't drive your car anywhere you like, but you can sell or gift your car to anyone you like, and you destroy it you like, or you can leave it parked forever if you like. None of these are things you can do with a car you don't own, are they? >You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable. Well, let's stick to one thing at a time, eh? If you have yet to convince me that my behavior is unethical, much less are you going to convince me that it's immoral. >What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. I don't think a person has an ethical obligation to keep promises that are based on unethical grounds. Such as attaching strings to things that you sell. If you *sell* me a car and make me sign a contract that says I can't gift it to whoever I please, you bet I'm going to do whatever I please. Your contract is nonsensical and opposite to the notion of property. If you sell me something you relinquish all rights to the thing you sell me and acknowledge my right to do as I please with it. If you don't relinquish those rights then you can't call it a sale, and you have to price the transaction accordingly. >This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount. If you want to say that capitalism cannot exist without intellectual property rights then I'll have to ask you to argue for it.

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?

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Your definition of stolen goods is circular; stolen goods aren't stolen because someone stole them; they're stolen because consent was not granted by the owner. You can however contingently be sold a good, which means you are only allowed to have the good if you agree to certain conditions. Once you violate those conditions, you are forfeiting your ownership of that good if that's what you agreed to (and it is in the case of most digital content). As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car. What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. Are you ethically obligated to not lie? If so, when Bob tells Steve that he (Bob) isn't going to share Steve's secret with anyone else without Bob's permission, he would then break his word if he subsequently shared Bob's secret with you. You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable. This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  >Your definition of stolen goods is circular No, it's not circular. A good is a stolen good if it has been stolen. That's not circular. There's a distinction between something being stolen and something being a stolen good, and the definition of the latter rests upon the definition of the former. I didn't define "stealing" because I didn't think it was necessary, as I thought we all know what it means. But it seems we actually don't agree on what "stealing" means. I think you "steal" something if you remove someone's possession of an item without their permission. If there's such a thing as agreement between two parties that if violated can void one of the parties rights to exploit an item then that's not stealing. When you purchase something you acquiring complete ownership over the thing. If there's strings attached that can turn the purchase into a "theft" then it's not a purchase. Perhaps it's a lease of some kind. >As for control, it is decidedly not a fundamental part of ownership. You are not, for example, able to control driving your car into another person willfully, but you do still "own" your car. You're using control in a different sense than I. What I mean is that you can decide what to do with the object as you like, with regards to the object itself. No, you can't drive your car anywhere you like, but you can sell or gift your car to anyone you like, and you destroy it you like, or you can leave it parked forever if you like. None of these are things you can do with a car you don't own, are they? >You, knowing that Bob obtained the secret by lying to Steve, are complicit in Bob's lie, making you morally culpable. Well, let's stick to one thing at a time, eh? If you have yet to convince me that my behavior is unethical, much less are you going to convince me that it's immoral. >What it boils down to is the ethical obligation a person has to do what they said they would do. I don't think a person has an ethical obligation to keep promises that are based on unethical grounds. Such as attaching strings to things that you sell. If you *sell* me a car and make me sign a contract that says I can't gift it to whoever I please, you bet I'm going to do whatever I please. Your contract is nonsensical and opposite to the notion of property. If you sell me something you relinquish all rights to the thing you sell me and acknowledge my right to do as I please with it. If you don't relinquish those rights then you can't call it a sale, and you have to price the transaction accordingly. >This is obviously complicated by the infinitely reproducible nature of digital goods, hence why I said you don't care much for capitalism if you don't agree with this notion, as capitalism introduces the concept of artificial scarcity to protect Steve's incentives to continue to produce secrets. There are many arguments suggesting that Steve would produce secrets regardless of incentive, but for a capitalist, the protection of the monopoly is paramount. If you want to say that capitalism cannot exist without intellectual property rights then I'll have to ask you to argue for it.