[Rob Instigator]

If I buy a painting, and make ten copies of that painting without charging, how is that STEALING?

[Rob Instigator]

the whole idea that digital torrents are STEALING is bullshit. There is no money changing hands. No one is profiting from the exchange of a length of binary code. The whole idea is bullshit.

[ilduclo]

yes, you're defining morality in this situation, then condemning others for breaching your def. There actually isn't an ethical problem in taking pay TV for free.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

if someone uploads a sequence of 1's and 0's and I download a copy, how is that STEALING?

why don't you just say "good caper!" and enjoy a good laugh with your beer, like a proper thief?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

yes, you're defining morality in this situation, then condemning others for breaching your def. There actually isn't an ethical problem in taking pay TV for free.

it's not the "others" im condemning, it's the ARGUMENTS.

again, i have a long list of offenses, and i know they're actual offenses, and im not gonna pretend they're not. i just rather keep it private or between me and my confidants. which the internet isn't. but that's besides the point.

human fallibility is a thing. i ahve no problem with that. it's a fact of life. but i have a problem with bullshit rationalization and fake claims of purity.

there isn't an ethical problem in taking pay tv for free?

please explain that. please explain it well, like you're trying to convince someone logically, rather than make yourself appear innocent by pointing the finger at someone else and deflecting.

i really wanna find a good argument here instead of blatant denials. something that holds up to examination.

[ilduclo]

as I was saying

Originally Posted by ilduclo

you're defining morality in this situation, then condemning others for breaching your def. ..........

[evollove]

Serious question: what are the ethics of pirating something that has long been out of print, and can only be purchased in used condition?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

as I was saying

as you were dodging, the question has been dodged. i'm not gonna push you if you wanna avoid it. avoidance = achieved.

Originally Posted by evollove

Serious question: what are the ethics of pirating something that has long been out of print, and can only be purchased in used condition?

finally, a good one!

off the top of my head i'd say it's a lesser issue than the regular kind, since the issue of availability is an attenuating circumstance.

it's still unethical though, if we're going to be precise, but less so than withdrawing demand out of an active market.

it's not like we're talking about preserving antiquities from destruction. it's still piracy.

BUT if you take into account that the value of used items potentially increases, and there is a market for used items, i'd say the sellers of used items could claim to have been harmed--rather than the original producers

in any case i'm doing searches for good discussion on the issues. gtg back to work but will be posting links

[Rob Instigator]

so it is piracy on November 30, 2017, but as soon as the "legal" copyright expires on December 1, 2o17 it is no longer piracy? The whole thing is a house of cards designed to make money for those that have the clout and bankroll to purchase everyone's intellectual "property." (Disney for example)

[evollove]

I think it's ownership which makes piracy unethical. A free "experience" is not, otherwise libraries would be unethical, and as far as I know they are not. Lending a CD to friend to listen to doesn't quite pass the threshold for unethical behavior.

You may borrow a book and have it's experience, but if you want to be able to experience the book whenever you want, you have to cough up some money for ownership.

(Stuff on youtube is almost on the line, but is probably ultimately unethical because if certain simple steps are taken, you can watch whatever you want whenever, which is more or less ownership.)

So: I could check out a DVD at my library. But sometimes I like watching movies on my phone. I need the movie as a file. So I pirate the movie. After I watch it, I delete it. It was just some dumb comedy I'll never watch again.

Is this action unethical?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

so it is piracy on November 30, 2017, but as soon as the "legal" copyright expires on December 1, 2o17 it is no longer piracy? The whole thing is a house of cards designed to make money for those that have the clout and bankroll to purchase everyone's intellectual "property." (Disney for example)

since we have legal frameworks that define our markets, yes it would be piracy on one day and public domain the next.

i don't know how that constitutes a "house of cards"

you could argue a bunch of things in court though and get it thrown out but yeah, time makes a difference.

your argument that legal frameworks are a house of cards-- is much more so a house of cards.

agh, i'll try to answer evollove's puzzle later as it's a much more complex one and break is over lol

[ilduclo]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

as you were dodging, the question has been dodged.

off the top of my head i'd say it's a lesser issue than the regular kind, since the issue of availability is an attenuating circumstance.

"attenuating circumstances", he says. I guess your days must be numbered

actually, I'm not avoiding anything. I just don't have any moral or ethical dilemma about taking TV off the internet without paying cable. I do have a real strict moral code, but that's one particular item that isn't there.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

"attenuating circumstances", he says. I guess your days must be numbered

actually, I'm not avoiding anything. I just don't have any moral or ethical dilemma about taking TV off the internet without paying cable. I do have a real strict moral code, but that's one particular item that isn't there.

i don't know anyone without numbered days. whether we know the actual number is another story, but everyone has one.

so what you're saying is that your strict moral code permits you to breach copyright in contravention of established law

which... is fine if that's your moral code. which might put you at odds with the law. but that's another story.

i have a strict moral code too but, being an animal and full of unlawful desires, i break it too often. thing is, i don't try to rationalize it by pointing the finger at someone else. my failings are mine. sure, sometimes, circumstances... extenuate or attenuate or i forget the word.

i throw myself at the mercy of the court!

ha ha ha

i still have a hard time parsing evollove's last question. which is a complex one and raises interesting points. maybe after work. to which my ethics now compel me. but i don't wanna! gaaaahhhh....

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

I think it's ownership which makes piracy unethical.

i'm glad to see you believe in private property. so do i. i'm not a communist.

what appears nebulous here is "what ownership". but it's not, really.

because with intellectual property and copyrights, what one owns is THE RIGHTS to something.

and when you violate those rights, yes, you violate that ownership and it's therefore unethical-- at least if you believe in private property, and that rights can be owned and therefore bought and sold.

if you believe it's all a free-for-all then this doesn't apply. but as i actually do, it applies to me.

Originally Posted by evollove

A free "experience" is not, otherwise libraries would be unethical, and as far as I know they are not. Lending a CD to friend to listen to doesn't quite pass the threshold for unethical behavior.

libraries could be unethical depending on who defines the ethics. as it is, libraries i believe enjoy certain exemptions but they also have limits in what they can do.

the library does not give away infinite copies in perpetuity to anyone that requests them. the doctrine of first sale applies to the lending of books. but lending is not the same as making copies.

with digital though, similar principles as physical books apply.

for example, i can download an e-book from my public library, which is technically a copy, but i get it for a limited time and i must get in a queue if someone else has access to that book (to those *rights*).

there's more stuff here and i can't read it but it shows how libraries are a special case: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright

Originally Posted by evollove

You may borrow a book and have it's experience, but if you want to be able to experience the book whenever you want, you have to cough up some money for ownership.

sure

Originally Posted by evollove

(Stuff on youtube is almost on the line, but is probably ultimately unethical because if certain simple steps are taken, you can watch whatever you want whenever, which is more or less ownership.)

i really don't know how youtube works but they're always taking down shit due to copyright violations. can't say more than that though. i don't know how they work behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by evollove

So: I could check out a DVD at my library. But sometimes I like watching movies on my phone. I need the movie as a file. So I pirate the movie. After I watch it, I delete it. It was just some dumb comedy I'll never watch again.

Is this action unethical?

if you believe in private property and if you believe that the content creator or distributor or rights owner has a right to administer access to that content, then yes, it's unethical.

it's not an atrocity against humanity but it's a little theft nevertheless. and it has an impact in the aggregate.

now if you're a communist who believes that all knowledge belongs to humanity, and you're willing to give away your labor and its fruits for free the same way you take them, then it's not unethical in that case and in that context.

so ethics depends on the society. and in a society as big as ours the only common ground we have is the law. so what's legal and what's ethical get conflated. but they're not always the same. so, war is legal but unethical to a conscientious objector. taxes are legal but libertarians call it theft. abortion is legal but christians think it's mass murder. so we're always negotiating those differences in legislatures and courts.

the issue for me though is where does the communist society get the economic incentives to produce content and innovation. they just kept playing the same 200 year old symphonies over & over while the west was cranking out all sorts of new things.

[evollove]

In a communist society, art production would drop off, but there are many many reasons beyond money why people engage in creative activities.

----

Is Chelsea Handler hip? I've seen her in a Sonic Youth t-shirt and a Bauhaus t-shirt. And I don't even watch her very often (for free on youtube).

[ilduclo]

truncated circumstances aside, anyone watching the Americans? It's really well done..

[!@#$%!]

i love that show & recommended it to demoño, BUT

i'm acting my wage and thus a year behind w/ replays

just watched season... 4 i think? or 5? either way, great

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

In a communist society, art production would drop off, but there are many many reasons beyond money why people engage in creative activities.

sure creativity is part and parcel of human life and won't go away anywhere but the ability to make a living as an artist when the state doesn't sponsor you is a totally different story

--

eta: i've been saying that a lot lately in this thread. "different story" "different story" "different story"

god damn my echolalia

[Severian]

Originally Posted by evollove

In a communist society, art production would drop off, but there are many many reasons beyond money why people engage in creative activities.

----

Is Chelsea Handler hip? I've seen her in a Sonic Youth t-shirt and a Bauhaus t-shirt. And I don't even watch her very often (for free on youtube).

I think she's kind of intolerable, but that might be closet sexism talking.

Also, my girlfriend's tremendous pain in the ass of a sister acts and speaks exactly like Chelsea Handler in real life... AND she always has a massive fucking dog wandering around with her, taking shits on my lawn and scaring my cats. Maybe Chelsea Handler is entertaining to watch from a safe distance, but I guarantee you, the real-world Chelsea is a sloppy, entitled ne'er-do-well who plops herself down in your living room when she's passing through town and starts fussing with her bra, taking about dream "signs," and blowing blunt smoke all over your house.

[evollove]

 

But does she really like SY?