= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on What Curiosity Looks Like - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (283)
I certainly haven't agreed (implicitly or otherwise) that "your default response to X is to think of Y" means that when X happens you actually do Y. As I said before, I took you to be talking about what happens in those cases in which you decide to actually get hold of the book (because if instead your meaning were "you often shouldn't bother getting the book at all" then (1) you were stating the obvious and (2) your link to library.nu was kinda irrelevant). Everything I've said has been based on that premise.
If you're now saying that your point was that actually literally thinking "I'm going to get that book" as soon as you find it interesting is silly -- well, yeah, it is, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think otherwise. My apologies if I've contributed to confusion here...
Ah.... we seem to have different models of what people do when they find an interesting-looking book. You're model is:
whereas my model is
So when I was talking about your response right after seeing the book, I was talking about the buy/pirate decision, which occurs later in the decision-making process for you.
Anyhow, I will restate my point as as 'If "buy it" is the first thing that your brain suggests to you once you've decided to get hold of a book, you're doing something wrong.'
But that one's just a nitpick. The more important takeaway is 'If you buy all or even a large fraction of the books you decide to get hold of, you're doing something wrong. (Unless the number of books you ever decide to get hold of is tiny.)'
Which is exactly what I always took you to be saying, and what I was arguing against by pointing out that some people might have (strong) preferences (1) against illegal copying or (2) for having physical copies of one's books, and that unless there's something plainly wrong with having such premises then your claim is implausible or at least needs more support.
Anyway. Yes, my model is nearer the first than the second of the ones you describe. Actually my process is something like this: (1) See interesting-looking book. (2) Add it to my monstrously long Amazon wishlist. (3) Consider whether I actually want a copy enough to bother paying for it; if so, buy it. (4) Consider whether I want to borrow it from a library; if so, do so at a convenient opportunity. As a matter of policy I don't pirate books it they are legally available at a not-completely-insane price; I am not claiming that this policy is optimal for me, never mind for other people whose values and/or resources may differ substantially from mine. I don't find myself with any shortage of useful reading matter and reference works this way; in fact, I have a backlog of something like 350 books sitting on my shelves waiting to be read. If you think it's clear that I'm doing something wrong by not pirating books in preference to buying them, please feel free to convince me. (Possibly relevant facts: I am reasonably well off and think it likely that the transfer of money from me to the bookseller and thence to various people associated with the production and sale of the book is utility-positive overall; so far as I can tell by introspection, having more money as a result of pirating books rather than buying them would not make me give more to charitable causes; I very much prefer having physical copies of the books I read; it pleases me that the people whose books I enjoy reading get some benefit from my reading them; I don't think it's feasible to reward them by sending them money directly instead.)
I realise that there were a lot of unnoticed background assumptions in my original post.
Here is where my assumptions trip up; my reaction to a 'not sure' at this stage would be 'whatever, let's just download it and see if it's interesting/useful'. While your reaction seems to be 'borrow it from library', or, failing that, 'meh, screw it'.
Come on, that's just equivalent to throwing in the towel. Why not look for ways to optimise it if it's not optimal?
How many of those do you think you'll ever actually read? I see that as a phenomenal waste of money.
I maintain that this is sub-optimal, and that which is sub-optimal should be optimised. I find it inconceivable that you can't find any good use for the money you save by not buying books... So why wouldn't you put it to those uses?
This is one of the things that I really can't argue against without arguing that people shouldn't have exclusive rights to decide where they spend their money. I'm not willing to bite that bullet just yet.
I can point out that this preference might just be status quo bias. Of course, that's not necessarily the case.
I do have one (1) Fully General Counterargument though, read on....
Ah, but does that really rank higher on your preference rankings than existential risk reduction?
But this does show me that my view was overly simplistic and that I've veered too far into other-optimisation. I should probably end this discussion now.
Because there are a million other things in my life that aren't optimal, and the way I deal with books leaves me reasonably well satisfied even though it may not be optimal. (Note also that I only said I don't claim it's optimal even for me; it may in fact be optimal for me, but I don't have any sort of proof and don't wish to spend the time and energy it would take to defend the claim if I made it.)
Approximately all of them. My book-reading rate isn't much slower than my book-buying rate.
Aside from the fact that (as already noted) I expect to read the great majority of them eventually, I refer you to Umberto Eco's essay on "How to justify a private library" (part of his collection entitled "How to travel with a salmon", which also contains useful advice on "How to recognize a porn movie" and "How to go through customs"), which I shall not quote here; you may pirate the book at your leisure and read it yourself.
In any case, having (let's say) $5000 of wealth tied up in books I haven't read yet (providing me with goods such as an ample choice of the next thing to read when I finish one, reinforcement of my notion of myself as an erudite intellectual sort of chap, helping to support the portion of the economy concerned with books, having lots of interesting things sat around for my daughter to read as she grows old enough to appreciate them, etc.) seems to me no worse than having a similar sum tied up in having a slightly nicer car or house than one needs. Especially as the books were almost all purchased at good prices (used, or while nicely reduced on Amazon, or whatever) and probably retain a substantial fraction of the value I paid for them -- unlike, e.g., the car. None of which means it's a good thing -- it might or might not be -- but it's at any rate no worse than indulgences that I bet you don't bother to criticize when you find them in others. Or, who knows?, in yourself.
I think that principle is sub-optimal. Things that are probably sub-optimal include (for me as for just about everyone else alive) my diet, my job, my sex life, my political beliefs, my choice of reading matter, my choice of other leisure activities, my selection of friends, the set of skills I've taken the trouble to acquire, my financial arrangements, my dress sense, my relationships with family and friends, ... and if I attempted to optimize everything sub-optimal I'd have no time or energy left for anything else.
I didn't say that. I was just deflecting one more specific objection. I'm sure I could find other good uses for the money. I see no reason to think they'd be any better than buying books.
Yup, it might be status quo bias. I am aware that I am slower-than-optimal to make major changes in my life, and I expect the two things are related.
It ranks higher on my preference rankings than saving the cost of the book by pirating it. So, out of {do nothing, pirate, buy} I choose buy over pirate. The remaining question is whether it's wrong for the enjoyment of reading to rank above existential risk reduction (or saving the lives of poor people in Africa, or influencing national politics, or any of the other Big Things I could do with my money instead of indulging myself), and on that I'm the same pile of contradictions and hacks as everyone else, which I justify (in so far as I do) in what I take to be the usual ways: staying sane and happy probably lets me contribute more to those things in total, my self-centred preferences are what they are and I shouldn't pretend otherwise, etc., etc., etc.
In which case, I apologize if any of the foregoing seems to require a response. Please be assured that if none is forthcoming I shall neither say nor think that it means you're conceding any point you don't concede explicitly :-).
In that case, I wouldn't call it 'a phenomenal waste of money', which renders the next paragraph of your comment rather pointless.
Now that I think about it... The principle is not sub-optimal (unless you start optimising for the amount of suffering in the world or something) but, yes, the implied strategy (optimise ALL the things!! Optimise whatever seems sub-optimal! Optimise them NOW!) definitely is.
Ah, a Fully General Counter-Counterargument to counter a Fully General Counterargument. Fair enough, I guess.
I will now edit my original comment to reflect this discussion.
Edit: Done.
4. Decide whether to tell people about my criminal tendencies on the internet.
As a legal term, "criminal" does not apply here.
So it's fine to discuss the morality of infanticide and baby-eating, but IP infringement is taboo? :P
No, but you should Taboo most of the words usually used, because they are not useful.
Mm? What words are you talking about? I do contend that 'pirate' is a useful and concise verb for 'obtain a file for free over the internet'. (Although, now that I think about it, that's not what it technically means, and 'filesharing' is probably a better word for the act. Then again, 'fileshare' isn't commonly used as a verb.)
That's true, it is just perhaps not a useful verb in this context because there are moral connotations.
"Theft" and "Piracy" are both Bad Words in this context. "Theft" because it doesn't actually apply, "Piracy" because it fails to carve reality at the joints (lumps high-seas theft and murder with copying).
The word you are looking for is "Copy". Nice and short, captures all the important aspects, doesn't have too much political or moral connotation.
Duly noted.
Taboo? No, there's no taboo. It's a question of honesty being (potentially) instrumentally detrimental to you!
The probability of that is really astronomically small in this case, but point taken.
It does seem that way. But who knows what the future may bring? Words on the internet have a nasty habit of sticking around.
The possibility of the rise of a sinister figure in the future that visits vengeance upon everyone who has ever demonstrated sympathy for copyright infringement doesn't really push up my probability estimate, sorry.
(Really, by the most likely way I can think of this causing trouble is if any of a certain group of powerful organisations that I won't name here gets pissed off at me and decides to come after me with every single thing they can dig up. But that's still a really small possibility and this thread will be the least of my worries if it really comes to that.)
it seems I've spoken carelessly and I'd like to restate my initial point. I appreciate the clarifications as to the legal details.
I'm suggesting that piracy is immoral, and in very large part because it is illegal. I don't think moral concerns always trump instrumental value or that breaking the law is always immoral. But these will be exceptional cases. Copying a book illegaly because one doesn't want to pay for it seems like an unexceptional case of wrongdoing, and one plausably comparable (morally if not legally) to theft. It seems comparable, I mean, to any given case of breaking the law because it makes life a little easier or more pleasent.
ETA: And I don't mean to suggest I have any knock out argument myself. I really would just like to hear the argument to the contrary if anyone would be willing to take the time.
So you think that the value of the rule of law is more important than immediate personal gains? Fair enough.
You seem to think it's wrong for other reasons, tho I can't quite decipher it.
Why specifically compare to theft? Why not trespassing or something? The only similarity I can see is that infringement and theft are both crimes of an economic nature, but so is vandalism.
To clarify the situation and the relationships between the terms, would you agree that theft is approximately the intersection of vandalism and infringement? (it removes the original, and the perp gains without paying)
Come to think of it on the pure abstract level it is more closely analogous to rape.
I thot of suggesting rape, but decided against it because it seemed too far off. Explain.
Takes the valuable resource from the victim without reducing the degree to which they have that resource or provide it to others for their own benefit.
I don't support advocating equivocation between these or any other moral or ethical issues. Because they are different and degree of abstract similarity is not important.
Uh, rape often reduces the degree to which one can provide sex / fertility to others. I don't think that's the best analogy.
I originally included caveats (like gentleness and maybe birth control) but decided that wasn't really necessary. After all when we call copying movies 'stealing' we don't bother to include disclaimers about things like "while breaking into your house to steal your TV they destroyed your door and broke your arm when you tried to stop them".
It quite possibly isn't - I've hardly done an exhaustive search. I expressed only a comparison to stealing.
What disturbs me about this model is that my mind is now telling me 'yeah, sure you can consider sex as a resource', while 100 seconds ago (right after I read the comment) it was telling me, with equal certainty, 'wtf? sex isn't a resource!!'
I ... really don't think this is a useful model.
How could you not consider sex a resource? It isn't just a resource, or merely a resource but it is one of the most significant resources out there. There are entire industries out there for the buying and selling of sex. There is an industry for capturing and selling people from whom this resource can be harvested. The most rudimentary of marketing tactics is to find ways to make other resources associate with sex in the minds of the consumer.
It is one of many models useful for understanding human behavior. It need not be one that is used for describing or selecting moralities.
Just a thought that had never occurred to me. However, I'm still wary of accepting this interpretation because my mind completely bought into it after just a few seconds of thinking about it. Ergo, either it's a blindingly obvious fact, as you suggest, or my mind is overfitting the data, and....
.... Who am I kidding? I've already accepted this interpretation.
I compare it to theft because of the comparable aims of the thief and the filesharer: in most cases, I expect, and in the kind of cases Anubhav raised, something is copied in violation of IP law because it is convenient for the filesharer or saves him or her some money. That's similar to theft in a way that it's no to vandalism or tresspassing.
As to your clarificatory question, I'm not sure. So assume I agree; what are the consequences of understanding things this way?
Then you may just as well call it "insurance fraud", or "tax evasion", or "turnstile jumping".
In a universe where you didn't begin off with the assumption that copying things can be considered "theft", because the companies have a vested interested in presenting it as theft, I doubt it'd ever even cross your mind that copying something can be reasonably compared to stealing it.
E.g. did you ever ask whether JKR has the right to mention the name of "Merlin"? Or whether Disney has the right to use Hercules or Aladdin as characters? Did it occur to you to call such things theft -- merely because it was convenient and saved money for these people/companies to copy such names/stories?
It did, long before companies started trying to present it as such within my hearing.
The theft comparison isn't really my point. My point is that it's wrong to break the law for personal gain. None of these are cases of that kind of activity. It may be that the law itself is wrong, but that doesn't itself make it okay to break that law, especially when your breaking of it is aimed purely at saving you some money and not in any way at undermining the law.
Just to be clear... would you say that speeding, or consensual sodomy in Texas prior to 2003, are wrong in essentially the same way?
That's a good question. I guess I would say the same thing about speeding, but not about consensual sodomy. In the latter case, I think it's still immoral to break the law so as to engage in sodomy, but that this is just outweighed by the importance of being able to freely engage in a sex life of one's choosing and with consenting adult partners. With speeding and with filesharing, the immorality of breaking the law is weighed against in the first case convenience (unless it's an emergency) and in the latter case saving one's money. Neither of these seem to me to overcome the moral problem of breaking the law.
ETA: The point about speeding is a good one. We generally understand people to be responsible for bad but unintended outcomes only so long as what they're doing is bad in the first place. So while we think speeding is commonplace and no great evil, we do get quite worked up when someone speeds and kills someone else as a result. The killing, wholly unintended, is their fault. I think this is a sign that we do consider speeding to be a bit immoral. If the same thing happened to someone who was driving in a perfectly legal way, we wouldn't ascribe to them any responsibility for the deaths.
I'm not sure I can come up with any similar accidental consequence of filesharing. Maybe the collapse of a publishing company? But this couldn't be the result of any one person's activity.
Mm. OK.
So, if someone were to say they endorsed some instances of illegal filesharing because, while they agreed that it was immoral to break the law, they believed that this immorality was outweighed by the importance of being able to freely distribute and obtain information of one's choosing, your conclusion would be that their reasoning was sound as far as it went, but that they were not correctly estimating the relative importance of those two things.
Yes?
Good point.
Haha. So cautious. I know that feel.
I don't know the consequences. It just seemed reasonable, and clarifying things like that usually clears things up a bit.
And what of it? You're pointing to a general category with the implicit assumption that everything it contains is wrong. Which, as you know, isn't true. Perhaps most of the members of this set can be classified as wrong, but as long as wrongness isn't a general feature of this set, membership of this set isn't a sufficient condition to classify anything as wrong. Ergo, the members of this set that are wrong, aren't wrong because they belong to this set, but are wrong because they meet some other criteria of wrongness. You should think about what those criteria are, and then we can debate whether this particular issue meets those criteria.
As I and other people have pointed out, it's not even morally comparable to theft. You haven't addressed any of those comments as far as I can tell. I'll go with the charitable interpretation and assume what you mean by 'comparable' is what you're saying in the next sentence (the part I responded to in the first part of this comment).
This stinks of classical (non-bayesian) rationality. Membership in a set that is mostly wrong does not "prove" anything, but it sure is evidence. (more evidence is obviously required, in this case). Keep your bayes hat on.
EDIT: What happened to my edit! Your point still stands: we have reason to believe copying does not quite fit in that set, so we should be looking closer at the mechanisms of wrongness. /EDIT
Actually, ve just brought up that the intent and thought process is very similar. Seems like a good enough reason to compare them.
That said, I think the comparison is way overused, and even if it contains a grain of truth, it's a good idea to avoid it because it is such a politicized comparison.
Agreed, but it's noisy evidence. Which is why I recommended looking for better evidence. I used the set theory terminology instead of the Bayesian one because ABrooks seems to have a philosophy background; I thought this'd make more sense for him/her.
...... And yes, I got carried away by the force of my own rhetoric. Must work on avoiding that.
That wasn't at all clear to me.
See my edit, I agree with what you said, but the non-bayesian thing was an itch that had to be scratched.
That's because it was in a different post. By "just" I meant "seconds ago, after this post". I could have made that clearer.
Well, I agree that not every case of breaking the law is immoral, but I think I'd be happy to defend the claim that moral wrongness is a characteristic of the subset of legal violations undertaken for the sake of one's personal convenience. And your point about set membership doesn't seem right: it is in virtue of membership in 'elephants' that an animal has a trunk, even if its true of some elephants that they do not have trunks (wounded elephants say).
If I've failed to respond to any questions regarding my comparison of filesharing to theft, then this is purely because of my lack of understanding. Could you clarify for me the challange to this comparison, if you have the time and inclination? Or would you prefer that I made my own case more pointed first?
I thought I'd already done that. In this thread, for instance.
We seem to be using the word 'characteristic' in different senses.
Anyway, from a Bayesian perspective, as the proportion of elephants without trunks is small, I can be reasonably sure that any given elephant will have a trunk. However, if someone tells me, 'hey, that elephant there doesn't have a trunk', I reason that it's unlikely (but not impossible) that someone would tell me that if the elephant did, in fact, have a trunk. If I want more information about whether the elephant has a trunk, I'd go look at the elephant myself.
More or less the same reasoning applies in this case, except that instead of one person, you've got a large proportion of the people on the internet telling you that copyright is immoral and its infringement is not comparable to theft. Therefore, you should debate these issues on their merits, instead of relying on what group they belong to with regard to legality.
I remember when I was in college and Napster first came out. In a dorm hall, we didn't really have TV's, nor did we read a lot of news, and at least I wasn't researching the subject of file sharing. No publishing company would have had an opportunity to talk to me about it, and I don't remember ever being told that filesharing was stealing.
Except that I immediately recognized it as such. It was something you did when you wanted something that cost money, but you didn't want to pay for it. So you just went and did something illegal so as to get it for free. That struck me as stealing (though I did it anyway, of course). It also struck everyone else as stealing. No one was confused by anyone else's calling it that, and no one, so far as I remember, brought up any objections to the idea. And there's a reason why the companies that now do try to villify the act choose to call it stealing instead of trespassing, or infringement, or whatever. Stealing seems to intuitively capture the nature of it, and the (mild) immorality of it. I think plagerism is called stealing for very similar reasons, even though like CR infringement, it doesn't result in anyone losing what's stolen.
You're right, a large number of people ('large proportion' seems adventurous) are telling me that it's not at all like stealing. They also tell me that copyright law is immoral. They also tend to have substantial economic interests in believing these things. This at least makes me suspicious. But ultimately, nothing really hangs on the comparison to theft. It just seems apt. To me, and in my experience to most everyone who isn't defending their own practice of it.
Breaking the law isn't always immoral. In cases where the law itself is immoral and breaking it can serve to undermine the law, it's even a good thing. But is this one of those cases? An act of filesharing doesn't accomplish anything by way of undermining the law. An act of filesharing accomplishes only this: there's something you want which by law costs money. But you don't want to pay for it, so you find a way to get it for free by infringing upon that law. That's all we're talking about here: a practice of infringing upon a law for your personal gain. Even if copyright is immoral, breaking the law for your personal gain isn't thereby perfectly permissible.
That argument is about as valid as Aristotle's argument that heavier objects must fall faster. Your intuitions are not magic, when challenged you can't just point to your intuitions and say "Objections? What objections? Can't hear any." You still haven't addressed any of the arguments for why it's a bad comparison.
And the fact that those who push the "infringement is theft!!" agenda most forcefully have substantial economic interests in blocking the distribution of works through non-traditional channels is not suspicious at all. Neither does the fact that, historically, a technological advance comparable to the internet (the printing press) was fought tooth and nail by an entity comparable to today's Big Media (the Catholic Church) on the pretext of blocking the distribution of unauthorised works (non-Latin versions of the Bible), ring any alarm bells, even though non-Latin Bibles are seen as perfectly ordinary things now. No sir, nothing suspicious here, just a bunch of filthy Pirates making a ruckus.
Ergo, setting up the Pirate Bay is a moral act, but downloading something off it is not?
Hmm, have you read Aristotle? So far as I can tell, his most extended argument on the matter is Physics IV.8, where he argues that in an atmosphere, heavier things fall faster because they are better able to divide the medium owing to greater downward force. He then argues that in a void, heavier and lighter things would fall with the same speed. Since this is not what we observe (we do in fact often observe heavier things falling faster for the reason Aristotle cites) there cannot be any void.
Aristotle is complicated and surprising, and rarely does any common knowledge capture his views well.
My intuitions aren't magic. Though my having an ethical opinion is some evidence that this opinion is true or in the region of the truth. As I said my argument doesn't hang on the comparison with theft. If the activity strikes me as theft, and most people as theft, then this is pretty good evidence that it's like theft. It's not conclusive or anything, but still good evidence.
I couldn't follow your printing press argument, I think largely because it involved some complicated sarcasm. If you like, ignore my point about economic interest. It's not very important.
Did I say setting up the Pirate Bay is a moral act? I take it you wish to argue that CR law is immoral or impracticable? And how your filesharing a book helps to undermine that law? Could you explain this?
If slavery strikes a slave-owner as right to property, and most people in the slave-owner's society as right to property, is that also pretty good evidence that slavery is right to property?
If homosexuality strikes a person as unnatural, and most of the people in his society as unnatural, is that pretty good evidence that homosexuality is unnatural?
The beliefs of a particular society at a particular time provide pretty weak evidence, at best.
In that case, we shall leave that aside for now.
Behold the wrath of Lob's theorem. (Short version: I believe yo momma is fat. Since I'm a rational agent, my belief is evidence for it. Thus I can assert with high certainty that yo momma is fat.)
I note that the sentence was 4 lines long. Not exactly optimal for comprehension, I guess... I'll come back to the Catholic Church later. For now...
I take it that this is you major point?
Fine, but before we discuss the morality of copyright... I'd ask if you still maintain (1) the following
And also if you maintain that (2) the Pirate Bay serves to undermine copyright.
Given (1) and (2), I take it you also maintain that (3) if copyright were immoral, setting up the Pirate Bay would be moral?
In addition, do you also maintain that (4) even if copyright were immoral, downloading something from the Pirate Bay would still be an immoral act?
Do you mean Physics IV.8 ? There he asserts that velocity = (weight / density). The argument that there cannot be any void is that you cannot divide by zero - in modern terms, the velocity of the falling objects would approach infinity as density approaches zero.
Galileo established that this equation greatly overestimates the density of water when compared to experimental results. Also, Aristotle's equation would suggest that a brick would fall twice as fast as half of a brick, which would have been easy to test; sadly, while Aristotle was one of the best empiricists of his time, he still didn't think of actually looking.
Meh. I don't think many people would expect an open umbrella to fall through air faster than a pen cap does, even though everybody knows the former is heavier.
But isn't stealing wrong?
Stealing: I break into your house and take a book without your consent. You no longer have the book.
Copying: I use ctrl-c ctrl-v on your book. Now both of us have the book.
Pretty fundamental distinction, isn't it?
Why do you think these are the important features of stealing? Isn't the point just that you're taking someone's legal property, and illegally helping yourself to it? The fact that you can do this with a machine that has a neat interface doesn't seem important. ETA: And I agree its not really the book you've stolen in this case, but the money you avoided paying. Thats the thing I have a legal right to, but have been illegally deprived of.
I take it, rather, that you have an argument for why this is not stealing, or why if it is, it is nevertheless justifiable.
Because that's what the word means. And you not having the thing that you previously had is kind of a big deal.
Copying a some work you have done is Copyright Infringement. It is also illegal. It's just a slightly different one.
Mind you 'stealing' is somewhat more appropriate than 'piracy'. After all if it was a pirate it would take your stuff and quite probably kill you. Possibly also raid your village and rape all your womenfolk.
Copying is not a crime, it is a civil offense. Just FYI.
I swear I've also made this point myself in a sibling comment. But to neaten the casual wording up here I'll replace 'a crime' with 'illegal'.
I see that you have, but I saw this first.
Reminded me of this enlightening and well-researched article. (Or collection of highly questionable claims and idiotic hysterics that in aggregate make the whole thing quite amusing; take your pick.)
You never had the money. I have not deprived you of anything. If you were intending to buy a lottery ticket but I went and bought every lottery ticket in town (for whatever bizarre reason) would you say that I'd stolen something from you?
Your question was 'Isn't it wrong?', now you're going with 'But it's illegal!'
I don't care much about my opportunity to by lottery tickets. If you want to be a nuisance, buy up a couple of my favourites packaged foods. If you want to be a menace buy up all available food, or all sources of a couple of vital nutrients.
I guess I wouldn't call it stealing, but the fatal one I would say should be illegal, if it was likely to happen otherwise. The nuisance one, I would call monopolising, and maybe anticompetitive. That's a good analogy, but with a few differences. Copyright infringement can be lots of people individually satisfying their requirements, leaving a publisher with no market for the product, and anticompetitive behaviour can be one company satisfying all of a competitor's market, possibly deliberately to get rid of them, leaving that competitor with no market for their product.
And yet, as you say, none of that is stealing.
We can discuss whether or not they're evil (and in two of the cases above they very obviously are), but the discussion is bound to be pretty pointless if we group them together with theft (which is a different issue).
And I've seen a lot of pointless copyright arguments. The discussion here I expect to be better than most. I haven't really made up my mind on what the law should say about copyright, and since I'm not deciding the law I'm not going to try too hard.
Who said anything about stealing? This is about buying or copying a book, not theft.
Well, I take it that Anubhav is talking about piriteing a book as a justifiable responce to wanting it. Legally, anyway, that's intellectual property theft.
If you are appealing to legal considerations in order to support your preferred semantics you had best consider that 'theft' and copyright infringement are covered by entirely different laws. In fact, they aren't even covered by the same kind of law. For most part copyright infringement is a civil issue not a criminal one. This doesn't say anything about whether it is moral but it makes "the law says it is stealing" rather questionable.
For years whenever I went to see a movie I had to put up with this nonsense. This sort of equivocation just sickens me. It brought to mind the observation that one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. I'm never going to look at "copying movies is stealing" with anything but contempt.
Also, as a general heuristic, when the best argument that can be made for a position is to confuse the language involved, that position is likely wrong. (not to say that any particular other is right, tho; that would be reversed stupidity).
Totally agree (including with the caveat.)
legally, "intellectual property" doesn't exist. There are a number of legal institutions collectively called IP, but the term IP is not a legal one.
Furthermore, copying, use without license, counterfeiting and such are legally "infringement", not "theft". Theft is legally a criminal offense, infringement is civil (lawsuits).
Using the term "theft" in the context of copyright infringement is political rhetoric designed to confuse the issue. Copying looks very different from the rest of category "theft".
"Piracy" is also a stupid term {copy, theft and murder on the high seas} looks about as useless as {hitler, stalin, john smith}. Carve reality at the joints. "Copy" is very clear in what it means and has no political connotations.
If you would like to make a moral case about book copying versus book buying, do so without reference to useless categories.
Agree about the word theft. It is not helpful except as a dishonest ploy to conflate two actions that have not been agreed to be the same and have some significant differences.
Mostly disagree about the word 'piracy'. Murder on the high seas is so different people should only confuse the two meanings as a joke. Maybe it was a bad idea to reuse the word initially but not now it is a common meaning. The only thing is it is pretty bad taste if someone you know has been kidnapped by pirates, but that is quite rare.
'Copy' is not quite right - that would include downloading Cory Doctorow's stories from his own website, for example. These are deliberately made available by the author. We are really talking about copying that is neither authorised by law nor by the owner/creator. And probably not including forging bank notes, only copyright infringement.
ETA - I may have missed your point here, whether piracy in the sense of copying carves reality at the joints is also arguable. But it is a category I have in my head.
Insisting on 'copy' is move similar in kind to insisting on 'property'. It has the political connotation of moral acceptability. In some cases using a word that sounds like an acceptable thing isn't much different to insisting on a word that sounds terrible.
Good point, and I just thot of that myself.
I don't think insisting on using non-moral primitives to describe moral situations is on the same level as confusing things with rhetorical terms, but I'll think about it.
If you can't make a moral case without using words that already have moral connotation, there probably isn't one to be made. For example, it would be easy to make a moral case against breaking windows by appealing to economics, utility, opportunity costs, and so on. You would not have to mention "vandalism".
Likewise in this case. If a moral argument can't be made for or against copying without appealing to rhetorically tainted words, I don't think we should be discussing the issue.
If I was really interested in making copying sound good, I would be using words like "wealth", "produce", "wealth replication", "cultural commons" and so on.
I agree, particularly in as much as the morally loaded terms can only be used in the moralizing rhetoric while the neutral terms can be used either as opposing rhetoric in the same vein or they can be used to discuss the issue and consequences at a low level.
Which, of course, it can.
This is one of the words I'd have been using to explain the intended benefit of laws preventing copying. "Property rights and enforceable legal restrictions" is the standard rudimentary solution to tragedies of the commons for good reason!
I thot that list up quickly. I'm not surprised some of the terms were wrong. (rhetoric is always wrong!)
Anyways, I was thinking of "cultural commons" in terms of people being free to mix and mash culture without getting legally harassed or having to pay lots of fees. It seems that "cultural commons" is at the core of the issue.
I'm going to go ahead and state this in case it is not clear: I may or may not have an opinion on this subject, and I do not intend to bring it into this discussion. My interest is in keeping the language and discussion rational as opposed to political.
'Copy' sounds neutral to me. It has negative connotations in some scenarios ('got caught copying in an exam', 'All that the Chinese idiots do is copy American innovations').
In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of a single instance where 'copy' has a positive connotation.
Legally, slaves may be property, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between my burning down my house and burning down my slave.
And copyright infringement and theft aren't even the same legally. You have to file a civil suit for the former but a criminal suit for the latter. 'Intellectual property theft' is just empty rhetoric.
One of them is insurance fraud and the other is 'discipline'? (At least, if there happens to have been a culture where insurance fraud was an issue that also had slavery.)
Maybe to a deontologist. As far as I'm concerned, all that matters is whether it makes the world a better or worse place. It doesn't even matter whether copyright infringement is 'stealing' or not (though, as others have pointed out, it basically is not). And it seems to me that in certain situations infringing copyright has lots of benefits with almost no downsides, so I could not accept calling it wrong.
I'm no moral theorist, but a consequentalist approach seems reasonable to me. That said, a given act of filesharing in violation of IP laws will generally have no significant consequences. Though, I suppose I think habitually violating the law because it is convenient to do so will have negative consequences for one's charachter, but that's going to vary case by case even if it is a real problem.
Intrinsically or instrumentally?
I don't find stealing intrinsically wrong. Property is just made up anyways.
Property is used for a reason, though. It makes our economy function. As such, I'd find stealing instrumentally wrong. When dealing with something like information, it's only instrumentally wrong if you would have bought it if piracy wasn't an option, and you aren't planning on doing something better with the money, such as donating it to a good charity.
Also, I seem to be in a minority with intellectual property, at least when it comes to books. Governments have gone to great lengths to set up libraries to allow the citizens to pirate books.
Why does property's being made up make a difference? I mean, I think I see what you're getting at, but I think it would be be helpful to spell the reasoning out. What exactly are the premises that lead to the conclusion that stealing isn't intrinsicly wrong?
And your argument about instrumental value seems insufficient. The theft of a book vs. Its purchace has no significant impact on the economy, and I have no reason to calculate the utilities involved in this choice as if it would. And finally? Why should I care about the condition of the economy as opposed to my personal wealth? Can't I generally justify the instrumental value of actions which damage the economy so long as they enrich me personally?
I favor simpler values. Something that's made up tends not to be simple. Also, I don't think anything that can't be experienced can matter. The differences ownership makes in experience are miniscule.
It's not noticeable with one book, but that's not because it's not there. If nobody bought books, there would be fewer produced. The fact that people are willing to pay for books shows that they're worth producing.
There are places where this is more obvious, such as medicine, but it applies to books as well.
If you're selfish, and you only care about the economy insomuch as it affects you, then you would steal (piracy or otherwise) as much as you could get away with. If you're not selfish, you'd have better things to do with the money, and thus still steal as much as you could get away with.
That said, in either case it would still be best to favor laws that discourage piracy, or possibly find a different way to compensate the owner. It does more good on average, so you're likely to benefit from it more than be hurt from it.
If you only consider yourself valuable, then actions that enrich you personally are instrumentally valuable.
I really don't know what you're getting at. "Stealing is wrong because it's intrinsically wrong. However, anything that favours me at the expense of everyone else has instrumental value!" (I don't get whether you're trying to say 'it has instrumental value, therefore it's a good thing', or 'screw instrumental value, it's a stupid metric'.)