You're reversing the burden of proof. One must prove something is immoral, not the reverse. What's the moral argument for tying your right shoe first? There is none. Clearly it's immoral, you should always tie your left shoe first. I didn't say you have no right to anything you produce. If you print a book, you absolutely have the right that physical book. But no, I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce. If you sell that book to someone, I don't think you have a right to tell them "you can read this, but you can't let anyone else read it, and you can't write these same Latin characters in the same order." A bank account is not information. Information is part of it, but it's more specifically a record kept by your bank. Whether that information is public is an issue of privacy, which is related, but probably ought to be saved for a different post. No, I really didn't, because morality is a lot trickier than practicality. And honestly, I haven't decided what I believe precisely, when it comes to the nuances of Deontology and Teleology and all their ilk. I tried to make a moral defense using Classical Liberalism, but yes, I didn't do a great job. If you really want a balanced reasoning, and a better defense than I can make, I do highly recommend Thomas Jefferson's letter. I know I've already linked it twice, but he does a much better job than I can of weighing the implications, practical and moral, of intellectual property.What's the moral argument for piracy?
You say: that I have no right to anything I produce. Why? I disagree completely.
Does my bank account belong to humanity?
you didn't address the part of kleinbl00's post that you quoted at all, as far as I can tell. What's the moral argument for piracy?
"theft" is not a moral concept. It's a legal one. If Johnny takes possession of rights-managed content legally owned by Jane without according Jane the redress legally accorded her for dispersal of her content, Johnny has committed a crime. Morality has nothing to do with it. All sorts of laws are immoral. Legally Johnny is in the wrong. Let's pretend you live in Colorado. You own a growhouse and are a pot entrepreneur. Because of this, the NSA has all your phones tapped and all your email monitored. You go on a roadtrip to Utah and are arrested in a joint operation involving the DEA, the Utah State Patrol and the FBI. Do you have a problem with this? Because, as you say, "I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce." I dunno, man. I value protection from unlawful search and seizure and the right to privacy a bit higher than the right to read or watch whatever I want. I would really like to see you elaborate on this one. My uncle used to run payroll for Laemmle Theaters back in the late '60s. That's why he knows COBOL. Thermodynamically speaking, by the way, "information" is any signal that isn't pure noise. I'm curious to see how financial data doesn't fit this definition.You're reversing the burden of proof. One must prove something is immoral, not the reverse.
But no, I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce.
A bank account is not information.
Absolutely. I disapprove of the law, but Johnny is undeniably a lawbreaker. flagamuffin seemed to be concerned by my moral argument, so I was trying to address that (admittedly poorly). The public certainly doesn't have the right to manipulate the bank's physical systems, to manipulate the account. Whether the public has access to that information is a privacy issue. Privacy is a conflicting value, just like libel is a conflicting value for Free Speech. Yes, I vehemently oppose warrantless search and wiretapping. And I'll freely admit this is somewhat at odds with my belief in Freedom of Information. I don't have everything figured out.Legally Johnny is in the wrong.
I would really like to see you elaborate on this one.
Do you have a problem with this?
I dunno, man. I value protection from unlawful search and seizure and the right to privacy a bit higher than the right to read or watch whatever I want.
I'd like to note ① I'm aware my opinions are unconventional, and I'm not trying to push them on anyone, and ② I don't actually pirate anything. Moral or practical, our current system is how individual content producers make a living, so I grudgingly participate.
I, on the other hand, am pirating something as I type this. In this thread I am merely trying to distinguish from the moral and the practical. Pragmatically, I am doing no "harm" by torrenting music. Morally, I believe I am in the wrong. It doesn't bother me. I've done worse.