4 ms·

> 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, t

> 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
So, you believe that there is not a set of expectations that anchor human interaction, including the exchange of goods, that we implicitly opt into as a mechanism to preserve self-interest? Are you familiar with Thomas Hobbes?
- ineptech 3y ago
  Assuming you are referring to the social contract, I refer you again to the definition of "social"; corporations are not part of it, any more than a scorpion is, or a calculator. Could you answer some of these questions so I can understand your position better? > What implicit rule is it that you think applies to purchasing stuff? > This ethical agreement not to pirate stuff, is this something that pirates can refuse?
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Who owns corporations? Who makes deals on behalf of corporations? Who makes the works that are pirated? People. People. People. Corporations are made up of people, owned by people, and creators of works are people. And those people have rights, just like you. And no, you can't really opt out of the social contract other than by opting out of society. This is a feature, however, not a bug, and participation in society without adherence to the social contract is called "Free riding." Intellectual property pirates fall into the category of "free riders" or people who benefit from the social contract but do not adhere to it.
    - ineptech 3y ago
      First, I will cede the idea of corporations being bound by the social contract. It's not so much that I think it's wrong as nonsensical, like claiming a submarine can swim. I guess you can think of corporations as participating in the social contract, in the sense that they are subject to laws and in return they create social value, but it's not as if they could decide not to do those things. Corporations can't even exist outside of a society! But I also don't think it proves what you think it does, so sure, let's say that submarines are excellent swimmers and corporations are totally part of the social contract. I can't wait for Apple to remember that they're supposed to pay US taxes! Second: do you claim it is inherently immoral to break laws or not? I've assumed the answer is no despite your dodging the question, but I don't see where you're trying to go with all this discussion of the social contract, if not there. There's more I'd say, but I hate typing out "if you think X then I would respond Y, but if you think Z then I would reply with W" stuff, I'd much prefer a straight answer to this.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Corporations don't take actions, they don't make decisions, they don't breathe, think, or live. Every single thing a corporation "does" gets decided by one or more people, and its those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad. There is no concept of a "corporation" other than as a group of individual people collectively taking action. You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations, but as a moral entity, they're just people. Really, by accepting the idea that corporations are more than just a group of people, you're acquiescing to their conceit. Their trick of making themselves something "special" or more complex than just "people making choices" is part of the problem, IMO. And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. But laws represent agreements between parties, or conditions upon which an interaction is predicated. There's an implicit presumption that a transaction will comport with the laws it's governed by unless stated otherwise. I don't have a problem stating otherwise, but relying on that presumption because it's to your advantage with no intention of following through on your end is immoral.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

So, you believe that there is not a set of expectations that anchor human interaction, including the exchange of goods, that we implicitly opt into as a mechanism to preserve self-interest? Are you familiar with Thomas Hobbes?

ineptech 3y ago
Assuming you are referring to the social contract, I refer you again to the definition of "social"; corporations are not part of it, any more than a scorpion is, or a calculator. Could you answer some of these questions so I can understand your position better? > What implicit rule is it that you think applies to purchasing stuff? > This ethical agreement not to pirate stuff, is this something that pirates can refuse?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Who owns corporations? Who makes deals on behalf of corporations? Who makes the works that are pirated? People. People. People. Corporations are made up of people, owned by people, and creators of works are people. And those people have rights, just like you. And no, you can't really opt out of the social contract other than by opting out of society. This is a feature, however, not a bug, and participation in society without adherence to the social contract is called "Free riding." Intellectual property pirates fall into the category of "free riders" or people who benefit from the social contract but do not adhere to it.
  - ineptech 3y ago
    First, I will cede the idea of corporations being bound by the social contract. It's not so much that I think it's wrong as nonsensical, like claiming a submarine can swim. I guess you can think of corporations as participating in the social contract, in the sense that they are subject to laws and in return they create social value, but it's not as if they could decide not to do those things. Corporations can't even exist outside of a society! But I also don't think it proves what you think it does, so sure, let's say that submarines are excellent swimmers and corporations are totally part of the social contract. I can't wait for Apple to remember that they're supposed to pay US taxes! Second: do you claim it is inherently immoral to break laws or not? I've assumed the answer is no despite your dodging the question, but I don't see where you're trying to go with all this discussion of the social contract, if not there. There's more I'd say, but I hate typing out "if you think X then I would respond Y, but if you think Z then I would reply with W" stuff, I'd much prefer a straight answer to this.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Corporations don't take actions, they don't make decisions, they don't breathe, think, or live. Every single thing a corporation "does" gets decided by one or more people, and its those people who are responsible for whatever the consequences of their decisions are, good or bad. There is no concept of a "corporation" other than as a group of individual people collectively taking action. You clearly have some form of disgust with corporations, but as a moral entity, they're just people. Really, by accepting the idea that corporations are more than just a group of people, you're acquiescing to their conceit. Their trick of making themselves something "special" or more complex than just "people making choices" is part of the problem, IMO. And no, breaking laws is not, itself, immoral. But laws represent agreements between parties, or conditions upon which an interaction is predicated. There's an implicit presumption that a transaction will comport with the laws it's governed by unless stated otherwise. I don't have a problem stating otherwise, but relying on that presumption because it's to your advantage with no intention of following through on your end is immoral.