9 ms·

It's a violation of copyright which has been around for a lot less time than "th social contract" however you define it. So - prior to the existence of copyrig

It's a violation of copyright which has been around for a lot less time than "th social contract" however you define it. So - prior to the existence of copyright - was it immoral? And how do laws related to fair-use etc affect it's morality? "Immoral" implies something fairly clear-cut and universal, not the kind of thing where there are complex provisions defining a range of exceptions, differing between jurisdictions. In summary - you are massively oversimplifying a complex topic so I'd have to disagree almost entirely with your formulation.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Immoral is in no way clear cut, but in this case it is as universal as the agreement to abide by copyright rules are at the time of the exchange between the licensee and owner. The violation of the social contract comes when you agree to terms you intend to our letter decide to violate, or in the case of the consumer pirate, when your benefit from the ill gotten gains of the person you know to have deceitfully obtained to copied work from its owner.
- orwin 3y ago
  So it's immoral for the license owner to share it, not for a random person to download it?
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    It’s immoral for the person who made the implicit agreement (via the social contract and the presumption of the appointment of copyright law) with the owner claiming they wouldn’t share it, and then proceeding to share it.
    - elashri 3y ago
      I don't think "made" is really true here. I did not make the choice to be born in this particular country with this particular social contract. And the copyright law for most part get established before I was even born and I had no say in that. I get the point of social contract, but most people do not form it because it was established before in most cases. Not to mention that this assume you live in a democracy and that social contract is not of sort (it is what it is or we will kill and prison you). So I don't think it is appropriate to make it appear like this was a choice everyone makes. It is not immoral to violate social contact (slavery was social contract but the moral thing was to oppose it -just example not comparison-)
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Frankly, too bad. You benefit every waking moment from the social contract, and in particular the social contract is exactly what made these works you love so much available in the first place. If you don't agree to the social contract, you can opt out by either leaving society generally, or at the very least not consuming the works that were created as a result of its existence. The very fact that you pirate the work demonstrates you buy into the social contract at least enough to benefit. And if you benefit without contributing/consenting, you're considered a "free rider".
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        > I did not make the choice to be born in this particular country with this particular social contract. So we're shifting to "taxation is theft" now? Maybe one day we can explore the cosmos and truly settle our own land (given that 99%+ of earth's land has been claimed by some social contract). Alas, born too early. >So I don't think it is appropriate to make it appear like this was a choice everyone makes. It is not immoral to violate social contact (slavery was social contract but the moral thing was to oppose it -just example not comparison-) hyperbolic metaphors aside: sure, if you oppose the social contract and your government allows it, try to change it. But I think "make digital purchases ownership" is a very small tree to bark up in modern society.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Cool. So no worries about other family members (aka not party to the agreement) being the ones to share it with the world then. Naturally doing so without the original family member knowing about it. All good then. :)
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Sorry but no, this won't work as you'd know the goods were gained through deception (since that's the only way the goods would be made available to you).
        justinclift 3y ago
        Sorry, but no to your no. You're trying to blindly force things into a shape they don't fit. :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Nope, it's actually super straightforward; piracy is immoral, as it relies on deception to exist. You must lie in order to obtain the copy of the work in the first place, or you must benefit from someone else's lie. This is a violation of the social contract and is therefore immoral.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > This is a violation of the social contract ... Again, you're imagining something to exist in some kind of concrete form when it really doesn't. That you want the world to operate in some perfect way is ok, but not being able to comprehend that's not the reality just sounds like mental issues. :/
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        No. The social contract need not be in a "concrete form" to apply here. This isn't some preference for a perfect world; it's an observation that acting in one specific way is not conducive to an operating societal set of rules. Be honest: how much did you know about social contract theory before this conversation?
- franciscop 3y ago
  > as universal as the agreement to abide by copyright rules are at the time of the exchange between the licensee and owner So are you saying that a provider "selling" some content and then removing it from your library is as bad as you pirating it in the first place?
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Perhaps, but what’s more likely is they asked for that right during the initial sale, and you just didn’t notice. Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      > Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have. That seems unbalanced to me. Why is the onus on the customer to prove that, rather than they just pirate it and the onus is on the seller to prove that they took something they shouldn't have?
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        So guilty until proven innocent then? You see zero problems with that?
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        > So guilty until proven innocent then? That seems to be the attitude taken towards people making copies (aka Pirates). I'm suggesting that if the company is assumed to be innocent when actually stealing by removing the customers' copies, then it would be appropriate to assume that pirates are also innocent, especially as they are not stealing anything and just making a copy which is alleged to be unauthorised.
        3y ago
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  I doubt any deception is necessary. I bet you could tell the check-out person at best buy (i.e. a representative of the owner) that you plan on ripping and sharing the movie you're buying, and 99 times out of 100 they'll just say okay and ask if you want to sign up for a credit card. Doubly so for something like a garage sale. They might ask if you can share other things with them.
resonious 3y ago
If someone says "I spent a lot of resources making this digital content. please pay before consuming it" and you consume it without paying, then that seems kind of like a social contract violation to me (though I may be using an overly broad definition of social contract). Of course, per the article it seems the sellers are often turning around and saying "hey I know I sold you this, but now I'm going to change/revoke it remotely" which is also a breach of social contract. So an eye for an eye I guess.
- TheMode 3y ago
  What if I say "I spent a lot of time on my appearance, if you look at me you should pay". Do I have the right to bill anybody making eye contact?
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Contrived and distinct situation; you agree to the terms when you license the song.
    - TheMode 3y ago
      So if we encouraged people to make such terms to help with their end of month, looking at people would become immoral? Pieces of paper/text shouldn't be able to dictate what is moral outside of common sense. The world I describe above would become a worse place for everybody. Here, the problem is that the artist put a lot of time into making the song because there is the expectation of that term and the ability to extract money out of it. Without this expectation, none of it would feel immoral for either of both side.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Nope, you keep forgetting the key ingredient; the "lookers" would need to agree to this arrangement in the first place. None of these things are foisted upon people without their consent, as you keep trying to claim. You agree to terms when you buy a copy of a work, both implicit and explicit, that forbit its further distribution.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Immoral is in no way clear cut, but in this case it is as universal as the agreement to abide by copyright rules are at the time of the exchange between the licensee and owner. The violation of the social contract comes when you agree to terms you intend to our letter decide to violate, or in the case of the consumer pirate, when your benefit from the ill gotten gains of the person you know to have deceitfully obtained to copied work from its owner.

orwin 3y ago
So it's immoral for the license owner to share it, not for a random person to download it?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  It’s immoral for the person who made the implicit agreement (via the social contract and the presumption of the appointment of copyright law) with the owner claiming they wouldn’t share it, and then proceeding to share it.
  - elashri 3y ago
    I don't think "made" is really true here. I did not make the choice to be born in this particular country with this particular social contract. And the copyright law for most part get established before I was even born and I had no say in that. I get the point of social contract, but most people do not form it because it was established before in most cases. Not to mention that this assume you live in a democracy and that social contract is not of sort (it is what it is or we will kill and prison you). So I don't think it is appropriate to make it appear like this was a choice everyone makes. It is not immoral to violate social contact (slavery was social contract but the moral thing was to oppose it -just example not comparison-)
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Frankly, too bad. You benefit every waking moment from the social contract, and in particular the social contract is exactly what made these works you love so much available in the first place. If you don't agree to the social contract, you can opt out by either leaving society generally, or at the very least not consuming the works that were created as a result of its existence. The very fact that you pirate the work demonstrates you buy into the social contract at least enough to benefit. And if you benefit without contributing/consenting, you're considered a "free rider".
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      > I did not make the choice to be born in this particular country with this particular social contract. So we're shifting to "taxation is theft" now? Maybe one day we can explore the cosmos and truly settle our own land (given that 99%+ of earth's land has been claimed by some social contract). Alas, born too early. >So I don't think it is appropriate to make it appear like this was a choice everyone makes. It is not immoral to violate social contact (slavery was social contract but the moral thing was to oppose it -just example not comparison-) hyperbolic metaphors aside: sure, if you oppose the social contract and your government allows it, try to change it. But I think "make digital purchases ownership" is a very small tree to bark up in modern society.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Cool. So no worries about other family members (aka not party to the agreement) being the ones to share it with the world then. Naturally doing so without the original family member knowing about it. All good then. :)
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Sorry but no, this won't work as you'd know the goods were gained through deception (since that's the only way the goods would be made available to you).
      - justinclift 3y ago
        Sorry, but no to your no. You're trying to blindly force things into a shape they don't fit. :)
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Nope, it's actually super straightforward; piracy is immoral, as it relies on deception to exist. You must lie in order to obtain the copy of the work in the first place, or you must benefit from someone else's lie. This is a violation of the social contract and is therefore immoral.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > This is a violation of the social contract ... Again, you're imagining something to exist in some kind of concrete form when it really doesn't. That you want the world to operate in some perfect way is ok, but not being able to comprehend that's not the reality just sounds like mental issues. :/
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        No. The social contract need not be in a "concrete form" to apply here. This isn't some preference for a perfect world; it's an observation that acting in one specific way is not conducive to an operating societal set of rules. Be honest: how much did you know about social contract theory before this conversation?
franciscop 3y ago
> as universal as the agreement to abide by copyright rules are at the time of the exchange between the licensee and owner So are you saying that a provider "selling" some content and then removing it from your library is as bad as you pirating it in the first place?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Perhaps, but what’s more likely is they asked for that right during the initial sale, and you just didn’t notice. Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have. That seems unbalanced to me. Why is the onus on the customer to prove that, rather than they just pirate it and the onus is on the seller to prove that they took something they shouldn't have?
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      So guilty until proven innocent then? You see zero problems with that?
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        > So guilty until proven innocent then? That seems to be the attitude taken towards people making copies (aka Pirates). I'm suggesting that if the company is assumed to be innocent when actually stealing by removing the customers' copies, then it would be appropriate to assume that pirates are also innocent, especially as they are not stealing anything and just making a copy which is alleged to be unauthorised.
        3y ago
ndriscoll 3y ago
I doubt any deception is necessary. I bet you could tell the check-out person at best buy (i.e. a representative of the owner) that you plan on ripping and sharing the movie you're buying, and 99 times out of 100 they'll just say okay and ask if you want to sign up for a credit card. Doubly so for something like a garage sale. They might ask if you can share other things with them.

resonious 3y ago

If someone says "I spent a lot of resources making this digital content. please pay before consuming it" and you consume it without paying, then that seems kind of like a social contract violation to me (though I may be using an overly broad definition of social contract). Of course, per the article it seems the sellers are often turning around and saying "hey I know I sold you this, but now I'm going to change/revoke it remotely" which is also a breach of social contract. So an eye for an eye I guess.

TheMode 3y ago
What if I say "I spent a lot of time on my appearance, if you look at me you should pay". Do I have the right to bill anybody making eye contact?
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Contrived and distinct situation; you agree to the terms when you license the song.
  - TheMode 3y ago
    So if we encouraged people to make such terms to help with their end of month, looking at people would become immoral? Pieces of paper/text shouldn't be able to dictate what is moral outside of common sense. The world I describe above would become a worse place for everybody. Here, the problem is that the artist put a lot of time into making the song because there is the expectation of that term and the ability to extract money out of it. Without this expectation, none of it would feel immoral for either of both side.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Nope, you keep forgetting the key ingredient; the "lookers" would need to agree to this arrangement in the first place. None of these things are foisted upon people without their consent, as you keep trying to claim. You agree to terms when you buy a copy of a work, both implicit and explicit, that forbit its further distribution.