this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
268 points (82.5% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54443 readers
154 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very strange comparison, those private copies are specifically private. If you want our comparison to work, I'd be selling these private documents to others... Making them not very private.
My example doesn't require a "for sale" vs not distinction so I'm not sure why you're imposing that property on it? People pirate unreleased media, unofficial media, bootleg media and other forms of media that aren't for sale already, so being for sale is definitely not a necessary property of the cases we're concerned about when we're talking about the ethics of piracy.
And even if we restrict ourselves to talking about things that are already for sale: 1. Why does something being for sale suddenly make it not private? Many things for sale are already certainly not public. 2. Why does something being for sale suddenly make taking it without permission magically morally acceptable?
I'm imposing that property on it because for the overwhelming majority of media that is absolutely the case.
If it's for sale it's something you do not mind other people seeing. My documents I do not sell because I don't want people seeing it. If I were to sell them, clearly I don't mind people seeing it.
Making it for sale means you intend to share it, even if conditionally. Also "taking it" doesn't apply, making a copy isn't taking anything.
I don't see why this is such a necessary property of media? Arguably there could be more media inside peoples private homes and hard-drives that is not for sale than media that is for sale. On top of that, this kind of thing depends on how we define media, we can take more or less inclusive definitions of this term.
It should also be clear that the kinds of things that I'm talking about in my original post refers to more than just movies, music, games and software (despite me using "media" as a convenient example in my previous post).
I don't agree. I'd bet a lot of people are willing to sell plenty of ordinarily private things given a high enough price. I don't think the notion that something is for sale all of a sudden makes that thing magically not private? When you sell something you don't always make the thing you're selling available to the public, just to the buyer, and until the sale is complete you're not typically giving anybody full access to the thing. If it were public/not private the minute you made it for sale, then what is the point in selling it?
This isn't true either. Sometimes people make things for sale with no actual intent of selling. And the intent to share, does not make something all of a sudden not private either. You might share something (perhaps a secret) with a friend, that doesn't mean the thing you are sharing suddenly becomes not private/public, but that the scope of people you're will to share this thing privately with has increased by a small amount.
I also disagree with the notion that making a copy just inherently isn't "taking" things. This is also a matter of definitions, but people actively use the word "taking" to encompass more than just physical things. Phrases like "he took my idea", "she took my credit card information" and so on are examples of this. Obviously people do consider "taking" to include acts of copying in some cases. If you mean something else by taking, that's fine, but your personal definition for taking isn't really relevant when the point I'm making regards a more inclusive notion.
If you're talking about having family photos pirated, there's a privacy issue, not a property issue. Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that's on you, but you'll be yapping in the void as that isn't what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.
As for the term of taking, it's clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn't mean the same as taking a shit either, it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.
It's pretty clear that I'm talking about more than just family photos. It's also pretty clear that what I'm saying is that privacy problems are one of possibly many issues with copying data without permission. My actual point here from the start has been that it's not always ethical to copy other people's data without permission.
All of the types of media and data I'm talking about are distributable in a colloquial sense. This conversation is about the fact that copying data without permission isn't always ethical. The data we're talking about here absolutely includes secrets, private documents and so on.
I don't think that's what's happening. I'm talking about the ethics of copying data. Perhaps sometimes copying data can be considered theft, but whether or not copying data is theft, has nothing to do with my point. A thing being called theft doesn't make that thing morally wrong or right. The term theft itself has little to do with the actual issue we're talking about.
Also, I've never actually claimed piracy is theft. I'm also not claiming piracy is morally wrong, or even that theft is inherently morally wrong for that matter (a person can be justified in stealing in some cases).
Lets assume you're right and that literally everybody in the world uses these words the way you do (they don't). I don't think arguing "but that word means..." makes a very good argument against the fact that copying data from other people just isn't always morally right. The fact that you don't like how I use certain words is just not a good argument against what I'm saying. If you understand what I mean and you disagree with what I'm saying, then why not argue against my point instead of complaining about the fact that you don't like HOW I use certain words? If you understand what I'm saying and you agree that sometimes it's wrong to copy other peoples data without permission, then why are we still discussing this?