Should operating systems auto-delete itself at first sign, EVERYTIME?

That's only if you subscribe to Lockian views. I prefer Hobbes A state of anarchy may be inevitable, but not all states of anarchy are tolerable or acceptable for society.

Merely following laws *can* be a goal of the system, in that in order to preserve the hierarchical and organizational structure of a society not in anarchy (1st anarchy), it is necessary that laws are obeyed to preserve the integrity of the legal system. Obviously not everyone feels the same laws are reasonable or unreasonable - but if everyone only disobeyed the laws *they* feel is unreasonable, you would end up having the entire law system breaking down.

A contract goes two ways - the people are beholden to the government as well.

Both economically and politically, individual piracy does not contribute to this "greater social order". It may be different if such individuals banded together to form some sort of movement, or had any actual power to change things. However, what we have now are only disgruntled individuals, disorganized and without any real goal of "resistance" or "change".

If people did go through effective channels, change might be slow, but it would be faster than if X person here and Y person there decided to arbitrarily pirate this or that. In this case, as was mentioned by others in this thread, the burden of their actions fall on legitimate consumers, who in turn turn against such "piraters" as well, further undermining the goal of "greater social order".

 

Yes, the people are beholden to the gov't as well. However in this case you can make an argument that the government has already overstepped its bounds in the agreement (by creating laws deemed unjust by you, the citizen) and that therefore the legal system has already broken down.
Here's an example. How many times have you seen someone cross a road away from a crosswalk, or against a light? That's illegal, and it happens all the time. Why does it happen? Because people decide that they think it's unjust for them to have to wait for a light, or walk half a block to a crosswalk or intersection. Those people aren't organized, and they're not specifically trying to force social change, they're merely disobeying a law because they feel that to obey the law would provide a less advantageous system for them. I would be willing to bet that the government would ever be able to completely stop jaywalking, not in our current legal system. So the fact that this lawbreaking occurs is an indicator that the current legal and governmental system is slightly out of touch with the people's views on jaywalking. Since it's not a huge problem, it's ignored by the government. Similarly, pirating occurs because the current legal and economical/governmental system is out of touch with the people's views on copyholder's rights. However pirating is much more dangerous to the current system than jaywalking is, so it forces action on the part of the government and on the part of corporations. These actions will either cause appropriate changes in the laws, balancing out the consumers views and the corporation's views, or they will get out of hand and cause a sort of anarchy, which in turn will mandate that a new social contract be constructed. Either way, a greater social order will emerge.

 

Well, to take your example further, some people feel traffic laws are unreasonable and unjust (which aren't necessarily the same thing either), so they don't care about jaywalking. And yes, they DO get arrested - not all the time, but they do.

Well, others may feel that speed limits are unreasonable, and they don't follow them either. And of course, you have the general problems with accidents and traffic safety of today.

Then still others may feel that drunk driving laws are unreasonable - they feel so sure that they're in perfect command of themselves even while drunk!

Then still others feel that red lights are unreasonably long - and run through red lights when they feel no cars are coming.

Then eventually, others feel that having to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks is unreasonable too.

Then driving on one side of the street - and the list goes on and on.

In the end, everyone feels they have a different interpretation of what is "just" and "reasonable", and if everyone acted only on their impulse alone, yes from the simple jaywalker, chaos and anarchy can follow.

For every law out there, there is one person that will feel it is unreasonable for some reason - this extends to even murder - there will be people out there who feel that they would be justified in murdering someone else, whether for revenge or retribution or righteousness or religion or whatever.

One of the point of laws and punishments is so that there's enough of a deterrent to provide incentive NOT to act upon those impulses regardless of how "unreasonable" anyone may personally feel a particular law is.

To further your own example, jaywalking may or may not prompt a response from any particular group or authority other than the individual fine of the person in question. Is that person, by the very act of his disruption from traffic and safety law, achieving anything in the betterment of society, or causing such betterment indirectly via any sort of reaction from others? Of course not.

The same goes with disorganized piracy. Is an individual who is pirating really contributing, whether directly or indirectly, to a better societal equilibrium? 1st, this requires assuming that such pirate is representative of "consumer" and "demand" as a whole - and this is not true. You make it sound as if it's corporate business/government injustice vs consumers, and that's not the case. On the contrary, pirating may have a negative impact on legit consumers, who make up the bulk of demand, as companies try to shift the burden to them. When such pirates are made scapegoats, they do not form the beginnings of a new social contract, and nor are they the means through which accepted change is undertaken.

Pirating does NOT only occur because everyone feels current prices are overpriced and out of touch with consumer demand. If this were really the case, all consumers would feel this way and the market equilibrium would simply shift. Piracy occurs mostly because people can get away with it and do - regardless of what the prices were. Overpricing and such is really just an excuse for justification of their own actions.

As a case in point - small software makers regularly offer free software for download, with the suggestion of a $5-10 donation. Yet how many people, for all their righteous ideals about "overpriced" goods and supporting fair prices, those people who say "if the prices weren't so "unreasonable" I would happily pay instead of pirating" and whatnot actually donate? A very very very few.

 

I'm not saying that piracy is an organized attempt to produce a better social order, I'm merely saying that piracy arises because the legal and economical system is out of touch with what the average persons feels is fair in terms of copyright protection and pricing. I'm also saying that due to individual, unorganized piracy, certain things happen. Companies develop new copyright protection software, governmental agencies pass new laws and regulations, and so on. So either a) these laws and software protections will work, and consumers will agree to them, and piracy will diminish, re-establishing equilibrium to the social order , or b) they won't work, and enough individual consumers will disagree that piracy will spin out of control, thus causing the state of anarchy I mentioned before, thus causing a readjustment of the social order. Either way, the social order will be adjusted due to unorganized individuals doing what they believe is just.

 

Again, the problem with that is:

1. The individuals are doing what they feel to be their best interest. Not what they feel is just. They are not working from some altruistic motivation - nor is anyone in a free market. Of course, for the purposes of this model or any capitalistic model, their beliefs are irrelevant. It's just the result of their piracy that's in question, but I felt this should at least be mentioned from the outset.

2. There's this feeling that all forces arising out of whatever motivations will inevitably create an optimum equilibrium - politically, economically, and socially. This is not always the case however:

2.1 As mentioned earlier, piracy itself can be considered an externality. As such, it would not contribute to the optimum equilibrium, but instead distort it and force a greater burden on the consumers, which in this market tends to be a little less elastic than the suppliers.

2.2 Any reactions to 2.1 above may in fact result in change, but this is questionable. Changes corporations may put into effect to prevent piracy may create greater awareness and protest from consumers in general if they are inconvenienced by it, which ultimately may end up in some sort of reform. However, a social optimum is not the inevitable result of it. The people who care most are, undoubtedly, those pirates who are most effected by it. Yet as shown by recent cases, the major result of such clashes have generally been in favor of the suppliers (MGM v Grokster.). While I may agree with you that the current system lags behind what is necessary - such landmark precedents, as the result of individual piracy, are in fact detrimental to this goal since they in effect make regulations even more restrictive.

EDIT: Added the word "optimum" to (2) above, as Odin243 pointed out.

 

1. You're right, it is self-interest based. However in my viewpoint acting out of self-interest is essentially the same as acting out of a sense of justice. I should've mentioned that more clearly, I guess.

2.Yes, all structures tend toward at least a dynamic equilibrium. No structure, be it economical, political, physical, whatever, will stay in a disproportionate state forever. It just won't happen.

2.1 No action by a citizen/consumer can be considered an externality in terms of social contract theory. Every action, both by individual consumers or by groups of consumers or by governments or corporations have to be taken into account.

2.2 If such changes occur, making things much more restrictive and much more detrimental to consumers and pirateers (sp?), then a disproportionate social state comes into being. Such a social state will always tend to collapse into an equilibrium, whether it's one of tyrannical government and slave-like populace, or one of a more open social system, such as a democratic state. Either way, yes the social order will change. I don't like to say it will change for the better, since that depends on your point of view, but it will change to be more stable.

 

did anyone else notice that harry suddenly disappeared once the conversation became intellectual instead of

BAGHBHGAH PIRACY BAGHAGHAB!


anyway, i think its a shame the way the system is set up now.

everyone is using windows. that is a problem. i hope a stronger force comes up to compete with windows - either linux or apple's mac os (most likely linux).

i think its crazy how 90% of the world is on windows machines, and yet the ONLY reason i can think of that ANYONE should ever use windows is for gaming or 3dsmax...

the same 90% of the people on windows machines are also the 90% who use their computers solely as typewriter replacers, mail, web browsers, and facebook (facebook is always listed as a separate task when any of that 90% i mentioned above lists the purposes of their computer) - they very tasks that other operating systems do MUCH better than microsoft. linux or mac os? say goodbye to spyware, adware, dishware. etc.

these people should be using linux... obviously. maybe mac osx. but linux is FREE and open source! computer manufacturers should make a mass movement towards linux all at once, and leave microsoft behind.

software should just move towards open source projects. wide collaboration would make up for the fact that each single person could only attack software development from a hobbyists perspective. why not? people who really want to make software should be the people who enjoy making software. if open source software was more commonplace, piracy would immediately go away.

but people keep buying microsoft word, they keep buying photoshop. it works, and they don't care that there is open office and gimp. who wants to use open office in a microsoft office world? i bet you get annoyed when you have to pass files between openoffice and microsoft and it doesn't come out exactly right. people pay to be on the microsoft standard, so that everything works together (supposedly) - or at least they have the impression that it will. but if everyone was on the opensource standard, the same comforts could apply...

sigh...

 

Yes, although I would question the viewpoint of self-interest naturally progressing towards justice on a macro scale is arguable, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's not relevant.

My mistake. I actually forgot to include the word "optimum" before equilibrium. Of course all forces will tend towards a balance of sorts. However, since we're concerned with evolving technology and the social and legal system in response to that, we're interested in creating a *better* equilibrium.

Externalities aren't "not taken into account". In this case when I refer to it as an "externatality", I simply mean that in the course of piracy, costs are imposed upon 3rd parties not in that transaction. Externalities do not contribute to an "optimum" equilibrium, but instead distort it. Of course, there will be an equilibrium of some sort, but it is not the optimal one, nor is it the one that would or should have naturally occurred.

I disagree here. I realize I made the mistake of omitting "optimum" in my initial intro above, but still. Yes, of course there will be an equilibrium of some sort, however brief - that's like saying time will always move forward. But the goal of a social contract is to create a society where one can clearly define "progress" and make the appropriate sacrifices (contract) to achieve that progress. To move out of the state of nature into a state of war, as it were, if we were to use the anarchy examples from earlier. In this case, each equilibrium should be as optimum as possible.

I.e. The strong point of supply and demand isn't that there will be an equilibrium reached naturally, but rather that the equilibrium achieved is naturally the optimum equilibrium.

 

I think I see now where we differ. You don't see piracy as a "natural" effect of supply and demand, and therefore you don't think the effects of piracy will contribute to a progressive equilibrium. I disagree, as I believe piracy is just as natural as any other breakdown in the social order, and thus will naturally contribute to progress.

 

Hrm, well I'd admit that piracy is inevitable. Not sure if that would fit "natural". It's like pollution - it's not that I deny that it exists or anything, but rather I don't believe it will, simply by its very existence, necessarily contribute to a better societal equilibrium.

Like pollution, it's not something that will simply balance out to the advantage of society in the long run. There will need to be other "unnatural" forces. Something more is needed for real "progress".

Similarly, I don't see individual piracy as a real form of social dissent or as an expression of their civic duty to fight against oppression or anything. It's not the consumers speaking out - it's one small group of people who end up having both consumers and suppliers against them, and who are hurting all parties involved and progress itself with their actions.

Besides, however much we may hate the current system now, it DOES have legitimate avenues of access. While the more cynical among us (or the more realistic) may believe that those means are simply useless and more a means of control than anything else, they do exist.

 

I guess are main difference, is that I believe that the primary mechanism allowing an individual to change the social order lies not within that order, but outside of it. I guess I just don't believe that anything done within the confines of acceptable society can possibly contribute to any kind of meaningful change of that society. I view the current piracy problem more as an indicator that all is not well, just as I view the current violent crime rate as an indicator that all is not well. In both cases I believe we are seeing the initial 'cracks' in the foundation of our current social order, and the precursor to either the collapse or at least the change of that social order. Personally, being a relative optimist, I believe the change will be positive, rather than negative, though I admit I have no real evidence to support that.

 

They do exist, but they are designed to be next to non-existent. It's quite similar to voting. You can vote for anyone, as long as you understand the president will be a democrat or a republican. you can vote for a smaller military, as long as you understand that the US will continue to spend more money on the military-industrial-complex ($700 billion for 2008) than the rest of the world put together. You can vote for education and health care reform, with the understanding that neither of these shall come to pass, even as the country slips further behind developed and developing nations in these avenues.

Such "choices" offer the illusion of choice, but the impossibility of affecting change. People understand this implicitly, if not explicitly. Piracy/theft/the defiance of regulations has always been a means of affecting social change, whether directly or indirectly. No great change has come without a lot of people willing to defy regulations to bring attention to the cause. I do not argue that everyone who pirates music, media, or software does so to affect social change. However, I do imply the net result of their actions is one of propagating this change, by forcing the ruling classes to acknowledge the struggles and complaints of the lower classes. The alternative is to imprison or execute all dissenters, and the days in which governments and rulers could afford to do this are increasingly behind us.

 

It is precisely this illusion of choice that is vital to a stable government however. The most stable government gives its citizens every single freedom they could possibly want while making sure their only real choice is predetermined inevitable. But that's off-topic.

You surmise that the existence of piracy is indicative of a problem in the current system now. However, piracy has always existed in some form or fashion, even in the best of times. Oppression, tyranny, and in this case, overpriced goods do not need to exist for piracy to run rampant. In what way is the opinion of a small minority of people representative of consumers as a whole? As mentioned earlier, however broken the system may be, supply and demand does work well enough to the extent that the equilibrium will shift, and market prices will respond, if enough consumers feel that certain software are overpriced - at least enough to be indicative.

There's something to be said for the enterprising individual, who, fed up with years oppression, feel its his civic duty to defy tyranny for the greater good. The aggregate of such individuals, whether from altruistic motivations or otherwise, would effect some sort of change.

However, to simply say that this is the ONLY effective means of change is misleading. For example, in terms of the latest round of US civil reforms - there's plenty of evidence that it was not the violent dissenters who did the most to effect the reforms of the 60s, but rather the stability and mobilization of organized groups of people who patiently worked through the system that led to the longest-lasting reforms.

 

I agree with this to some extent, however while the illusion of choice may create a stable government, I don't believe it creates a stable society, since the lack of real choice impedes the ability of the political system to shift along with the needs and wants of the people.

Yes, piracy has always existed to some extent, but then again, oppression has always existed to some extent as well. What I mean to say is that the increase in copyright infringement, or digital "piracy" as it's called, seems to indicate that either the oppression is getting worse, or that the needs of the people are drifting farther away from the laws of the social system. While it's true that only a minority of the people practice piracy, it's still a substantial amount of consumers. I believe that if the current system was "working," the number of outliers compelled to break the law would be smaller. Also, while supply and demand do shift the equilibrium to some extent, it's impeded by such things as the DMCA, external inhibitors placed on the supply-demand curve which press away from equilibrium.

I guess that't the difference between us. I don't see that there was very much, if any significant changes made in the latest round of U.S. civil reforms. (Also, I disagree about the peaceful path working better than the violent path.) When I say significant changes, I mean that the very system needs to be changed, not merely specific laws within the system.

 

Well no, actually I agree with you completely. I don't think any real progress was made in the latest round of civil reforms at all, and the same applies to the result of the Cold War (the other often-cited example of liberal and peaceful progress as opposed to radical progress).

But, there's no real point in just agreeing with someone At that point the discussion ends. So, with that said...

Only to the extent that the "needs and wants of the people" are the priority or even one of the main goals of a stable government.
From another point of view, the *only* need of the people necessary to be satisfied by a government is not "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but rather simply "security" - in merely life. To leave 1st anarchy, one sacrifices what is necessary to gain that security and enter 2nd anarchy. Therefore, so long as government adequately satisfies that condition, it need not shift to satisfy the wants of the people, but rather manipulate them with the illusion of doing so instead.

This is surely no more prevalent than when people used to videotape TV shows? It's just that technology made such piracy available on a scale unprecedented. The current system isn't working, and large companies are not adapting well to the new challenges presented by digital piracy, but that doesn't directly translate into justification for individuals to pirate software. Even if it did, it still does not support the idea that "I feel software is overpriced, so I'm justified in pirating it". Those are two different justifications entirely.

Well, that may be so, and piracy itself contributes to this. However, you can't expect for a massive change in consumer demand to not have ANY noticeable effect on market prices - the distorting effects are not THAT extensive, and demand in the media and software market is not THAT inelastic.

 

I know, seriously, what fun is it to agree with someone

I agree that the needs and wants of the people may not be the primary goal of the government, however I do believe that a optimum, perfect stable society is not achievable unless all the people are satisfied, and that a the greater number of people satisfied directly corresponds to the stability of a society.

Maybe not more prevalent, but it certainly happens on a much larger scale, and the organization and funding of piracy is much higher than it ever has been before. And I'm not really talking about "justification" of piracy here, since the term justice is dependent not only on the current social construct involved, but also on one's point of view; I'm merely discussing the imperative of piracy, as seen from the vantage of history as a shifting equilibrium of social equalities and inequalities.

No, the market is not THAT inelastic, but it's inelastic enough to cause it to lag behind the views of consumers sufficiently that it makes an impact on ordinary people. And when a social construct is inefficient enough to cause major inconvenience in the everyday lives of citizens, it's inefficient enough to warrant change.

 

"Should people have little bombs put in their brains at birth? So as soon as they think a nasty thought about killing someone, the bomb goes off and they die?"

 

But in reality, people are never satisfied. The tragedy of human nature is that it inherently is driven by self-interest and thus is ultimately competitive and conflict-seeking. As a result, no matter what form of society you're in (and by definition one that completely satisfies human desire must be in stasis since it is absolute), you're never going to satisfy all people. That is why the illusion of free choice is a necessity for order, whether in politics, society, or religion. While you cannot satisfy people, you can make them believe that they are satisfied for a time.

But part of the issue is that version of "justice", because people here have cited what they feel to be unreasonable prices for software as being all the legitimate justification they need to pirate something. They're not only assuming that the product is overpriced (which in many cases is not true!), but also that they have a *right* to do so because of that reason. This is not a natural right of civic disobedience against oppression we're talking about here - it's become merely a "right" to get value that others have produced at no cost to oneself undeservedly. It is this perversion of logic that annoys me. If you're going to pirate software - at least be honest about it to yourself, instead of claiming some inalienable right to get whatever you want without paying for it under the excuse that something is overpriced . Let's be honest here. Even if music was incredibly cheap and cost under a dollar per song, you'd still be pirating it - oh wait..it is, and you are! (obviously the "you" here is generic and not targeted at any particular person)

Piracy as a reaction to social inequalities and inadequacies of society may certainly be true. You may even draw a direct relationship between the degree of such illegitimate activities (piracy, theft, smuggling, tax evasion, counterfeiting, etc etc. etc.) and the degree to which certain elements of society are marginalized from more legitimate means over time. However, while piracy may be indicative of innate societal inequalities (since it's always been present), it is not necessarily a viable means of reforming that society.

Yes, you can even argue that piracy will lead to further restrictions, which will eventually be felt by the legitimate consumer, who will then react, and then a conflict will ensue, and a revolution will be inevitable, and the proletariat will rise up against the...well anyway..

You can't assume that consumers are protesting against the prices (the "oppression" as it were) or that demand is changing to reflect this if it's actually not changing though. It might be lag - or it might simply be because the current prices DO accurately reflect what people feel to be a fair price for music and software.

A social construct merely needs to provide security. "Inconveniences" may be simply part of the sacrifice for that security. One of the underlying assumptions of this particular argument is that government is created only *for* the citizens, and that economy is created only *for* the consumers, and society is established only *for* the people. However, each of these parties are only one part of the whole, and not necessarily the most important part, although a necessary part. Why is it not okay to inconvenience citizens, so that government or business is less inconvenienced?

 

No because intent is only half of what you need to convict someone for murder

Put the bomb in and set it off after it detects both intent and then the actual action.

 

Government is created only for the citizens, and businesses are created only for consumers. Governments and businesses cannot be sperated from the people, because they are created out of the people. A society has no other purpose than to assure that the people making up that society are safe and content. If a government or a business does not do that, than an individual has a right, if he/she wants, to withdraw from his/her social contract with that government or business or other social construct, and to cease obeying it's rules. The problem I see is that people act like the government has some sort of inherent right to impose restrictions on its citizens, which is only the case if the citizens want those restrictions to protect their well-being. I fail to see how the DMCA protects any citizen's physical or social well-being. Certainly not the consumers', and it's yet to be proven that it protects the copy holders' either. It seems to protect just the corporations, which are merely intermediaries in the social contracts between citizens, and thus need not be protected further than the citizens are willing to protect them.

 

I thought governments were created to control the citizens, and businesses were created to make money?

 

Governments and Businesses are intertwined. Plenty of government officials are CEOs or have percentage of ownership in a corporation. Not to mention the amount of funds giving to campaign fund raisers. So much of the government has an ulterior motive.

 

You got that right... and that leaves us, the.. watever to them

 

I'd go with you on the "safe" part. "Content" is a whole different matter though.

Also, the "right" of an individual to withdraw from a social contract is not necessarily true. That is only one particular view of the social contract theory. In the contract, there are at least parties, and there are consequences for breach of said contract. Even as an individual may have the "right" to withdraw, so too does the government have the "right" to enforce compliance.

Under that interpretation, in the end, such "rights" mean absolutely nothing. It's only the end result and how the balance of power plays out that's meaningful - if the person can use the contract to his advantage, he will, and if the government can enforce it to its advantage, it will. That's as far as "rights" will go.

In your model, the citizens are the foundation and end of the social construct - but that's also not necessarily true. While a citizen, or rather a group of such citizens, may be the beginnings of society, once established, they are nothing more than another, albeit vital, part of that society. No individual has the right to unreasonably withdraw from the contract when doing so endangers and threatens the well-being and security of other members.

As for the digital piracy in question, we're not talking about fleeing tyranny or oppression here or some sort of social inequality between business and consumers; we're talking about people who do not wish to pay reasonable and fair prices - because nothing that they've said supports in any way that these prices are anything but reasonable and fair. When there's no real indication that things *are* overpriced, how can someone say that they're pirating because things are overpriced, especially when it's fairly clear that they would pirate software and media regardless of what price it was at?

 

I find it's quite fair, such as Robin Hood...

You find a extremely expensive software that others cant afford, and you share it to others...not too much harm in that.

But yes, the corporations do lose money, who in turn, pressure the governments to do something about it.

I stand at a loss right now, between both sides, since I do find it fair for some amount of piracy, but at the same time, some things just shouldnt be done.

 

So it's okay to steal something because you think it's too expensive? Sorry the only REQUIRED software is the OS and since that comes with nearly every PC made anyway very few people actually pay for it. Any/all other software is both optional and, in a great many cases, freeware/Open Source versions exist, yes they aren't quite as good in many cases, but they are free.

If you can't afford it DON'T USE IT.

 

What do you mean by "okay"? Is it legal? No, obviously not. Is it immoral? That's a different question. I believe it's not inherently immoral to steal, especially if obtaining the items by legal means would be more of an inconvenience.

Society is absolutely nothing but individuals and the interactions between them. Everything else are just social constructs; window dressing to make the society look better. Governments are only necessary because in a large scale society it's impossible for an individual to manage his relationships with every other member of society, so people get together and create standardized relationships, or "laws" which are then enforced by the society in an attempt to maintain stability. However, if any individual wishes to withdraw, he can do so. The society may try to stop him/her, to protect itself, but that doesn't mean that the society has any inherent right to stop him/her. You can say they have the right because they're more powerful, but logically that doesn't hold up, as clearly society is not powerful enough to stop individual acts of piracy on a mass scale.

 

Governments are necessary because without the existence of those laws and a system of punishment, society would dissolve into a state of nature and people would simply kill each other to gain whatever material goods they felt they needed. No more, no less.

If you're referring to contracts, once the contract has been established, the government has every right to enforce it upon the citizens when it is the citizen who is unreasonably breaching it. The "right" of a citizen to withdraw from said contract at any time is not something that can be proven.

And individuals are nothing without the society in which they interact. They'll just be another dead corpse along the side of the road to the other person who wanted their wallet
Society, once established, is more than the sum of its parts (the individuals), and is beholden to all of those parts, not just one or two individuals within it who feel they may withdraw from it at the detriment of everyone else.

As an extreme example, if person A feels he has the right to withdraw at any time because he doesn't care for the law against murder, does he have the right to leave and then kill his neighbor, saying that since he's no longer part of that society, he's not subject to those laws and that contract? Of course not. To that person, he's being perfectly "just" and "reasonable", but of course it is anything but. Perhaps there may be a case to be made for withdrawing when it is the government that has breached this "contract" unreasonably, but at the same time, when the individual breaches this contract unreasonably, whereas the government has not, then of course that individual is at fault.

Of course society in general is powerful enough. That's what public executions are for. Our *current* society may not see fit to use those methods, but it's still available.

...

I think you left something out though. The rest is just a copy of the last post above.

 

I'm very troubled by the number of people on here who seem to think that because any digital media is inherently not a physical product that it's not immoral to make copies of it.

Quick check of dictionary (to make sure I'm talking complete bollocks) reveals that definition being

Immoral: deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong

I think that stealing software (or in fact stealing anything else) absolutely fits that definition. Taking something that isn't yours is immoral, I mean for goodness sake, it's the 8th commandment!

 

As mentioned before, you're not stealing software, as you would be if you shoplifted a copy of Vista, for example. You are not depriving the seller of any physical value, and it's questionable as to whether you're depriving them of any potential value, either. The only reason why it's "wrong" is because it's illegal, however legality and morality are two different issues. Personally I believe that the DMCA is an immoral and unjust law.

No, no party of a contract has the right to hold another party to a contract against it's will. The only thing that should come of it, is that the party who withdraws loses his rights given by the contract. I.E. the citizen loses his right to be protected and sheltered by society.

An individual is more than just a placeholder in society. People exist on their own, even if there was nothing for them to interact with. That's the difference between a person and an inanimate object.
A person who withdraws from society is not subject to those laws or that contract. Society may then try to make an example of that person, to protect itself, but that's a separate matter. There is no "fault" involved, as that implies an absolute value of right and wrong, which doesn't exist. All morality, legality, ethics, whatever, are merely relatives in the context within which they're defined.

Yeah, sorry, I edited that out.

 

Yes yes, I know because one person has brought a piece of software it's okay for them to copy it around for everyone else to use because hey, it's not like its causing the manufacturers any costs or harm.

So basically your stance is that as soon as something has been created that is software or a digital medium, then it's really a public domain article that should be freely copied around?

 

No, I don't think that should happen, as it would be counter-productive in today's society. I'm merely saying that it's not necessarily immoral to do so.

 

Well I'm going to stick with it being immoral, it's stealing as per dictionary definition, while as a whole I dislike the DMCA, unfortunately the freedom of copying information that we are now at in this digital age and todays complete lack of morals (as demonstrated by the number of people on here quite happy to copy every program and not actually pay for any software ever) means that the laws have been more draconian than they could have been.

People are general immoral I find, especially when they feel it's a "victimless" crime (i.e. it's only a corporation, they don't see the people who actually work for the corporation).

 

Huh? Anyway you did it again in the last post.

I'm not seeing where you get the idea that people are free to enter and leave contracts without penalty. If anyone could enter and exit out of any contract freely at any time out of convenience, there would be no reason to keep such contract since it would be nonbinding and worthless.

Well, your first premise: people are free to leave any society they dislike.
Your 2nd premise: anyone who leaves the society are no longer bound by those laws of that society
The conclusion: anyone can do anything anytime they want based on their own whims to anyone else.

This logic simply does not and cannot work. You're essentially saying that if John Smith feels like it, he can leave society at a whim, and not be bound by its rules and laws, and then do anything he wants to anyone he meets - mug them, kill them, whatever.

You must understand that Relativism itself is only one view of many, and using it as the sole judge of morality is just as limiting as considering only absolutes of right or wrong.

 

Of course they can, and they do, all the time. People steal, kill and rape everyday.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, the society is then free to hunt down and kill John Smith, for it's own protection, as well.

No, I don't understand that. I've yet to see any piece of evidence for an absolute system of morality, and therefore a relative system of morality is the only logical system to base anything on.


By the way, my posts seem to be screwing up today, I think I've edited everything back to normal, but if there's something weird just ignore it.

 

and this is the type of society that you're advocating?

No, that has nothing to do with "rights" then, but rather who has the physical ability to get away with what. John Smith can kill someone, and society can kill him, not because of any right to do so, but merely because he can, and it can.

There're a quarter of a billion religious fanatics who would disagree with you on that point

I'm not going to argue relativism with you other than pointing out that it itself is a contradiction due to the absolute dogmatic exclusivity of it - but there's enough literature out arguing either side that - and that relativism is founded on a number of assumptions, not all of which can be proven.

Instead, as far as society is concerned, relativism, regardless of its validity or not, is not a good tool to maintain order. Having rigid and strict moral absolutes allows society to more easily impose order and discipline, as well as get away with stronger punishments.

 

No, but this is the type of society we live in. I was merely pointing it out.

Absolutely, because the concept of "rights" ended the minute the contract was broken. It then became all about force.


As for relativism, I just want to point out that while it is not a good tool to maintain order in a society, it is an excellent tool to observe and measure the balance of power in a society. You strip away all the assumptions based on absolute rights and wrongs, and what you're left with is the basic interactions between people.

 

But we're talking about prescriptive and normative theories, we want to create a better equilibrium. Also, since there are laws to enforce compliance and prevent such whims from going on, even such occurrences are not frequent, which is the one of the main reasons for a government. It is this deterrent that provides most of the incentive for people not to pursue this route. Yes, there are exceptions and murderers and whatnot all the time, but so long as the structure successfully remains in place, it can and will overpower those dissenters.

It was ALWAYS all about force. The natural "rights" you mentioned that within the contract were nothing but the convenience and expediency created to further one's own necessary security. People as individuals do NOT have those rights you presume to have, in or out of this contract.

As for piracy within the above context - you're left with people who merely have the ability to get away with it, and not people who naturally have the right to do so.

Since relativism itself is based upon assumptions - you're not really doing this. You're only substituting one absolute for another as your method of measurement.

 

Yes, we do want to create a better equilibirium. And since the current society cannot depress the natural tendencies towards greed and self-serving actions, it's clear that whatever better equilibrium we are striving towards is one fundamentally different than the one we have now. Thus my opinion that the current social equilibrium either needs to become much more draconian, or it needs to be torn down entirely.

From a realistic perspective, yes it is always about force. Everything is. And from that perspective the current society doesn't have enough force to supress illegal activities such as piracy. In that context, having the ability to get away with it is equivalent to having the right to do it.

The only assumption I'm referring to when I speak of relativism is the assumption that there are no absolute rights and wrongs. Which is really a lack of assumptions, not a true affirmative assumption. If there are other assumptions inherent in relativism, I'm unaware of them.

 

Why either or? It simply will become both more draconian, and it will collapse. It is only a matter of time. There are absolutes - human nature is one of those absolutes, and because of this, history is cyclic.

While this is true, it does not change the fact that the original argument of "I pirate because products are overpriced" is simply an excuse. You pirate because you can get away with it - period. As such, piracy in today's society does not necessarily indicate a problem in the market prices or social inequality because people are not pirating as a response to market prices, but merely because they have the power to do so.

? It's an assumption, affirmative or otherwise. If you subscribe to relativism, everything must be viewed relative to some other force or assumption, including itself. That also means of course, that relativism itself is no more valid than absolute doctrines since everything is relative...

In any case, I've nothing against relativism as a theory in of itself - but merely its moral effects when used as an excuse.

 

I'm troubled by your frequent use of the word "excuse." You seem to imply that relativism as a reason is less than valid, or that there is a flaw in it somewhere. If you use relativism as a (valid) excuse for pirating software, then there are no adverse "moral effects."

Yes, it is an excuse. A very valid excuse, IMO. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. People pirate because they have the ability to pirate, and they have that ability because there is a very numerous portion of the digital consumer population who support pirating on a massive scale. And that is absolutely a response to market pressures. It's true some people would pirate no matter what, but the huge scale we see today seems to be due in a large part to market pressures which minimize the ability of consumers to meaningfully affect the digital marketplace, in any sort of legal or "acceptable" way.

Yes, it will become more draconian, but what I meant was that either that draconian state would be stable, and it would stay draconian, or it would be unstable and collapse. I don't really see any other options.

 

Of course using relativism as the sole reason for an action is not valid. Taking that route, you could justify any action from genocide to whatever. Using relativism that way, besides demeaning the philosophy itself, makes it a tool to legitimize immorality and escape responsibility. That's an *excuse* - I see no better word to describe it. Does everything depend upon your point of view? Well, some views are better than others! Bigotry? Arrogance? Perhaps, but that's the harsh reality.

How is it a response to market pressures, when said people would pirate under any and all market circumstances? That's the definition of operating independent of all market forces. The huge scale we have total is the exponential network effect of technology, and not of any change in the individuals. If there are greater numbers of people pirating today, it is because they are able to do so more easily without risk than in the past, not because of any fundamental shift in market forces that's creating a response in them. The people who are pirating are not interested in affecting the digital marketplace. They are interested in receiving their products for free. That part of human nature has not changed - and is not a response to any deterioration of social equality or market forces.

To take a line from your argument, everything is relative - including that stability. Inevitably, it is only a matter of time before that draconian state, however state, would collapse and the cycle would begin all over again.

Anyway, we've gotten to the point where we're basically saying "are too! are not!" over and over again to each other and citing more opinions theoretical models than arguments backed by empirical evidence. We should wrap this up soon

 

You can't justify any action, but it's true that most actions can be justified by moral relativism. However, I do not see this as "demeaning" anything, it's merely saying that most human actions can be justified under certain circumstances, depending on your point of view. And also, "legitimizing immorality" ? I have yet to see you prove that piracy is definitively immoral, so naturally I don't agree with that.

Yes, certain individuals would pirate regardless of market pressures, however the entire multi-million dollar network of hardware and software in place that allows individuals to pirate most anything, that system I would argue can only be supported when the free market is oppressed enough so that the talented individuals needed to support piracy are minimized enough so that a significant portion of them turn to "anti-social" behavior. (Edit: I just read that last sentence, and I'm not sure if it makes sense or not. Oh well, it's too late for this level of thought process, anyhow.)

No, even though I subscribe to moral relativism, I don't necessarily subscribe to a cyclical historical model. It's quite possible, in my mind, that eventually society will spiral downwards to a state that is so locked in place, and so oppressive of individual momentum, that it will in effect "end" the progression of history.

But that's the most funnest way to argue!!

 

Well, if you're looking at it from a relativistic point of view, nothing is definitely immoral. But in any case, I was referring to morality in general and not just piracy - i.e. the genocide example.

Well, actually, looking at it from the other end, if based on the assumption that it's technology that has enabled such piracy to be done in a quantity unprecedented, isn't that because the free market is free enough for such infrastructure to flourish?

There's no way to "end" the progression of history because you simply can't remain in stasis for any significant amount of time. Human nature won't allow it - one party or all parties would always be grasping for more. The cyclical historical model is based on the constant that human nature is fundamentally flawed and based upon self-interest - and that constant does not change.

 

Correct, nothing is definitely immoral. Therefore it's meaningless to say that using relativism you "legitimize immorality".

It's not merely the existence of the technology that allows individuals to pirate on such a scale. Although their exists the technology to rip a DVD and spread it to millions of people in a few hours, it takes many dedicated individuals with some very expensive hardware and software to accomplish that. Only then is the lone individual given the opportunity to download pretty much anything s/he wants.

Again, this is only if you subscribe to a cyclical nature of history, which I don't. You're assuming human nature is "flawed," but flawed from whose point of view? It is based upon self-interest (as well as many other things, but that's getting technical), but to me that doesn't mean it's "flawed." As for not allowing society to remain in stasis, well, it may not have a choice. If society becomes draconian enough, and is effective enough at suppressing progression, then we may get to a stage where society is no longer able to sustain it's constant growth, and humanity collapses into a low level anarchy, where it remains until extinction. Eventually, there almost certainly will be an end to history, the only variables are under what circumstances that will come: utopian, or nasty and brutish.

 

You're saying this like it's a good thing. Relativism is something to move beyond, to find that absolute, not something to be stuck in.

Well, according to relativism, it doesn't matter whose point of view (the Realist school's point of view if you're interested), because isn't it all relative? Therefore there's always a point of view of some culture or society somewhere that promotes that point of view, making it valid. As long as I use relativism as an excuse, I can assume and do anything i want, as because there's always *some* frame of reference for me to base it off of, I'll always be *right* from a certain point of view, and I can never be *immoral* from a certain perspective. This makes all argument and discussion moot doesn't it? It makes *living* moot.

That scenario is only possible with the technology, and that is enabled by the freedom of information and the market. Also, now you're starting to move into the realm of organized piracy and the suppliers of such, as opposed to those individuals who only benefit off them, which is a separate topic entirely.

That's not an end to history. That's merely another transition as the cycle begins again. Never did I mention "progress" because there's no progress to be made in neverending cycles. Even you said, once society becomes draconian enough, it not be able to sustain its growth and devolve to 1st anarchy. Even 1st anarchy is not a sustainable state however because it is not acceptable to survival. Therefore, it will always progress towards 2nd anarchy if possible and the cycle renews. "Utopia" is not sustainable because the society would simply implode upon its own desires and devolve back into 1st anarchy.

The only possible end of history would be when those in question (in this case humans for human history) are completely and utterly extinct. That end is independent of any and all variables, and is absolute.

 

Also, forgot to add.
You cannot subscribe to relativism and still believe in "natural" rights at the same time, or any of the inherent rights you used when saying that anyone can has a right leave any society at any time, since by definition "natural" rights are inalienable and absolute.

 

I would say the opposite: the idea that there is some absolute right and wrong, that if you can just figure it out all of life will make sense, that's the idea that we need to move beyond.

Well, no. In relativism, your actions can only be justified by your point of view.

It's not necessarily about the technology, as you could find something analogous to the current rash of digital copyright infringement in most parts of history, even if it wasn't based on technology. I agree that the presence of technology escalates the scope of the crimes, however the technology merely existing is not sufficient impetus for the amount of digital copyright infringement we're seeing today.

No, you're assuming the cycle will begin again, which is not certain. A Utopia by definition is stable, and cannot implode upon it's own desires since those desires are already perfectly met. I agree this kind of a situation is unlikely, which is why I argued previously that I believe an anarchical end is more likely.

How is this independent? Unless extinction occurs due to some unpredictable cosmic event, or such, then it might be independent. But if it occurred due to a mass collapse of society into a state which was unable to protect itself, then it definitely wouldn't be independent of social variables.

 

Having fun?

 

Yes, it would appear that way wouldn't it?

At any rate, I think enough has been said here so we'll consider this thread a done deal.