4 ms·

The problem you’re refusing to address, and why I did reply to your earlier post the way I did (after reading it), is that a) you completely ignore the rights

The problem you’re refusing to address, and why I did reply to your earlier post the way I did (after reading it), is that a) you completely ignore the rights of the owner of the work, and b) presume some kind of entitlement to the work in the first place. What gives you the right to stomp on someone else’s rights just because you “want” to watch a movie? Besides, as I’ve already said, we can come up with exceptions all day, the general case of piracy, the one being discussed, is immoral. If you tie a baby to a railroad and only agree to let the baby go if it hears a Metallica song, yeah piracy would be justified. That doesn’t mean much in this conversation however.

MrVandemar 3y ago
It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Whether that's a wheel-chair ramp, alt-text on an image, using correct HTML markup, subtitles/closed-captions or audio description, it's part of being inclusive and accomodating and welcoming to people with difference in ability, perception and neurology. That's a social contract, right there, one that's about people and not stuff. Indeed, in many places there is legislation that formally grants exemption from copyright for this exact reason, but it's mostly a bit on the weak side and doesn't address the systemic problems, which is the big one. Nothing immoral going on here.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  That's not how it works. If a creator doesn't provide accessibility options, you must ask them to, and if they refuse, then use the power of adjudication to enforce the aspects you claim are part of the social contract, or get permission from the creator of the work. If what you're describing isn't part of the social contract (e.g. as you say exceptions to copyright law), then what you're describing is vigilante justice, where you decide what harms to dole out to others arbitrarily, and that's another part of the social contract we all agree is not worth it.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Yes, and no? you are discriminating, but you may not be doing it in intentionally. Some options make it easy, where for some other arts you need dedicated specialists who know of how those disabilities navigate and then make new software or work to enable such things. An indie dev isn't going to have the references or time or even talent to make sure the blind, deaf, and physically handicapped can play their game. >Nothing immoral going on here. we've gone so far off the script that I think people forgot we're still talking about deluxe entertainment. Not every socetal wrong under captialism.

MrVandemar 3y ago

It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Whether that's a wheel-chair ramp, alt-text on an image, using correct HTML markup, subtitles/closed-captions or audio description, it's part of being inclusive and accomodating and welcoming to people with difference in ability, perception and neurology. That's a social contract, right there, one that's about people and not stuff. Indeed, in many places there is legislation that formally grants exemption from copyright for this exact reason, but it's mostly a bit on the weak side and doesn't address the systemic problems, which is the big one. Nothing immoral going on here.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
That's not how it works. If a creator doesn't provide accessibility options, you must ask them to, and if they refuse, then use the power of adjudication to enforce the aspects you claim are part of the social contract, or get permission from the creator of the work. If what you're describing isn't part of the social contract (e.g. as you say exceptions to copyright law), then what you're describing is vigilante justice, where you decide what harms to dole out to others arbitrarily, and that's another part of the social contract we all agree is not worth it.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>It is fundamentally discriminatory to not provide accessibility options. Yes, and no? you are discriminating, but you may not be doing it in intentionally. Some options make it easy, where for some other arts you need dedicated specialists who know of how those disabilities navigate and then make new software or work to enable such things. An indie dev isn't going to have the references or time or even talent to make sure the blind, deaf, and physically handicapped can play their game. >Nothing immoral going on here. we've gone so far off the script that I think people forgot we're still talking about deluxe entertainment. Not every socetal wrong under captialism.