hobo time was now; then; a river of bass
Life is absolutely nuts. Wonderful weekend, with understanding (and encouraging) family, relaxing, a vacation I kinda needed to help me feel a little less of a failure. But first, for you FFVII fans: Feffiroff!! Thank you, Alex :)
My mom bought me a black macbook. It is <3 <3 computer <3. Love in a box. My best friend. My life. I require ( Read more... )
My mom bought me a black macbook. It is <3 <3 computer <3. Love in a box. My best friend. My life. I require ( Read more... )
There are deeper economic issues than that I'm sure, and I'll have to trust the company to decide for itself if it's worth printing more copies or not.
Really? That's strange. Do you mean the Dreamcast version or its reappearance on Gamecube?
Wikipedia seems to imply that its sales were mediocre, despite its great reviews, and I'm not sure which version it's talking about; I didn't read it too carefully.
And when determining what's morally right, you should assume everyone else will do what's morally right.
Whoooooaahh, I dunno about that one! My instinct is to go off common sense about how the world will respond to my actions, rather than the irrelevant, intangible hypothetical. But I don't know the basis behind why you'd make that statement, it's not something I've looked into.
And since it's theirs, they have the right to disallow it.
I disagree... but I don't think you should be legally allowed to sell something to someone under those types of restrictions about how it will be used.
Hehe.
Reply
OK. It's not dependent on my main point anyway. It's certainly possible, for example, that the company purposely produced few copies and jacked the price to try to make it a "rare game" that everyone wants. But even if it's very nice of them to do that, it's still their right.
Whoooooaahh, I dunno about that one! My instinct is to go off common sense about how the world will respond to my actions, rather than the irrelevant, intangible hypothetical. But I don't know the basis behind why you'd make that statement, it's not something I've looked into.
Well, it's hard to describe, and it also doesn't appear to affect my argument (yet), but I can try to explain. Morality involves doing one of a set of actions that are within the "sphere" of God's will. God created a universe inhabited with things with free will, such that if those things choose from among a certain set of actions (of which there are probably infinite possibilities), the universe would be one of a set of perfect universes. Acting morally involves acting within that sphere.
What you're suggesting, via pragmatism, is that you should do an action that it seems to you will make the best possible universe, given the expected action of the other free agents. But what this means is that if all the other agents did somehow happen to act morally, you'd be the only one preventing the universe from being perfect. Whereas if they acted immorally, the universe also wouldn't be perfect. In other words, the pragmatic action prevents the universe from possibly being perfect, and hence, from my understanding of morality above, it's immoral. QED.
I disagree... but I don't think you should be legally allowed to sell something to someone under those types of restrictions about how it will be used.
Well then there's our disagreement on this issue. What do you mean? What restrictions? Being unable to copy data? Why shouldn't that be allowed?
Do you disagree that when someone creates an abstract work, they own the abstract work? Shouldn't they be allowed to sell the ability to use the abstract work? How is that possible unless copying is prevented?
Hehe.
Indeed.
Reply
Not in my worldview. I see morality not as actions but as intent, for starters ;) To feel violently about someone is basically equivalent to harming them; the actual act of harming them itself is not sin, but part of the tragedy that results from the sin.
I think it's sort of silly and naive to think that if you are to act now, in a way that would work perfectly if everyone else were to act perfectly, is what would be "perfect" in the here-and-now. It's not just that I don't believe in "perfection" (within this universe) in any meaningful sense.. but that I know there will always be tragedy in this world, as well as sin, and I want to do whatever I can (by the means that make sense to me) to hold it back a little. I think that's all we're expected to be; while experiencing life in the fullest in our living here as mere simple agents across a massively multi-agent system.
Being unable to copy data? Why shouldn't that be allowed?
Fair use. Take that to an exponent or few, metaphorically ;) I think it is often very immoral to prevent genuine human progress by giving people "rights" over their trivial constructions... but this leads me to the next point:
Do you disagree that when someone creates an abstract work, they own the abstract work?
Since you brought christian morality into this in the first place: I would say absolutely not; I don't agree well with possession. Humans don't create, they just put together existing pieces so that they work as a coordinated entity, for a little while, until it falls apart. In the concrete as well as the abstract. And in that sense, all things come from God, and possession is an artificial social construct. And I don't think it should take precedent over allowing the right thing to happen in any particular situation -- which might mean photocopying a useful textbook so that someone can learn from it, when it makes sense to do so in-the-moment. etc.
Reply
So do I, actually. I meant that morality involves intending to do what you believe is God's will, which is something that if everyone did, would result in a perfect universe. Sorry for the confusion.
I know there will always be tragedy in this world, as well as sin
So do I.
I think that's all we're expected to be
What do you mean "expected"? The Bible says that perfection is "expected", though not required for unconditional love. In what sense does God require people to be only somewhat perfect or good, and how good is good enough, and what happens if you aren't good enough?
As to that paragraph in general, I refute your explanations - at least based on my definition of morality - by referring you back to my proof. I'll need to know your full definition of what's moral before I can accept your beliefs about it.
Fair use.
I believe in fair use too. But I don't see how it applies here.
Since you brought christian morality into this in the first place
Actually I didn't; my overall understanding of morality could apply to a variety of Gods, not just the Christian one.
Reply
I still disagree with that, although it might be a matter of semantics. I don't think there's anything "moral" about someone doing (or intending to do) what they think is the will of whatever God they believe in; or rather, that's a moral choice within their system of morality.. but not only do I most likely disagree with the morals of that system (and so declare it immoral to follow them... lol), but I think it is very wrong to do evil because you think it's what your God wants. It is a crummy system of morality that would allow for that.
It's probably just the direction of our definitions. I would not define evil as "whatever God doesn't like", although that may be (and I think it is); I see that as more of a property of evil than a definition.
Here, let me phrase it better. Suppose God actually wanted us to stone prostitutes. I think that's horrendously immoral, and don't care if it is what God wants. I think morality has more to do with compassion and empathy than with divine obedience. But the Christian God, as I see it, is all that compassion/obedience/love stuff, and the act of showing (or intending) goodwill and compassion for others is knowing God, whether or not you're aware or even agree.
(...) which is something that if everyone did, would result in a perfect universe.
I don't have any reason to accept that, and so don't, and furthermore I suspect it falls in the realm of "insignificant tidbit of theological interrogation that is so insignificant that it is probably immoral to interrogate into depth". :)
What do you mean "expected"? The Bible says that perfection is "expected", though not required for unconditional love. In what sense does God require people to be only somewhat perfect or good, and how good is good enough, and what happens if you aren't good enough?
I don't believe that perfection, in this physical universe, can exist, and in particular I think it's a fairly meaningless concept here. But it is a goal we should all be striving for, and that is expected of us, as in, we should be actively striving for it (ie. actively trying to do what's right for others). Sin must not be tolerated, God loves people (sinners) too much for that. But we'll all always be sinners, I'm rather certain, and while that's not _okay_, I think we all (God included) would be surprised if that were to all-of-a-sudden change. It's a part of who we are.
I'll need to know your full definition of what's moral before I can accept your beliefs about it.
Well I doubt I'll ever have such a "full definition", I think that's something I'll spend my whole life learning -- and I certainly don't expect you to accept my beliefs about it (or anything). I don't see any reason for that.
I believe in fair use too. But I don't see how it applies here.
I think it should be considered fair use for you to buy a music CD and put all of those songs online so that the whole world can download them. :) So that is relevant.
Reply
This is a straw man argument. Almost everyone, in one way or another, accepts a certain morality based on conscience. Even if they believe in some morality written in a book by some god, they generally only pick that particular god if his morality is true. It's no more evil to claim that the morals that are already in my conscience came from God than to claim that they "just exist".
Though there may be one important difference between believing morality comes from God and believing in it by faith. In the former case, there is the implication that my morality might be screwed up. As a result, there's an incentive for me to critically consider what might be wrong with it and how it should be changed, if it should. I don't see what's immoral about that.
I think what you're suggesting is that if I received a divine revelation to do something that I also know is evil, my morality, as defined above, says I should do it. It doesn't. It's not possible for such a revelation to come from God, as I define him.
As for the rest, you've told me what you believe, but you haven't told me why, so I don't believe you. And if you think it's immoral to argue about, then I won't. But personally, I think it's never immoral to interrogate anything, least of all theology, in depth.
Reply
Kierkegaard makes a big deal of this point in Fear and Trembling. I am not sure how big of a deal it is, since people traditionally calculate Isaac's age at 25 or more at the time of the event (i.e. presumably strong enough to resist), so he may have been a willing sacrifice, which changes things in a foreshadowing-Jesus'-death kind of way. But the point seemed very relevant, especially since Kierkegaard ties it to discussions of morality (and when an absolute commitment trumps objective morality :p).
Reply
Though I haven't read Kierkegaard's book and don't know what his argument is, from what little I've heard of it I don't agree with him about an absolute commitment trumping objective morality. I think the point of the Abraham story is trusting God that doing his will will result in a perfect universe (despite not being able to see how), not that you should do something wrong if commanded to by a higher commitment.
Now, the thing about situations like that is, how did Abraham know it was God telling him to sacrifice Isaac? If I were in the same situation, I'd probably conclude that it must be Satan or something, since the command would seem immoral to me. If I really knew, somehow, that it was God, then I'd have to conclude that the action would result in more good than harm. But I don't know how anyone would be able to tell it was God. I guess Abraham had a way to tell that I don't know about.
Reply
I don't agree well with possession. Humans don't create, they just put together existing pieces so that they work as a coordinated entity, for a little while, until it falls apart. In the concrete as well as the abstract. And in that sense, all things come from God, and possession is an artificial social construct. And I don't think it should take precedent over allowing the right thing to happen in any particular situation -- which might mean photocopying a useful textbook so that someone can learn from it, when it makes sense to do so in-the-moment. etc.
Ah. Here's an interesting, and good, point.
So, you believe that possession is artificial. I also believe people don't really own things in the sense of being able to do anything with them, but I do believe they have certain rights - actual, not artificial rights - regarding certain things. Let's see where each of our beliefs leads.
I don't agree with patents, or at least not a lot of the patents that become patents, because I don't think someone who has an idea generally has the right to prevent people from using it. But, if someone puts effort or labour into "creating" something or producing some effect, do you believe they have the right to benefit from it? For example, if someone grows some food and hoes and weeds and stuff, is it their food to eat, or does "fair use" mean other people can eat it too? I say it's theirs, not because they created it, but because it's the result of their effort.
Do they have the right to trade that food for other things that are the result of someone else's effort? I don't see why they shouldn't; each party is getting a different result for their effort that they each prefer. You certainly shouldn't, because it's pragmatic.
Now, say someone puts effort into "creating" a video game. The result of that effort is them, or anyone, enjoying it. Is there a difference between this and the food example? The difference I can think of is that if an extra person enjoys an extra copy of it, the "creator" apparently doesn't lose anything - s/he can still play the game. But, I think the analogy is more like someone who grows more food than s/he can eat. The person has put more effort into growing food, and hence should get more reward by trading for more things. The reward of creating a video game, likewise, is the total enjoyment that can be received by it from everyone. If there's more total enjoyment that people can have from it, there must be more sources of getting that enjoyment simultaneously - more "copies" of the enjoyment, if you will. In other words, the result of the effort in "creating" a video game is proportional to the optimal number of copies of its representation so that enjoyment is maximized. And, unless you disagree that the person who grows food doesn't have the right to his/her effort, I don't see why you'd disagree that the "creator" of the game has the right to the result of his/her effort.
continued...
Reply
Nope, I don't think that's a right. I think if they're unable to benefit from it, then maybe they made a bad choice to invest so much labour into it in the first place ;-)
Fairness issues come up, for sure. But then we're getting much more situational than this broad statement you made, which I disagree with.
Reply
Reply
There is also a further issue here. As citizens of Canada, we are under obligation to follow Canadian law. While on one hand this is not as binding as whatever covenant we have with God, we are still morally obligated to follow those laws to the extent that they do no violate higher ones. So unless you believe it is not just morally acceptable but also a moral obligation to violate those laws in this case, they should be followed.
Reply
He he does that mean God doesn't have total rights to everything either?
There is also a further issue here. As citizens of Canada, we are under obligation to follow Canadian law.
That's true, but originally Mike asked me why I think I have a moral objection to not copy stuff. Even if I were convinced that it's morally acceptable, I would indeed fall back on the Bible's command to obey the laws of the land (though Mike might not have the same approach to scripture as me). But I further claim that the basic idea of copyright law is moral and that there should be laws for it (though there's lots screwed up about our individual laws, obviously), and that's what we're arguing about.
Reply
If I were talking about that kind of Creation, I would hopefully think to use a capital C.
Reply
Now. The "creator" of a game Y produces X copies of it. Unless there's something I'm missing, the way economic forces work is that people who originally bought Y will trade the X copies amongst themselves so that the people who enjoy the game the most will end up with the copies. Each person will be willing to sell their copy for a certain price; after trading, the lowest such price will be as high as possible. Once this price gets above the price the "creator" of the game is willing to produce and sell new copies for, s/he will produce more copies, and sell them. Once the rate the "used" copies are going for is low enough, the "creator" of the game will stop producing more copies - this is the "equilibrium" price and quantity. Maybe, but I'm not sure, you're saying that once they've decided to stop producing more copies, they've abandoned the game - kind of like abandoning a field of food - and it's OK for others to produce more copies, kind of like it's OK for others to eat the food.
But, if the "creator" of the game knew in advance that a certain number of extra copies would be produced once the game has been abandoned, and if everyone else knew it too, the "creator" would be able to sell fewer copies, would have to produce fewer, and hence would get less than the result of his/her effort. For the "creator" to be able to get the complete result, everyone would have to agree not to produce copies later. Otherwise, the "creator" might not be willing to put the effort into the game in the first place.
Therefore, producing more copies of a game causes the result of the effort of its "creator" to be transferred from the "creator" to the producer of the extra copies. This I define as stealing.
At what point have I lost you?
Reply
Leave a comment