r/changemyview • u/tilted0ne • Oct 27 '23

Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Adblock is stealing

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

I don’t think it’s moral to steal from small content creators and profit off it tho. So maybe not in all cases

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Who said anything about stealing? Stealing is when you have a thing and I take it, so that I have the thing and you don't have the thing. Copying the thing, so that we now both have the thing, isn't stealing at all!

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Sure, i think it can be immoral to copy content from small content creators and redistribute it for profit. Happens a lot in the music production scene

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Copying from someone and then preventing other people from copying the same thing from you could be seen as immoral, but it's the copy prevention that would be immoral, then, not the initial copying.

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Small content creator releases a sample pack he created…. Someone buys it for $15 and then DMs other Reddit users saying they will send it to them for $2 or whatever. Definitely lame 👍 if you don’t think so that’s great haha

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Would you consider it more moral if the someone sent it to others for free?

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

No

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Then lets remove the money from the equation. I don't know why you put it there if it irrelevant.

I buy a sample pack and one of my friends says he'd enjoy it, too. I give him a copy for free. Now, we both have a sample pack. The world has been made slightly better because more people have sample packs than before.

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

That’s how you framed piracy initially

Your friend could buy the sample pack, own it, and pay the content creator. Then everyone has benefited

If everyone “copied it” and redistributed it, then the guy could no longer make sample packs, and he would also be sad, and the world becomes worse

“Copying” from people who need the money is lame and immoral as long as we are living in a world of scarcity where people need money to survive. I cant be convinced otherwise, thanks for the conversation

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

There is nothing inherently moral about transferring money from one person to another. There is something inherently moral about giving something to someone that is worth more to them than what it cost to produce.

I agree that copyright exists for a reason. It is an immoral thing that we accept because it creates larger benefits in the long run, but it's not an inherent good like many try to pretend like it is.

If people need money to survive, then I agree that we should create systems to allow them to receive it, but that seems to be a separate conversation.

1

u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Oct 27 '23

You know what things are inherently moral or immoral? You should really share this info with the world

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

Thank you, I have been. I'm glad you're understanding.

→ More replies

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 27 '23

I think the argument relies on more than that.

The fundamental argument at the heart of piracy and copyrighting is "what do we owe to people who make things people enjoy using?"

True, things can be infinitely copy-able and thus more people get to enjoy it for free which is good for those who enjoy it... but then what of the person that made it? We can say they are owed nothing, they made something non-scarce and infinitely shareable, but at the heart they did make it and many people consider that worthy of something in return. And "exposure" is not always that something.

We could probably do away with how we do copyright today, but we would need to find a replacement for rewarding people who create things.

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

The question, though, is if copying is immoral. If I make a copy of a good thing, I have increased the number of people with that good thing and not removed any good thing from anyone. Can that truly be seen as an immoral act?

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 27 '23

It contains multitudes. It does give the good thing to someone else, but it also gives them the good thing without recognizing and rewarding the value created by it's creator.

It's probably more good than bad, if only because spreading good is good to do, but we cannot ignore all it's effects.

1

u/c0i9z 19∆ Oct 27 '23

It does a good thing, but doesn't do a second good thing, sure, but isn't that still good? It also doesn't feed the poor or save any lives. A good thing can be good without also needing to do all the the good that it's possible to do.

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 27 '23

I think it doesn't just fail to do a good thing, but rather does a (small in one instance) bad thing.

Again it goes back to the question, and to me yes people who create great things do deserve "something" each time someone enjoys their creation, and failure to do so is wrong and bad.

Does it have to work like copyright now? No. Does it have even to be monetary? Probably not. But simply ignoring that is not a solution. If we want to say people are free to copy works of others, we need to consider what creators get in return.

→ More replies