3 ms·

> That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your p

> That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable? Pirating something, I see as gaining access to something when the official or preferred channel is either unreasonably expensive, or the product itself is unknown. Piracy is an effective way to try before you buy, at your own pace. On one hand, sure, once you pirate something you don't need to buy it, but my own dabbling has resulted in MORE purchase activity, not less. I could buy games or movies or shows knowing I would enjoy them and be satisfied with my purchase. There were totally games and whatnot that I downloaded, tried, and then ignored or deleted. Was anyone really damaged by that? I see that as the equivalent of window shopping. It's what you do after you try it that forms the ethical stance, in my opinion. Are you a struggling student pirating AfterEffects or something else so you can earn money and then buy a real copy? Some might say that's ethical pirating because there's an intent to be legit about it but there are obstacles. "Don't buy or get it" one might say, and forever lock themselves out of opportunity. Choosing to keep a pirated version of something is as much a social and political commentary as it is a technical violation of monopoly. Someone who can afford something they pirated, that they liked and kept, may be seen as a cheapskate. But honestly, there are many games and music albums and shows I would never have tried out if I didn't have an easy and accessible means to just give'em a whirl. So you could say I see no harm in "explorative" piracy, or pirating that then gets deleted when you find out you don't like it. In the rights-owner's world, that person should be out money, and disappointed in their purchase! Seems like more moral harm than making sure you like what you're buying.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
The problem with that is, of course, the lack of consent from the property owner. This is the "entitlement problem"; the options are not listed by asking, "How will I obtain this content?" they're listed by asking, "How will the content provider allow me to consume their content?" Sometimes, the answer is, "There is no way to consume this content." If the owner of AfterEffects doesn't want to allow students to use their software, that's their right as the property owner. Students have no entitlement to that software. Violating the owner's property rights is an immoral act.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  And business has no entitlement to profit. Business models do not have to be respected, they must be validated through market success. And the intellectual property model is invalid. Copying an idea does not rob another person of that idea. "But it's law", I don't care, law is religion for the ruling class and judges are essentially priests. They work on doctrine, adjacent to indoctrination. They operate with the attitude that the judge, and by extension the state, can do no wrong. That's already operating from a place of moral invalidity. If I shared something to the world, even under license, and people copied it endlessly, I'd be told that I have personal responsibility, and what did I expect to happen when I shared. Victim blaming, essentially. But the moment it's a business, the moment money's involved, suddenly we aren't entitled to anything and business deserves every last dollar they can squeeze. The understanding is flipped. Businesses are second class entities to citizens. They deserve no more consideration than an individual, and indeed already enjoy too many privileges they've done nothing to earn. They aren't entitled to money.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    So if a business owns something, it cannot contingently sell that thing to a person? I'm not sure I agree with that. Businesses are ultimately owned by people, and in reality, a "business" sale boils down to one person exchanging goods for payment with another person. Sometimes those goods are digital, and sometimes those digital goods are only sold contingently. By agreeing to the contingencies, you're giving your word to someone that you will abide by the conditions of the sale. Or are people not free to enter into contracts, in your view? I strongly disagree with that, but that's the only way what you're saying would work, based on my understanding.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Many contracts have illegal terms in them that explicitly also add durability clauses so that illegal terms in a jurisdiction are already thrown out but the rest of the contract stays. That established, what business contracts are entered, executed, and completed ethically and with equal respect to the rights of the contracting parties? Very few, if any. In practice, the ability to enter a contract is the ability to go into moral debt and be slave to a document. So no, I don't think contracts should be entered freely because most contracts are actually one-sided as fuck and generally have no room for negotiation.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

The problem with that is, of course, the lack of consent from the property owner. This is the "entitlement problem"; the options are not listed by asking, "How will I obtain this content?" they're listed by asking, "How will the content provider allow me to consume their content?" Sometimes, the answer is, "There is no way to consume this content." If the owner of AfterEffects doesn't want to allow students to use their software, that's their right as the property owner. Students have no entitlement to that software. Violating the owner's property rights is an immoral act.

zlg_codes 3y ago
And business has no entitlement to profit. Business models do not have to be respected, they must be validated through market success. And the intellectual property model is invalid. Copying an idea does not rob another person of that idea. "But it's law", I don't care, law is religion for the ruling class and judges are essentially priests. They work on doctrine, adjacent to indoctrination. They operate with the attitude that the judge, and by extension the state, can do no wrong. That's already operating from a place of moral invalidity. If I shared something to the world, even under license, and people copied it endlessly, I'd be told that I have personal responsibility, and what did I expect to happen when I shared. Victim blaming, essentially. But the moment it's a business, the moment money's involved, suddenly we aren't entitled to anything and business deserves every last dollar they can squeeze. The understanding is flipped. Businesses are second class entities to citizens. They deserve no more consideration than an individual, and indeed already enjoy too many privileges they've done nothing to earn. They aren't entitled to money.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  So if a business owns something, it cannot contingently sell that thing to a person? I'm not sure I agree with that. Businesses are ultimately owned by people, and in reality, a "business" sale boils down to one person exchanging goods for payment with another person. Sometimes those goods are digital, and sometimes those digital goods are only sold contingently. By agreeing to the contingencies, you're giving your word to someone that you will abide by the conditions of the sale. Or are people not free to enter into contracts, in your view? I strongly disagree with that, but that's the only way what you're saying would work, based on my understanding.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Many contracts have illegal terms in them that explicitly also add durability clauses so that illegal terms in a jurisdiction are already thrown out but the rest of the contract stays. That established, what business contracts are entered, executed, and completed ethically and with equal respect to the rights of the contracting parties? Very few, if any. In practice, the ability to enter a contract is the ability to go into moral debt and be slave to a document. So no, I don't think contracts should be entered freely because most contracts are actually one-sided as fuck and generally have no room for negotiation.