From: C Erler <erlercw@...>
Date: 2006-05-17T19:34:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Ticked Off

------=_Part_101452_7707665.1147862056518
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 15/05/06, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
>
>
> On May 15, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
>
> >
> > On 15-May-06, at 7:03 PM, Elliot Temple wrote:
> >
> >> But is every case of piracy deserving of the same great scorn?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't
> >> afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he
> >> harmed by downloading it?
> >
> > That's like saying that you're stuck with someone, and you're not
> > going to share your food either way, so what harm is there in
> > killing the person now instead of letting him starve to death.
> > That's just a silly way of thinking.
>
> The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were
> left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is,
> who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?
>
> -- Elliot Temple
> http://www.curi.us/blog/


When a person makes a physical item, they can gain a salary and everyone is
happy, but when a person makes an information-based item, they can't gain a
salary except by somehow producing something else (like support or
something).  The moral problem of the situation isn't about not harming the
person by depriving them of property; everyone will agree they still have
the items they started out with.  The moral problem of the situation is tha=
t
someone has done something for you in return for an income, and you've spen=
t
your energy thinking up and defending a loophole.

If a man helps you in return for you helping him, don't come up with excuse=
s
to take advantage of the guy.

------=_Part_101452_7707665.1147862056518--