5 ms·

Nope, it is my conclusion based on a set of priors we almost certainly share.

orwin 3y ago
I'm not for or against but: First, I never violated a license agreement I signed by buying a product. Also, my moral isn't yours, clearly. In my mind, sharing information is moral, withholding it is immoral. I think there is degree to this (clearly a State, or government officials, or state agents withholding non-vital information is extremely immoral, whereas it's less immoral to do so for a company), but clearly, I think of proprietary code, unshared patents and copyright of a song or artistic creation immoral.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Nobody is talking about a license agreement, that’s not what the social contract is. And you very clearly benefit from all those things you claim are immoral, and the systems that brought them about, so I find myself skeptical to your claim they’re bad. It seems more like you disapprove of your inability to satisfy your sense of entitlement. After all, if you dislike these concepts so much, why do you want the very things they’ve produced?
  - orwin 3y ago
    What? Sorry I think I wasn't very good expressing my opinion, art is different than it's support. Hopefully my comment on your sibling comment will clarify. Listen, the only social contract I have is respecting the laws of my country, and the contracts I agreed to sign. No laws in my country prevents me from downloading whatever piece of art or content I want. None. I just cannot share it outside of friends and family. Which I don't. Also, I think I've download 3 pieces I didn't have a license for: Skyrim, Mass effect 1 and 2. I now own them all on steam. So my sense of entitlement is great, thank you. I was never into TV or movies, and my father digitalized his 500 CDs and probably trice that number from the public library, so even early 2010s when I was a broke student, I never had to find download links for the music I wanted to listen at the time (now I find out that this isn't enough and just download the music from YouTube).
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Sorry but no, you are part of the social contract, as it doesn't require you to "sign" it. It's not that kind of contract. It's the set of expectations you have for the people around you to behave in a way that's conducive to interaction, and in exchange you are expected to act in kind. When you pirated those works, you committed an immoral act, as the owner of the work did not give you permission to access those works. Broke students don't get to play games for free just because they want to. You're not entitled to whatever you want, especially when the alternative is that you are in no way harmed. You would have survived, thrived even, if you didn't have those games.
      - orwin 3y ago
        When you talk about the work owner, are you talking about the buyer who released it with the crack, or are you talking about the work producer? Because I had the permission from the first, and a bit earlier when I bought oblivion in a second hand game store, the work producer didn't gave me permission either.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        You most certainly did not have permission from the owner of the work to freely distribute the work you paid for.
        orwin 3y ago
        I did not distribute it. It was the height of megaupload. I don't think I ever torrented anything. Also, I just thought about it, I'm on a plex server owned by a college friend since 2017, did I broke the social contract by uploading my CDs on it? Or by listening to CDs my friend group put on it. Let's be honest, it's mostly my CDs, I have a truly huge collection, but it was also music we got from the school's nfs, on /share/music. Did that broke the social contract too? Knowing that we have a law that tax every sales of storage, even reconditioned HDD or smartphones.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > In my mind, sharing information is moral, withholding it is immoral. I am quite certain you do not really hold this position, otherwise you would almost certainly pulbish your real name, home address, bank account balance and other information on your profile. Withholding all this information would be quite immoral. Also, software and art are not "information", they are a separate thing. And copyright and patents don't prevent anyone from disclosing said "information", on the contrary. They allow artists and software companies to share this information without worrying that others will profit from their work. Everyone imagines that Disney or Microsoft wouldn't exist in a world without copyright, but the opposite is true. They would freely copy any competitor while using their marketing and sales teams to convince everyone to give them (most of) the profits from their work. It's a lot easier for Disney to make money off your original screenplay than it is for you to make money off Mickey Mouse.
  - orwin 3y ago
    I do think in a moral world, every information ought to be publicly accessible. My bank account information should be available for anyone that ask themselves how much money I have access to. And I'm not equating art and information. I agree that art have the right to be reserved for the artist. I disagree that the recordings themselves have the same rights. And especially the 'master recording' concept that can prevent an artist to play his own songs on stage. I'm on Swift's side against Scooter Braun basically.

I'm not for or against but: First, I never violated a license agreement I signed by buying a product. Also, my moral isn't yours, clearly. In my mind, sharing information is moral, withholding it is immoral. I think there is degree to this (clearly a State, or government officials, or state agents withholding non-vital information is extremely immoral, whereas it's less immoral to do so for a company), but clearly, I think of proprietary code, unshared patents and copyright of a song or artistic creation immoral.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Nobody is talking about a license agreement, that’s not what the social contract is. And you very clearly benefit from all those things you claim are immoral, and the systems that brought them about, so I find myself skeptical to your claim they’re bad. It seems more like you disapprove of your inability to satisfy your sense of entitlement. After all, if you dislike these concepts so much, why do you want the very things they’ve produced?
- orwin 3y ago
  What? Sorry I think I wasn't very good expressing my opinion, art is different than it's support. Hopefully my comment on your sibling comment will clarify. Listen, the only social contract I have is respecting the laws of my country, and the contracts I agreed to sign. No laws in my country prevents me from downloading whatever piece of art or content I want. None. I just cannot share it outside of friends and family. Which I don't. Also, I think I've download 3 pieces I didn't have a license for: Skyrim, Mass effect 1 and 2. I now own them all on steam. So my sense of entitlement is great, thank you. I was never into TV or movies, and my father digitalized his 500 CDs and probably trice that number from the public library, so even early 2010s when I was a broke student, I never had to find download links for the music I wanted to listen at the time (now I find out that this isn't enough and just download the music from YouTube).
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Sorry but no, you are part of the social contract, as it doesn't require you to "sign" it. It's not that kind of contract. It's the set of expectations you have for the people around you to behave in a way that's conducive to interaction, and in exchange you are expected to act in kind. When you pirated those works, you committed an immoral act, as the owner of the work did not give you permission to access those works. Broke students don't get to play games for free just because they want to. You're not entitled to whatever you want, especially when the alternative is that you are in no way harmed. You would have survived, thrived even, if you didn't have those games.
    - orwin 3y ago
      When you talk about the work owner, are you talking about the buyer who released it with the crack, or are you talking about the work producer? Because I had the permission from the first, and a bit earlier when I bought oblivion in a second hand game store, the work producer didn't gave me permission either.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        You most certainly did not have permission from the owner of the work to freely distribute the work you paid for.
        orwin 3y ago
        I did not distribute it. It was the height of megaupload. I don't think I ever torrented anything. Also, I just thought about it, I'm on a plex server owned by a college friend since 2017, did I broke the social contract by uploading my CDs on it? Or by listening to CDs my friend group put on it. Let's be honest, it's mostly my CDs, I have a truly huge collection, but it was also music we got from the school's nfs, on /share/music. Did that broke the social contract too? Knowing that we have a law that tax every sales of storage, even reconditioned HDD or smartphones.
tsimionescu 3y ago
> In my mind, sharing information is moral, withholding it is immoral. I am quite certain you do not really hold this position, otherwise you would almost certainly pulbish your real name, home address, bank account balance and other information on your profile. Withholding all this information would be quite immoral. Also, software and art are not "information", they are a separate thing. And copyright and patents don't prevent anyone from disclosing said "information", on the contrary. They allow artists and software companies to share this information without worrying that others will profit from their work. Everyone imagines that Disney or Microsoft wouldn't exist in a world without copyright, but the opposite is true. They would freely copy any competitor while using their marketing and sales teams to convince everyone to give them (most of) the profits from their work. It's a lot easier for Disney to make money off your original screenplay than it is for you to make money off Mickey Mouse.
- orwin 3y ago
  I do think in a moral world, every information ought to be publicly accessible. My bank account information should be available for anyone that ask themselves how much money I have access to. And I'm not equating art and information. I agree that art have the right to be reserved for the artist. I disagree that the recordings themselves have the same rights. And especially the 'master recording' concept that can prevent an artist to play his own songs on stage. I'm on Swift's side against Scooter Braun basically.