It’s actually very important that we agree on the structure of the social contract, and this is not “my” system at all, but a description of the system we both rely on to not get stabbed in the street for our lunch money.
It goes entirely against how humans think, strangling creativity and innovation. An artist is harmed far more when they're forced to spend years in court, debating whether their chord progression is too similar to a song written by someone who's been dead for 50 years.
Have you ever actually published anything for others to purchase?
So, evidence please. :)
Hopefully you'll be able to understand the world a bit more and contribute meaningfully to it when you're older.
Best of luck. :)
I suspect you are either not proud of your published work, or providing a link or examples would diminish rather than strengthen your position in this debate. It's easy to argue about morals and social contracts if you've published a literary work; less so if, for example, it winds up being a fan DnD extension module on DriveThruRPG.
Someone is querying your credentials to learn about you, where you're coming from, what perspective you have, what skin you have, so to speak, in the game. Dodging behind some notion of having to "earn" your credentials when you have taken a very strong and contrarian position is disingenuous.
What you must earn is my respect, and the person I replied to has lost that.
I've observed there's a lot of them about.
Unlike say... someone making claims but unable to provide evidence.
> To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.
Art is older than intellectual property.
"To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.
Finally you've raised what could be an interesting point. :)
Is there usefulness in the quantity of film / television / music being created today?
Would we be better off as a society if there was... less?
Maybe turning off the fountain of crap would be an improvement? :)
Either way, it's not up to you to decide utility arbitrarily. Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place? The problem is that people want the art too much, and are willing to break the social contract in order to obtain it.
That's a bold claim. My opinion is different though.
> Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place?
Why are you accusing me of doing so? Are you basing it upon my not having the same viewpoint as you?
Umm you do realize that some of the greatest works of art were created LONG before "IP" was a thing right? The patronage system did pretty well....
But you don't seem to value art...?
Since you seem to be a stickler for rules and agreements I'd urge you to re-read the guidelines for posting comments on this site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) as looking through this thread you are definitely flirting with the edges of them.
I'm not sure why piracy is the internet hill you've decided to die on regarding arguments but I'm going to choose to disengage, give zero cares to your views on my morality, and use my own best judgement on when it's moral to pirate or not.
Besides, nobody asked you to reply to me in the first place. You engaging/disengaging was always at your own impulse. Nobody was requesting you say anything at all, so returning to that state concerns only you.
Maybe start reading a few books about it, or take a class? You're trying to argue that ethics literally does not exist, which is quite a tall order.
The post states that piracy isn’t stealing and you agree.
There must be some other thing in your mind that is equivalent.
We've agreed it's not stealing. We've agreed that not all piracy is immoral, for some definition of immoral.
I think we can agree that this specific tort does not apply.
Which specific thing in the social contract, some simple verb such as "stealing" are you equating piracy with. Then we'll have something concrete to discuss I think.
Also that's not what trespass means. You don't "deprive" someone of their land when you walk on it without permission, and you don't "deprive" someone of their song when you pirate it.
Re trespass, that’s not what the specific tort you referred to means. A chattel is a moveable form of property. You’re talking about the colloquial version of trespass. Happy to talk about that conception of it.
Is the idea of trespass the specific thing you feel is being violated in the social contract? If not, what is?
So when you look at a comment that clearly a) is intended to diminish your position and b) seems to completely ignore what you've actually written, it's not "perceived hostility" it's simply bad faith engagement.
You still have not answered the very simple question though, and i might be a bit slow off the mark but i don’t see it answered elsewhere in this thread.
A lack of trust is not a reasonable reason to refuse to state a single verb or noun. Trust isn’t really a part of this - we are strangers on the internet.
I don’t believe that you are engaging with the discussion honestly because this is an extremely simple question to answer.
I believe this is because you have realised that you cannot defend the position you have taken.
It’s been an interesting discussion.
I just don't trust you.