Omegas
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 11,301
sorry my post looks very unorganized, normally I edit two or three times and con't on front page. But I"m sure some of you are getting the gist of it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
Completely off-topic, but what if microsoft bought out steam and started doing movies/music on steam. If you buy a game on steam you can play it on your computer or your Xbox, watch it on your PC or XBox, save movies to your WHS like steam games on your PC.
If I buy a $3500 PC, and my hard drive crashes, can I get another and reinstall all my apps for free? chances are that I will encounter problems.If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
That's great and all, if it ignored the fact that you can't copy the entirety of a car with little to no effort or cost.
If I check a book out from the library and read it, am I stealing it?
Completely off-topic, but what if microsoft bought out steam and started doing movies/music on steam. If you buy a game on steam you can play it on your computer or your Xbox, watch it on your PC or XBox, save movies to your WHS like steam games on your PC.
If I check a book out from the library and read it, am I stealing it?
Yes it is ethical to break the law. This can be proven with a simple test case. If a law is written that says you must first rape your neighbor, then pillage their house, and finally murder their children if and only if they have blond hair, are you going to say it is unethical not to follow that law? So then it is pretty clear that laws do not drive ethics.The ethical situation is easy to resolve through a basic yes/no question:
Is it ethical to break the law?
If yes, then it is ethical to download the items. If not, then it is not ethical to download the items.
I think the actual question is "should it be illegal?"
Of course. Who are you depriving of something by doing so?What if the technology existed for me to scan a car with a beam of light and produce an exact copy of that car?
Would it then be fine to copy cars?
...
Of course. Who are you depriving of something by doing so?
Unless you're atheist or agnostic or some panthiesm like buddhism, I can't see how you get past it that there is absolute/universal moral law.
Universal? Right, because religions are known throughout history to have gotten along because after-all, they all have the same universal morals.
lol
The automakers who own the patents for the entirety of the vehicle.
Last time I checked, I can buy parts for a car from anyone and not just the OEM. It is also legal for me to buy exact OEM replacement parts for every part of the car and assemble them my self. So how is this any different?
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
The automaker is still making money that way.
And if I machine the parts myself at home? Which isn't illegal, by the way.
Then you go ahead and do it. Just don't sell it.
Objectively speaking, why doesn't that apply to software as well?
Probably because you don't re-create software in your garage or your office, you merely copy it. If you want to program your own Assassin's Creed 2 for your own personal use, go ahead. I don't think Ubisoft would care.
LOL, duplication ray. Dude man... LOL.
So when I go to wal-mart and have a key copied, why don't I morally owe Schlage for that?
Or if I input the parameters of the part I want to machine into my CNC device which can then make endless copies?
We're not talking about economic implications, we're talking about morals. Tell me why it's *morally* wrong to make copies of software, but not physical things.
The ethical situation is easy to resolve through a basic yes/no question:
Is it ethical to break the law?
I think the actual question is "should it be illegal?"
Laws are made to protect the innovator, the creator, the man who put in the hard work. The 'moral' is 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short'. How we implement that moral is another question. And I'm not saying that copying a fixed .exe for something you purchased is morally wrong. If anything it seems to help the producer.
We don't need laws that protect against physical things because such laws don't help protect principle: 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short.' If physical things could by copied by some goofey magic copy ray, then yes we would have to make new laws to protect that moral principle.
Law are not morals. Infact, probably 50% of the time, laws are just dumb.
Laws are made to protect the innovator, the creator, the man who put in the hard work. The 'moral' is 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short'.
the problem with this "simple" yes/no question, is that there is no simple answer to it. the only correct answer IMO is "sometimes". I think most here would probably agree that killing in self defense is ethical--even if they believe killing is essentially immoral. Ethical relativism is messy, but relates to reality much better than the absolutist alternative.
I agree 100% with changing the scope of the discussion to "should..."
Totally agree with you that laws are not morals. What I'm confused about, though, is why you're bringing that up. I'm not concerned with whether or not it's *legal* to make copies of physical things, I'm concerned with whether or not you think it's wrong to do so. For some reason, you seem to be saying that it's wrong for me to give my friend a copy of Doom 3 because it's made of bits and not aluminum. That's the part I don't get. I'm not saying I think it's *right*, mind you, I'm just having a good time playing devil's advocate here and trying to make sure the important questions get asked
The fact that it's legal to "copy" physical things for personal use but not digital things is not what I'm arguing. I want to know how you can think it's not morally wrong to make a copy of a physical thing, but it is morally wrong to make a copy of a digital thing. [NB: If that's not what you think, I apologize. In that case, take "you" to mean "generally, you people who do think this."]
there are questions about exactly what does this mean. for about 99.99% of work it is just repetitive labor. you get paid, you do the same thing, again and again. You stop working, you stop getting paid. The concept of ideas and inventions though, get much hazier.
patents exist to encourage people to create things and to be able to profit from their creations. a lot of ideas however are used in a totally opposite fashion. there is virtually nothing in this world that was not built upon the work of other people in various ways. despite that we give monopolies to companies that do not really produce anything but are the first to patent something and have enough of a legal team to fight it.
ideas can be used an infinite number of times. should one party profit when they really did not do the work of creating something?
take another example. you have a great teacher that collects a basic salary for her work. She is able to inspire her students and make them much more than what they were when they started. Should she receive a portion of their income for the rest of her life? You would probably say no.
Everything in this world is built on the work of other people. Just a little strange how we have different standards for everything.
there are questions about exactly what does this mean. for about 99.99% of work it is just repetitive labor. you get paid, you do the same thing, again and again. You stop working, you stop getting paid. The concept of ideas and inventions though, get much hazier.
patents exist to encourage people to create things and to be able to profit from their creations. a lot of ideas however are used in a totally opposite fashion. there is virtually nothing in this world that was not built upon the work of other people in various ways. despite that we give monopolies to companies that do not really produce anything but are the first to patent something and have enough of a legal team to fight it.
ideas can be used an infinite number of times. should one party profit when they really did not do the work of creating something?
take another example. you have a great teacher that collects a basic salary for her work. She is able to inspire her students and make them much more than what they were when they started. Should she receive a portion of their income for the rest of her life? You would probably say no.
Everything in this world is built on the work of other people. Just a little strange how we have different standards for everything.
You're right. Laws are intended to prevent abuse, but they often fail to preserve their intended principles. The moral is still the same, but you have good examples showing that implementing and enforcing these principles is easier said than done.
As for the teacher example. She doesn't deserve to reap it. Since the children's profits aren't due her. A thank-you might be due her though. What is due to that teacher? Again, we only ask questions of how we apply the morals. Not if the morals stand.
Not sure where the problem for the absolutist is. The constant moral principle stands behind situations of various colors. Murder in cold blood is plain wrong. Killing in self defense or in a war is not necessarily murder. How we apply a moral principle for a given society is relative. I can spit on you to show disrespect, but if we were tribal spitting on you would be an expression of great honoring. 'Respect' is the constant. How I apply respect is the relative variable depending upon the context of society.