• Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago
    1. It’s morally good when people access information, culture, and entertainment.
    2. It’s morally good when the author of a work gets rewarded by their work.

    Piracy is morally justified when 1 is a more pressing matter than 2. As such, it’s justified in situations like this:

    • If, in the absence of piracy, the pirate would still not pay for the goods - because #2 is set up to zero (the author of the work is not rewarded anyway).
    • If it’s impossible to obtain the goods without piracy. For example, abandonware.
    • If the author of the work would get breadcrumbs of the money used to access legally the goods, and the pirate compensates the author directly (e.g. donation).
  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Huh. Based on the community this was posted in, I can assume that the answer the video comes to is “yes” and not watch it. But according to Betteridge’s law of headlines the answer is “no.” I need to argue about this without watching it but I don’t know what stance to argue about.

    Ah! I’ll use the Orbit plugin to get an AI to summarize the video for me. Hm. The AI-generated summary says the video describes an anecdote about music copyright violations, talks about some ethical considerations about both music and software piracy, and then:

    The speaker concludes by acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the importance of considering the perspectives of all parties involved.

    So I guess the answer was “Maybe?” How am I supposed to have a pointless Internet argument about “Maybe?”

    Bah. Someone attack me for using AI, at least that’s a debate I can sink my teeth into.