Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[Fyron]

I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

Again, you have missed my point entirely. Within a culture, moral values tend to be fairly stable, and thus approach absoluteness. The question was not whether it was morally correct or not in other cultures, but within the context of US culture. You made statements about wholely different issues on the relative/absolute nature of morality. This is an entirely separate issue from whether copying the game is morally correct or not. I did not ever once comment on your belief that copying it was immoral, just on the other parts of your post that made the (wrong) claim that morality is absolute.

But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong.

This is a two-way street Geo. Just because you believe something does not make it right. Like your belief about morality being absolute.

Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality.

No, it does not.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.

Measurements of human nature tend to be rather useless.

[ July 12, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[minipol]

Geo,

now i know what you mean. I thought that was what you meant but wasn't sure. Oh, and you aren't being judged, it's just a discussion (wildly out of control )
It's all Fyrons fault

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
LOL, heck Kazz, I'm in a mood tonight. What side of this do you want me to take.

Take whatever side you want.

[Fyron]

But I do believe there are certain fundamental issues of right and wrong that are moral issues. Stealing and murder are two of those.

That is what I said, you know (essentially). Whether stealing and murder are morally wrong or right is relative, depending on the culture in which you live. But, those are certainly absolutely moral issues in every culture. It is the specific value of them that is not absolute.

[Thermodyne]

OK a company sells CD burners. Same company sells recorded digital media. People use the recorders to copy and distribute the digital content. Said company now asks for protection from its customers who are purchasing burners to burn media. That’s kind of a strange situation IMHO. The company helped create the problem; shouldn’t they invest in a solution? Also, if a pier to pier provider makes it possible for people to easily break the law, would this come under the laws pertaining to public nuisance and disorderly enterprise. There is no threshold of intent to be met under these laws.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
EULAs are not actually legally enforceable. You can make as many copies of any CD as you want. As long as you do not distribute the copies, it is 100% legal, as they are backup copies. If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you.

Actually, should Microsloth discover that you possess 150,000 copies of your Windows CD they would probably sue, and argue that possession of so many copies indicates intent to distribute.

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

... is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

Geoschmo

Hey there, I'm jumping in with a carefully snipped quote from Geo because it meshes well with my point of view.

Consider a "community" of hackers and software crackers, who've developed a "culture" of stealing software.

I think their culture is wrong. A bad culture. Bad. Bad. Bad. ... Bad.

I won't accept the premise that I have to respect that culture -- in my own mind.

I may not have any right to condemn it publicly, or act against it. After all myself or any group that holds similar convictions are as fallible as anyone other individual or group.

But I agree with Geo, the most basic fundamental rules of right and wrong shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I've said so before in a slightly different context. Link: Conceptually it is wrong.

I will agree that maybe stolen software registrations are hard to compare perfectly with a household burglary. And yes, the definition of killing gets messy when we consider warfare, government executions, and heck even the decision not to be a vegan.

But the Golden Rule works pretty good in many instances.

[ July 12, 2003, 03:20: Message edited by: Arkcon ]