Hacker News Reader

Comment by WendyTheWillow | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

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

Good thing that's not what's happening!

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... :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com