4 ms·

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 cla

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?

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?