4 ms·

Of course contracts exist, of course contingent agreements exist, please make your point. edit to add: it sounds like Bob just signed an NDA.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Would it be immoral for Bob to agree to such a contract, but then change his mind after obtaining the copy of the work and begin sharing it with others?
- ineptech 3y ago
  I feel like I'm talking to an LLM with a very limited token history. Yes, it would, if Bob actually agreed to a real contract. Have I not made it clear why I don't think purchasing a DVD constitutes agreeing to the license attached to it? That was literally the point of my very first reply to you: the difference between agreeing to something and being told "I declare that you agree to this".
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    So, if we agree on these concepts for an explicit contract, do you believe in implicit agreement to contracts? This might take the form of, e.g. an expectation of refund if this DVD ends up being blank, or the belief that the DVD won't contain a virus or cut you when you grab the edge. They're not written on the side of the DVD, and they're not declared, "Because you read this, you must agree," but they still exist as a set of expectations and assumptions that come with social interactions (including product sales). In other words, are there implicit rules that govern any given exchange beyond those that are explicitly stated before the exchange occurs? Really, rules that govern social interaction generally. Do those rules exist?
    - ineptech 3y ago
      A lot to unpack here, sorry to fisk: > do you believe in implicit agreement to contracts? This might take the form of, e.g. an expectation of refund if this DVD ends up being blank, or the belief that the DVD won't contain a virus or cut you when you grab the edge. In a word, no. I expect the DVD to work and not have a virus because consumer products are usually subject to an implied warranty of merchantability (which is very much not an ethical agreement but a legal obligation imposed by courts). The idea of a corporation replacing a faulty product because it's the right thing to do sounds like something from a children's book with talking badgers who wear waistcoats and serve tea. The real-world DVD manufacturer would dump toxic waste in my back yard if they thought the savings would exceed the fine. > they still exist as a set of expectations and assumptions that come with social interactions (including product sales). Purchasing a product from a corporation is not a social interaction. Not sure what else to say beyond referring you to the definition of "social." > In other words, are there implicit rules that govern any given exchange beyond those that are explicitly stated before the exchange occurs? Really, rules that govern social interaction generally. Do those rules exist? There are implict rules for all sorts of situations, sure. People tend to disagree on what they are, which is why we have so many explicit rules, e.g. copyright law and the CFAA and so forth. But sure, implicit rules can exist. "Don't fart in a crowded elevator" might be one. Another might be, "If you have a point to make, explain it clearly as opposed to dragging it out with leading rhetorical questions." What implicit rule is it that you think applies to purchasing stuff?
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        We may be able to shortcut a lot of this... > People tend to disagree on what they are, which is why we have so many explicit rules, e.g. copyright law and the CFAA and so forth. If this is an explicit rule attached to every sale, then by purchasing a copyrighted work, you're consenting to that part of the agreement, yes? And if not, then how is this an explicit rule? Keep in mind that regardless of whether or not law is an accurate reflection of morality, once it's part of the agreement, you consenting to it via purchase means you accept it, presuming as you said that it is indeed part of every sale agreement.
        ineptech 3y ago
        > If this is an explicit rule attached to every sale, then by purchasing a copyrighted work, you're consenting to that part of the agreement, yes? And if not, then how is this an explicit rule? First, breaking a law isn't by itself unethical. You can argue otherwise if you like, but a) it opens up a whole slew of absurdities (e.g. exploiting a software bug on a slot machine for profit is unethical IFF it's on a network that crosses a state line - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kane), and b) you'd be abandoning everything you've said up til this point. Second, copyright law is not a rule that is "attached to every sale," whatever that means. (If it were, you could get around it by shoplifting!) You need to stop blurring the lines between legal rules and ethical rules, because it's led you to confuse the difference between agreeing to a rule and being subject to it. So, let's make that explicit. I'm subject to copyright law. Doesn't matter if I agree to it or consent to it (it's not even clear what consenting to a law means), I'm subject to it regardless. Now, you can certainly argue that there are ethical laws that we are all subject to as well. But, you are not arguing that! (correct me if I'm wrong, of course) You are arguing that there is an ethical law against piracy that pirates have agreed to, without wanting to, and I'm telling you, that's not a thing that can happen. You can't agree to something against your will. So, you gotta make a choice to make this whole line of reasoning coherent. This ethical agreement not to pirate stuff, is this something that pirates can refuse? If so, I think they very clearly are refusing it, and if not, you cannot meaningfully claim that they agreed to it.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Would it be immoral for Bob to agree to such a contract, but then change his mind after obtaining the copy of the work and begin sharing it with others?

ineptech 3y ago
I feel like I'm talking to an LLM with a very limited token history. Yes, it would, if Bob actually agreed to a real contract. Have I not made it clear why I don't think purchasing a DVD constitutes agreeing to the license attached to it? That was literally the point of my very first reply to you: the difference between agreeing to something and being told "I declare that you agree to this".
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  So, if we agree on these concepts for an explicit contract, do you believe in implicit agreement to contracts? This might take the form of, e.g. an expectation of refund if this DVD ends up being blank, or the belief that the DVD won't contain a virus or cut you when you grab the edge. They're not written on the side of the DVD, and they're not declared, "Because you read this, you must agree," but they still exist as a set of expectations and assumptions that come with social interactions (including product sales). In other words, are there implicit rules that govern any given exchange beyond those that are explicitly stated before the exchange occurs? Really, rules that govern social interaction generally. Do those rules exist?
  - ineptech 3y ago
    A lot to unpack here, sorry to fisk: > do you believe in implicit agreement to contracts? This might take the form of, e.g. an expectation of refund if this DVD ends up being blank, or the belief that the DVD won't contain a virus or cut you when you grab the edge. In a word, no. I expect the DVD to work and not have a virus because consumer products are usually subject to an implied warranty of merchantability (which is very much not an ethical agreement but a legal obligation imposed by courts). The idea of a corporation replacing a faulty product because it's the right thing to do sounds like something from a children's book with talking badgers who wear waistcoats and serve tea. The real-world DVD manufacturer would dump toxic waste in my back yard if they thought the savings would exceed the fine. > they still exist as a set of expectations and assumptions that come with social interactions (including product sales). Purchasing a product from a corporation is not a social interaction. Not sure what else to say beyond referring you to the definition of "social." > In other words, are there implicit rules that govern any given exchange beyond those that are explicitly stated before the exchange occurs? Really, rules that govern social interaction generally. Do those rules exist? There are implict rules for all sorts of situations, sure. People tend to disagree on what they are, which is why we have so many explicit rules, e.g. copyright law and the CFAA and so forth. But sure, implicit rules can exist. "Don't fart in a crowded elevator" might be one. Another might be, "If you have a point to make, explain it clearly as opposed to dragging it out with leading rhetorical questions." What implicit rule is it that you think applies to purchasing stuff?
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      We may be able to shortcut a lot of this... > People tend to disagree on what they are, which is why we have so many explicit rules, e.g. copyright law and the CFAA and so forth. If this is an explicit rule attached to every sale, then by purchasing a copyrighted work, you're consenting to that part of the agreement, yes? And if not, then how is this an explicit rule? Keep in mind that regardless of whether or not law is an accurate reflection of morality, once it's part of the agreement, you consenting to it via purchase means you accept it, presuming as you said that it is indeed part of every sale agreement.
      - ineptech 3y ago
        > If this is an explicit rule attached to every sale, then by purchasing a copyrighted work, you're consenting to that part of the agreement, yes? And if not, then how is this an explicit rule? First, breaking a law isn't by itself unethical. You can argue otherwise if you like, but a) it opens up a whole slew of absurdities (e.g. exploiting a software bug on a slot machine for profit is unethical IFF it's on a network that crosses a state line - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kane), and b) you'd be abandoning everything you've said up til this point. Second, copyright law is not a rule that is "attached to every sale," whatever that means. (If it were, you could get around it by shoplifting!) You need to stop blurring the lines between legal rules and ethical rules, because it's led you to confuse the difference between agreeing to a rule and being subject to it. So, let's make that explicit. I'm subject to copyright law. Doesn't matter if I agree to it or consent to it (it's not even clear what consenting to a law means), I'm subject to it regardless. Now, you can certainly argue that there are ethical laws that we are all subject to as well. But, you are not arguing that! (correct me if I'm wrong, of course) You are arguing that there is an ethical law against piracy that pirates have agreed to, without wanting to, and I'm telling you, that's not a thing that can happen. You can't agree to something against your will. So, you gotta make a choice to make this whole line of reasoning coherent. This ethical agreement not to pirate stuff, is this something that pirates can refuse? If so, I think they very clearly are refusing it, and if not, you cannot meaningfully claim that they agreed to it.