ribuck

There are just as many "what if's" triggered by not telling the truth, as are triggered by telling the truth.

No. It's actually as if the hot dog vendor said "I wish you to pay me, if you make your own hot dog to the same recipe." For sure, the hot dog company wishes to have me as a customer. But I don't feel bad about making hot dogs at home. And the hairdresser also wishes to have me as a customer, yet I don't feel that I've cheated them if I cut my own hair, even if it's to the same design that they would have used. Today I drove into town, and I followed the same route that the cab drivers take. I'm sure the cab company wishes to have me as a customer and would prefer that I don't copy their route. But I don't feel bad about doing so. Last year, I built a chair with four legs. I don't know who first decided to build a chair with four legs, but I'm sure that person would have liked to collect a payment every time someone else built a chair with four legs. But I don't feel bad that I built a four-legged chair. When it comes to digital music/movies, there is no saleable good. The fine print, and the law, make it quite clear that you don't own music that you've "bought". For example, you're not even allowed to play "your" music (that you "bought") in a public park. And how could there be stealing, when the creator of the work still has their copy, undamaged. If I steal your bicycle, you have to take the bus. But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us. Anyway, this discussion seems to have turned into "Is Intellectual Property legitimate?". The original poster started with an assumption that IP is not legitimate, then asked about a situation where someone else was breaking a contract by making digital goods available for copying.

No. It's actually as if the hot dog vendor said "I wish you to pay me, if you make your own hot dog to the same recipe." For sure, the hot dog company wishes to have me as a customer. As does the music creator. And so does the hairdresser, yet I don't feel that I've cheated them if I cut my own hair, even if it's to the same design that they would have used. Today I drove into town, and I followed the same route that the cab drivers take. I'm sure the cab company wishes to have me as a customer and would prefer that I don't copy their route. But I don't feel bad about doing so. Last year, I built a chair with four legs. I don't know who first decided to build a chair with four legs, but I'm sure that person would have liked to collect a payment every time someone else built a chair with four legs. But I don't feel bad that I built a four-legged chair. When it comes to digital music/movies, there's no a saleable good. The fine print, and the law, make it quite clear that you don't own music that you've "bought". For example, you're not even allowed to play "your" music (that you "bought") in a public park. And how could there be stealing, when the creator of the work still has their copy, undamaged. If I steal your bicycle, you have to take the bus. But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us. Anyway, this discussion seems to have turned into "Is Intellectual Property legitimate?". The original poster started with an assumption that IP is not legitimate, then asked about a situation where someone else was breaking a contract by making digital goods available for copying.

Yes, there's a genuine market opportunity for a "ten minute philosophy" series.

In Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" he discusses research which shows that groups of cops make poorer snap decisions than solo cops. It's very interesting, and for me was counter-intuitive. It turns out that when a solo policeman responds to an incident like this (compared to when a pair or more of police respond), not only is the innocent person less likely to be killed, but also a policeman is less likely to be killed. YouTube - Malcolm Gladwell - Blink (12:13 to 16:35) http://youtu.be/3TRioBKpUwY?t=12m13s "Cops in groups make decisions that cops by themselves would never make."

Even in that situation, I'm struggling to find a way that the customer would be somehow responsible for the behavior of the store employee. Here's a related example: I know that the local parking patrol officer has a contract with his employer to ticket at least twenty mis-parked cars each working day. Despite my knowledge, I feel no compulsion to point out to him that I might be parked in an unauthorised place. And here's a situation that I have in real life: My local coffee shop stamps a loyalty card with every drink purchased. After you accumulate nine stamps, you get a free drink. One of the baristas gives me a double stamp because I'm a valued customer (I return my newspaper to the rack, I clear my tray, I don't make a mess in the bathroom, I don't disturb the other patrons, etc). I'm sure this is unapproved (because she doesn't do the double stamp when the boss is around), yet I don't object. It's not because of the money (I'm happy to pay for all my drinks). It's just that I don't want to have to take on the burden of managing the coffee shop employees, in addition to running my own life.

This is a very recent thing, by the way. Until about twenty years ago, most copyright infringement cases were civil suits rather than criminal cases. Since the 1990s, numerous specific acts (such as filming a movie in a theater) have been made into criminal acts.

I think even the word "sharing" is problematic, because it implies that the copy is the same thing as the original. The licensee is not "sharing" the creative work; he is "putting it where others can copy it". Neither are you "sharing" the work; you are "making a copy". You and the licensee are not "conspiring to share". Now for my (possibly bad) analogy: Suppose you buy a can of beans from the store. The store asks for $0.99, and that's what you pay. You and the store are both happy. Now suppose it turns out that the store had a contract with its supplier stating that the store will never sell the beans for less than $1.49. Should you feel bad? No, the contract between the store and its supplier is none of your business. The contract will specify what the store is obliged to do if it has breached the contract.

Sorry if we've missed the mark so far, TheRobin. I think what you are asking is the following: If Person A has breached a contract they made with Person B, are you (an unconnected person) obliged to take steps to help person B? My answer is "no". Under what moral theory could the answer to that be "yes"? Person B was free to negotiate a damages clause in the contract, such that Person A would repay any losses incurred by B as a result of A's breach.

Fingolfin and Snipes777 nailed it. If someone stole the creator's original work, and you took possession of that, it would be different. Then, you would be morally in the wrong. But .

Under what moral theory could a contract between the creator and the licensee be expected to bind a third party such as yourself? Your action (making a new copy) is not immoral. The licensee may be in breach of contract for making his copy available to others for copying, in which case any penalty will be specified in the contract between the creator and the licensee. That contract is between those two parties, and does not bind you as a third party.

Are you sure? Have you seen the whole book? (I haven't). The part you quoted earlier is just a commentary by some guy. It may or may not accurately reflect the book. Of course those rules are chosen. I choose not to steal. A robber chooses to steal.

Here's another children's book: ABC's of Anarchy It's Creative Commons licensed (CC-BY-SA) and is available in print or as a free PDF download.

Well, "no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules".

Wow, what an amazing book! Quite wonderfully subversive.

From the ad: *I just swapped "advert" with "artwork". Incidentally, re-facing billboards has a long tradition, and I think many advertisers even embrace it because it brings more attention.

In real life, voluntary exchange doesn't need to be formalised like this. 99% of people pay for their restaurant meals, without even knowing what an implied contract is. And the bouncer lets 99% of people in, who have paid the $5 cover charge. The 1% of diners who skip without paying; you can be sure that an implied contract wouldn't have affected their behavior. And the 1% who are not admitted by the bouncer? You can be sure the bouncer is not dicking around with some technicality of interpretation of contract law; he has some other unrelated reason for excluding them. You see uncontracted voluntary exchange all the time. At a coffee shop, there's no contract saying how long you can sit at a table, per drink purchased. Yet most people will know when they have overstayed their welcome. And the remaining 1% get the message after a polite reminder ("Are you finished, Sir, or are you wishing to order something more?" as the waitress sweeps away the used crockery).

Agreed. It must have been such a relief for a distressed child to reach a person who was unconditionally on their side. If would be wonderful if there was a way to re-create the service as it was originally conceived.

Most big charities in the UK seem to have crossed over to the dark side in recent years. The problem is, you can't just start doing charitable work in the UK. You need to register first. And registration is such a bureaucratic burden that there are even registered charities whose mission is to help train other charities to navigate this regulatory burden! The NSPCC 2012 accounts show that they spent £900,000 on "costs incurred in meeting constitutional and statutory requirements". Their Chief Executive earned over £160,000 (approx. $240,000) plus a generous pension scheme. Six other staff members each earned over £100,000 per year ($150,000), and more than forty others earned over £60,000 per year ($100,000). It's lucrative work if you can get a job running a government-registered charity. Regulation forces the charities into the whole political thing. The original purpose of the charity becomes secondary. The original beneficiaries of the charity become used as the justification behind the bureaucratic machinations of the charity itself. I wish there was a way to run a charity that was oriented towards the needs of children, and not towards the needs of the Charities Commission.

If anyone could get away with it, Tim Cook could. Apple is currently the largest taxpayer in the US, and also generally popular with the populace.

Why describe it as a secret meeting? All of the details are published. The publication was just timed to coincide with Eric's book launch. A little extra publicity never hurts.

That's how is used to work in the past. If you read novels from a century ago, the hungry person always gets a meal by (for example) offering to chop some firewood. But modern life has been made so complicated that even the most generous people won't offer food in exchange for ad-hoc labor anymore. It brings employment law into the picture, and it messes with the conditions of their insurance. The hungry person will always steal rather than starve to death. It's not about whether it's justified or not. It's about whether the hungry person is prepared to risk the consequences of stealing. If the hungry person has a way to obtain food without the risk of negative consequences, they will do so. Otherwise, they will steal. The way to resolve this isn't to fret about what the hungry person does; it's to remove the barriers that discourage (and sometimes prohibit) the hungry from feeding themselves. When I lived in New Zealand, there was a hungry homeless guy who lived under a bridge. One day he killed a stray cat, then lit a fire and cooked and ate the cat. He was arrested (because in NZ it was forbidden to prepare cat meat for human consumption). He was found guilty, although I can't remember the penalty. And yet at the same time, the local council was using taxpayers' money to eradicate these stray cats.

I didn't actually say that. I gave an example of Kings who have used "morals" as an excuse to inflict violence. Good. Finally we agree! Simply using the word "morals" serves no purpose at all! Those who want to inflict violence will use "morals" to show that the infliction of violence is justified. Those who oppose the infliction of violence will use "morals" to show that the infliction of violence is unjustified. Those who want to inflict violence will define valid moral theories as those which allow them to inflict violence. Those who oppose the infliction of violence will define valid moral theories as those which exclude the infliction of violence. Tests of moral validity (such as UPB or the Divine Right of Kings) bring nothing useful to the table, because they are not, and never will be, universally recognised. And if the tests of moral validity are not universally recognised, the "morals" (sets of moral theories) that pass those tests will not be universally recognised either.

It would be a high risk purchase, fzu. Butterfly Labs have been consistently late with shipping. When they say "delivery may take 2 months or more", the key words are "or more".

Yes, sure, I completely agree with this. But it has a precondition ("if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people"). I was referring to the situation where the moraliser doesn't accept that precondition, e.g.: The King: "It is moral for my armies to rape the conquered women" Philosopher: "According to UPB, that is not a valid moral theory because it cannot be universalised" The King: "Yeah? Well according to Divine Right of Kings, universalisation is not required, so it is a valid moral theory" Philosopher: "Um..." Your precondition ("if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people") will lead to a test which rejects moral theories that provide an excuse to use violence against peaceful people. The King's precondition (that his morals be consistent with the Divine Right of Kings) will lead to a test that rejects moral theories that forbid the king from doing whatever he declares to be right. That's the paradox of UPB. It's only applicable to those who don't need it.