Hacker News Reader

Comment by jobeirne | Hacker News Reader

Granted, I'm with you there; however, just because something isn't readily available does not provide moral justification for its theft.

View on HN

Well that depends on your moral subset, it's an entirely subjective matter.

You have a group of film producers that glorify theft, violence, murder and other heinous acts (many of which are morally questionable) in their films for the "entertainment" of the end users. Do you really think consumers are particularly thinking about content producers copyright when they're getting images of decapitation and bloodshed force fed to them?

Or to use their own campaigns against them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

"you wouldn't steal a car" - no, but stealing 50 (aka, gone in sixty seconds) is ok. In fact, Hollywood frames the car thief's actions as a noble thing.

Personally, I don't think people should pirate stuff (even though it's been happening for longer than the internet has been readily available), but the Pandora's box HAS been opened - it's out there now and we're only seeing filesharing becoming more widespread.

Rather than fighting a losing battle, they should instead focus on providing a viable alternative.

Instead of trying to stop those consumers who will never pay for content, why not make it stupidly easy for those who will to do so.

The music industry caught on, unfortunately the Film/TV industry's ships are still sinking.

Morality is not subjective. There is wrong and there is right. Stealing the toils of someone else is wrong.

Your argument is still nonsensical; just because Hollywood glorifies theft (which of course they would; it's the allure of the rebel mentality) doesn't make it rational or acceptable.

You bless weakness and the rationalization of cowardice.

>Morality is not subjective.

You make a fact-like statement for what is actually one of the most debated arguments in philosophical history. I disagree, morality is subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is to disavow the accumulation of any generalizable logic during humanity's stay. This is trendy and foolish.

And here you make one of the same lame moral relativist fallacies to back up your point.

Parent: "morals are absolute"

You: "no, because lots of people argue about it"

So, if lots of people argued about whether 1+1=2, does that make it false? Reality isn't consensus based.

Plus, disagreeing that morality is objective is incoherent. If it isn't objective, then what's wrong with stating that it is objective?

Morality is not subjective? Can you explain how one determines, in an objective way, whether or not an act is moral? Is there a fundamental theorem of morality that I am unaware of?

Easy: if an act does not impose force, threat, or fraud, it is moral.

Easy: if an act does not impose force, threat, or fraud, it is moral.

Well then by your "easy" definition, theft (within the context of piracy) is not a threatening force, is not fraudulent nor does it require force.

So you have just defined Piracy as a moral thing to do.

You just lost your own original argument by your own definition. Nice job.

You obviously misunderstood what I said; "force" does not only apply to physical things: it runs the gamut from plagiarism to patent infringement.

You are forcefully (and wrongly) obtaining media in that you have not first obtained the consent of the owner or producer.

But other people clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes force. So we're back to the beginning. I would suggest using a different word, since your definition of "force" very much bends the standard English meaning. In particular, it's hard to use the verb form in regards to piracy: nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything.

Edit: the physical meaning of force ("I forced the lock") doesn't really apply either...

Oh is it easy? And downloading a movie falls into which of those categories?

It's certainly not force or threat, so it must be fraud. In which case:

Can you explain how one determines, in an objective way, whether or not an act is fraudulent?

FYI, objective morality doesn't require knowledge of moral axioms for people to observe particular instances of morally objective facts. Just as we don't need to know quantum physics to observe physical facts.

Anyways, if morality isn't objective, why get offended when someone insists that it is? He isn't doing anything immoral...

Does perpetuate moral humanity work? Of course, it is a necessary, but not sufficient sort of principle.

re: "you wouldn't steal a car"

I can't believe I'm quoting Reddit comments, but:

"you wouldn't steal a car" - "I would if I could download a car!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com