3 ms·

> that are just entertainment And books aren't? What's the argument here? If it's that books serve a special purpose because they convey ideas and therefore it

> that are just entertainment And books aren't? What's the argument here? If it's that books serve a special purpose because they convey ideas and therefore it's a moral good to disseminate those ideas, you have to extend that to media beyond just the printed word. Music has that same potential (an even greater one, I would argue). It feels weird to pick and choose media like that.

echoangle 6mo ago
> And books aren't? Yes, since there are non-fiction books. A book about computer architecture is less „just entertainment“ than a Spotify song.
- zzrrt 6mo ago
  This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills, and presumably only the kinds that are worthy for productivity and advancement or something. But one person's "just an entertaining story or just a silly hobby" is another's life-changing or mind-opening allegory, or therapeutic pursuit with little immediate "practical" value. I can sort of see the original point; this appears to be a careless risk when there were other options, but I have to push back against the idea it's just some dumb music. It's still an artifact of humanity that's worth accessing and preserving as much as any other.
  - codethief 6mo ago
    > This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills This is not what OP said. He was talking about the "moral goodness of providing access to X, despite it being illlegal. He never said anything about the moral worth of X itself, let alone that Y had no moral worth. > AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a public library.
    - squigz 6mo ago
      Don't many public libraries have other things other than printed books, including music?
- jrflowers 6mo ago
  Trying to imagine telling somebody writing about the history of music copyright that they can’t hear Ice Ice Baby, on account of they might enjoy it, which means it has no research merit.

echoangle 6mo ago

> And books aren't? Yes, since there are non-fiction books. A book about computer architecture is less „just entertainment“ than a Spotify song.

zzrrt 6mo ago
This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills, and presumably only the kinds that are worthy for productivity and advancement or something. But one person's "just an entertaining story or just a silly hobby" is another's life-changing or mind-opening allegory, or therapeutic pursuit with little immediate "practical" value. I can sort of see the original point; this appears to be a careless risk when there were other options, but I have to push back against the idea it's just some dumb music. It's still an artifact of humanity that's worth accessing and preserving as much as any other.
- codethief 6mo ago
  > This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills This is not what OP said. He was talking about the "moral goodness of providing access to X, despite it being illlegal. He never said anything about the moral worth of X itself, let alone that Y had no moral worth. > AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a public library.
  - squigz 6mo ago
    Don't many public libraries have other things other than printed books, including music?
jrflowers 6mo ago
Trying to imagine telling somebody writing about the history of music copyright that they can’t hear Ice Ice Baby, on account of they might enjoy it, which means it has no research merit.