3 ms·

If people break a law so easily, it can't be part of a social contract, because the people don't support it. IP, and specifically copyright are fairly new lega

If people break a law so easily, it can't be part of a social contract, because the people don't support it. IP, and specifically copyright are fairly new legal additions. The redefinition of time limited copyright to something extending past normal lifetimes especially so. EULAs and DRM enforcing copyright beyond book-style possibilities is new, and ongoing as we speak. I'd say we see the public at large rejecting part of the law because it is not consistent with the social contract in their heads. Powerfull entities trying to force the law outside the social contract's support is working, but not completely, and that's what's tearing society apart.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Except people don't stick to pirating old works, a huge "scene" exists to get the latest and greatest episodes and movies out to the masses via piracy. You bring up an exception, which may be different! But it is an exception. The general rule of piracy is that it's immoral, however.
- hyperman1 3y ago
  Are you sure you're replying to the right comment? Nothing I said promotes pirating some categories only. The line of reasoning is that copyright falls outside current social contracts. So the general rule of piracy is that it is illegal but amoral. Morality of copyright violations should be determined by other criteria.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Your argument is effectively an ad populum, so I tried to address the parts that could be salvaged. What people do doesn't define what is right or wrong, nor is that how the social contract operates. Besides, the fact that piracy is rampant is a demonstration of copyright's necessity. If the works were so worthless that trying to charge for their consumption would be pointless, then why are so many people determined to illicitly gain access? And if the works would be made anyway, why weren't they until it was profitable to do so? The argument you're making dies on a number of fronts, but the one I tried to address originally was the only legitimate line of inquiry. Your ad populum redefinition of the social contract doesn't work, as what is good/bad doesn't get voted on or collectively decided. The best rational argument is what wins in an ethics conversation.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Except people don't stick to pirating old works, a huge "scene" exists to get the latest and greatest episodes and movies out to the masses via piracy. You bring up an exception, which may be different! But it is an exception. The general rule of piracy is that it's immoral, however.

hyperman1 3y ago
Are you sure you're replying to the right comment? Nothing I said promotes pirating some categories only. The line of reasoning is that copyright falls outside current social contracts. So the general rule of piracy is that it is illegal but amoral. Morality of copyright violations should be determined by other criteria.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Your argument is effectively an ad populum, so I tried to address the parts that could be salvaged. What people do doesn't define what is right or wrong, nor is that how the social contract operates. Besides, the fact that piracy is rampant is a demonstration of copyright's necessity. If the works were so worthless that trying to charge for their consumption would be pointless, then why are so many people determined to illicitly gain access? And if the works would be made anyway, why weren't they until it was profitable to do so? The argument you're making dies on a number of fronts, but the one I tried to address originally was the only legitimate line of inquiry. Your ad populum redefinition of the social contract doesn't work, as what is good/bad doesn't get voted on or collectively decided. The best rational argument is what wins in an ethics conversation.