Hacker News Reader

Comment by WendyTheWillow | Hacker News Reader

You’re presuming all pirates only pirate what they otherwise would not purchase, which is impossible to claim credibly.

And you are presuming that no pirates do by claiming that all piracy is immoral.

How do you stand on the idea that someone desperately poor, who cannot afford a text book that would be transformative to their life, pirates said book. Is that still immoral?

>How do you stand on the idea that someone desperately poor, who cannot afford a text book that would be transformative to their life, pirates said book. Is that still immoral?

immoral, no. Unethical, yes.

That said, I'm glad libraries of all kinds (lending, little free, bookstore giveaways) help give more ethical access to such resources. You don't need the latest and greatest textbook to obtain knowledge.

With all that said, were talking about deluxe media, not foundational knowledge. why does the topic always shift to hyperole when talking about a song/movie/game being pirated? Are we really comparing pirating The Avengers (2012) to finding a way to learn arithmetic?

Morals and ethics are similar but not the same, i would agree.

They suffer the same problem though in that morals and ethics do not have one universal standard. So something may be unethical to you but not to me but both be in the bounds of reason, or indeed the law.

You seem to accept that there is indeed ambiguity if you believe there to be a difference between a book pirated for a reason that helps someone, and a movie for entertainment in terms of piracy.

In addition, whilst you and i have access to libraries, this is very far from being common the world over.

Why then is it hyperbole? It’s just a simple example to show that piracy can in some cases harm no one and help someone. To wit: not all piracy is bad.

You claim that is unethical - which is all well and good, we do not share quite the same set of ethical values.

Further, more educated people have better prospects in life, which lead to better personal finances, which lead to buying more and pirating less stuff.

Not at all, I’m claiming piracy generally is immoral. I’m sure you can find exceptions, but the general case is the problem.

Without a clear definition of morality that is considered universal you cannot make any claims about generality.

There are many examples of piracy where no one loses out yet someone does benefit.

Painting such a complex subject with such a broad brush makes it seem like we’re just talking about your particular feelings rather than something universal.

Which is fine, but you’re making claims of generality without presenting a cogent argument.

Sorry but no, this is not a vague concept that we do not share; morality is indeed agreed upon in large strokes, by the very virtue of us interacting in this forum, we already are implicitly agreeing to a number of shared values. For one, you’re not calling me insulting names, you’re accepting I have a point of view, etc.

What I am claiming presumes only that you live in a modern society, and therefore you participate in the social contract. Given that, what I am saying is then a conclusion of that.

You’re claiming that all piracy is immoral or breaches a social contract. Then you claim exceptions are ok. Thus not all piracy is immoral.

I am trying to get to specifics but you keep waving your hands about this stuff.

Good thing i didn’t claim that all piracy is immoral then!

And I’ve given lots of specifics. It’s just not a complex concept.

I'm probably misreading your argument, because it seems inconsistent to me. You are saying that piracy is immoral because it causes harm; and that it causes harm because in some cases the downloaded would have purchased the downloaded media if not for piracy.

I'm very confident that in the majority of cases, people who download stuff would not have bought it at any price that the publisher would accept, if piracy wasn't an option. Which means that by the definition of harm I think you are using, the majority of cases would not be immoral. It seems to me the immoral cases would be the exception.

I guess it makes more sense if you also say that consuming something without paying for it is immoral even if you would never have paid to consume it. I find it hard to agree with that though, as I don't see who's harmed.

I think your confidence is not only unfounded, but awfully convenient for someone who stands to benefit from the acceptability of piracy to consider.

Besides, "harm" here is not the core of my argument. Doing moral wrong is. It is wrong to lie to obtain something, and it is wrong to benefit from ill gotten gains.

These acts are wrong themselves, regardless of whether or not they cause pain directly. This is not a hedonist argument, the cause of pain through harm in all or even many cases is not necessary for the act to be wrong.

That's awfully convenient. "I can't be wrong because people that disagree with me just want to pirate stuff, so they're biased."

I suppose I could say everyone that disapproves of piracy is just a copyright lawyer

I didn't say I can't be wrong, I would say I'm not wrong. Big difference.

Also I didn't say I'm not wrong in the comment you replied to. So what are are you talking about?

Clearly a lot more people think you are wrong than think you're right. Multiple orders of magnitude difference.

But keep on denying reality, as it's working out so well for you... :)

It's also wrong to judge others when you know nothing about context.

Good thing that's not what's happening!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com