Comment by expensive_news | Hacker News Reader

Comment by expensive_news | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It’s not a crime to deprive someone of their income stream

It is in some cases, for example, DCMA and copyright that make it illegal to copy digital goods, the topic of this thread.

But as an aside, laws are (generally) based on ethics, ethics are not based on laws, so even though it is illegal, it doesn’t conclude anything about the ethics of a situation.

There are many arguments for why piracy is unethical, but the simplest might be using Kant’s categorical imperative “a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone” [1].

So could piracy hold for everyone? If everyone pirated Marvel movies then Marvel would not be able to make $100+M movies and these movies would not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore piracy violates Kant’s categorical imperative, therefore piracy is unethical.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/

> If everyone pirated Marvel movies then Marvel would not be able to make $100+M movies and these movies would not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore piracy violates Kant’s categorical imperative, therefore piracy is unethical.

Here is where your use of the categorical imperative breaks down: creating an economy that prevents Marvel from making movies is not in itself unethical. Undesirable, perhaps, but not unethical.

No one is entitled to have their favorite business model work regardless of whether or not it makes sense in a given economy.

You are correct. I suppose it is a lot more nuanced.

I believe a sound argument for copyright/DMCA would require:

1. Arguments to be made for the social utility in laws enabling such business models to exist, and

2. ethical considerations that come into play when said laws are violated (for example, a creator operating under the assumption of those laws being followed loses out on revenue when those laws are broken)

I still think there are cases to be made for both of these claims, but this might be one reason why the two sides are so at odds with each other.

I agree there's more nuance to this. Your original application of Kant's imperative is wrong, but it's not a total loss either - I feel it could be rescued with a more precise line of argument.

I particularly like the bit from your point 2. here:

> a creator operating under the assumption of those laws being followed loses out on revenue when those laws are broken

I'm not 100% certain - I'm trying to think this through now - but I feel that this is an ethics issue, related to honesty and fairness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com