this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
351 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
37735 readers
419 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But the original creation cost time and money, which you're not reimbursing the creator for. The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn't cost anything.
It's like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it's not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn't even happen if everyone acted like this, or the organizers would have to pay for it all by themselves.
If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you "bought". Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
Would you call it Piracy if I lend a bluray from a friend? I didn't pay for it and yet I've watched it.
No, because it's so widespread and natural that it should be expected and already accounted for in the price. But there is no hard line imo, and simplified examples often fail to capture all the aspects that go into the decision. E.g. I'd say paying for one person at a concert and sneaking in another would basically be piracy, even though the two situations are very similar on a surface level.
I think it's about reasonable expectations both parties of the agreement can have, based on established social norms. If you buy a movie for personal consumption you should be able to expect that you can watch it whenever you want, and also share that experience with friends and family. And at the same time the seller should be able to expect that you limit it to a reasonable number of personal contacts, and don't start to sell it to strangers or run a movie theater, because that expectation was used to set the price.
So if piracy was "widespread and natural" it'd be bueno?
If that would be possible then yes, or course.
That's bascially the Start Trek future, where everybody's needs are met and people can just do whatever they want. It doesn't "cost" anything to create stuff, so it's fine to copy everything for free. But that's not the reality we are living in. In our's somebody has to pay for things, and if everyone pirated everything then things couldn't be made anymore.
An example where it kinda works is open source software. People don't charge for copies, because they expect to get help with their work and also be allowed to use other OS software without paying for it. As long as that balance holds it works out fine, but there are a lot of projects that required too much investment from the creator's and didn't provide enough back for them to keep going. And even there, companies profiting from OS projects are expected or even required to pay it back, by contributing code and paying for engineers and sponsorships.
To further the thought experiment. I digitize my Blu-ray and put it on a private tracker to share with ONLY my friends. Is that piracy?
Copywrite laws are antiquated at best and need to be destroyed at worst.
If you need more proof look at bullshit like how Paramount+ until recently couldn't show flagship shows like Picard in Canada because the rights were given to Crave.
So as a consumer I want to go to the owner of the property and I can't watch it because the owner told me they gave a copy of it to someone else.
Trust me, they're working on ways to prevent that too as we speak.
under what ethical system?
Mine, obviously. But feel free to correct me if you disagree with something.
there's no reason to believe what you claimed. a claim made without justification can be dismissed without justification.
They made a justification. They showed you how people couldn't make these things without people paying for them.
but that's not true. people make things all the time without being paid.
What unjustified claim did I make that you disagree with? Seems all rather uncontroversial to me.
i don't need to disagree to disbelieve. i do disagree, but without establishing your justification for this claim, it's kind of hard to argue against it.
The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn't, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.
that's doesn't follow
Idk what to tell you but: Yes it does. We can't really argue if you refuse to elaborate your point.
when you drive over a bridge, do you tip the engineering form? the contractors? they're the ones who created this experience for you.
I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it's a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.
not the owners: the designers. what if I copy the bridge and put it in my front yard: do you think I owe royalties to the engineering firm?
Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?
they still have the design. I haven't taken something from them. I don't owe them anything.
Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?
Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.
rent is immoral
No it's not. Why should someone let you stay in a building they payed and/or worked for, without you paying for a share of the upkeep, repairs, insurance etc., and the fact that the building exists in the first place?!
if you feel like rent as it currently exists even vaguely approximates the kind of model you claim you haven't been paying attention. rent is, at its core, having other people pay for something because you own it. landlords are infamous for not paying for upkeep and repairs. the incentives behind owning property that other people live in lead to bad outcomes for people who can't afford to own.
private property is theft.
That's a systemic problem, something I wouldn't personally care about. The "system" is just so horribly screwed up and skewed against us that I just no longer care if it works or not.
This rubs me the wrong way too, yes. Though I'm really beyond moral justifications, I just stopped caring.
Same here. The world is unjust so act accordingly.
Which doesn't mean be an asshole to everybody and steal everything you can but be an asshole to assholes and steal from franchises.