this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
370 points (96.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54772 readers
408 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
It is to me. Most content is corporate generated consumerist garbage anyway so it doesn't matter. Our right to access content is more important than a creator's right to restrict access to it for profit. It's information and ideas. And we are entitled to all information and ideas. I am entitled to it simply because I say so, and if you want me to stop, you'll have to kill me.
It's as simple as that.
You are awfully reductive in your reasoning.
I find none of these statements to be particularly accurate, and as such also your reasoning. I'm sure there are good arguments for it, but the solution and approach you've presented is flawed. I had hoped for something more enlightening. Now, I don't disagree with your ultimate goal or conclusion, it just needs different circumstances than reality currently allows. You either shoot yourself in the foot where creative work dies out, or we manage to create a society where such pursuits are motivated by the art itself and not the gain. But to me, you have not argued that piracy is "ethical", you just make a point of not really caring about the ethical component of it, because the end goal of you getting access to it without making an effort towards the contribution and the sustainability of creating it, is what matters to you.
It's reductive because it's not meant to convince you. It's simply what is. You asked me why I thought it is moral and those are my reasons why, and they're gonna stay that way whether you like it or not. They don't have to be reasonable or sensible or in line with your worldview. You don't have to agree with them. They don't even have to make sense to you. They're MY reasons, and they are valid simply because I hold them, because I say they are, because I decide what's ethical to me and what's not. That's all.
And you have to put up with that whether you want to or not.
I get what you're saying. But, do you get what I'm saying? If someone asks "why is X Y to you", the answer "because it is Y to me", doesn't add much. Now, the OP asked for a reasoning for why it was ethical. You have pretty much said "fuck ethics, I do what I want". And, as you very much point out, you do not care what anyone thinks. Which... I find weird to point out in a discussion forum. FYI, ethics tries to be a little bit more general than "anything I want is by definition ethical to me". I'm sure we're both happy to leave it at that.
No you don't get what I'm saying, because I am explicitly telling you I am not playing your game. My ethics are my personal boundaries, not trivialities up for debate. OP wanted to know what they were, so I shared them. That does not make it open for debate, nor is my refusal to allow it to be put up to debate, up for debate.
Take the hint and go away.