You pirating a book will, personally, make you poorer more than it will richer? Even though it’s impossible that you will get even 100% of the amount you would otherwise pay for a book?
I suppose you might feel guilty about it, and the negative utility of guilt might be greater than the economic cost, but purely economically, it’s clearly good for you personally to get something for free that you would otherwise pay for.
I’m kind of unsure if [widespread, unchecked] piracy is on net good or bad for the world (although it is clearly good selfishly)
But it seems you meant:
I’m kind of unsure if [my individual act of] piracy is on net good or bad for the world (although it is clearly good selfishly)
I’m unsure if legally enforced copyright is on net good or bad for the world but I’m inclined to think bad. As a content creator however copyright laws represent an implicit subsidy on my income and since all of my income ultimately derives from the sale of content but only a fraction of it is spent on content I’m inclined to think that [widespread, unchecked] piracy is bad for me selfishly even though [my individual act of] piracy could be good for me selfishly.
You are exactly the kind of person my recent blog post was written for. (I didn’t post it here because of the obvious political focus.)
In short, do you consider it selfish to refuse to pay Omega on the Parfit’s Hitchhiker problem? If so, what exactly are the boundaries of the space called out by the term “selfish” in this case? Do you generally believe it’s a good idea to act selfishly in that sense?
I agree with the general thrust of your argument (though as usual Omega makes it less rather than more convincing for me than merely phrasing it in terms of the way things actually work in the real world) but I don’t think this is a convincing argument for legally enforced IP, merely an argument for the rationality of cultural norms around authorship rights.
True. Like I said to nfactor13, the actual (expected) norms favoring IP screen off all other factors. Whether people generally respect IP because of religion, cultural norms, or successful police prodding is irrelevant once potential creators form a belief about how well their exclusivity is respected.
That might be a hard sell, especially to libertarians. I’m not sure if I missed a relevant post of yours on it. While I accept that in the sense that you’re concerned about it, the norms favoring IP screen off other factors, that still leaves room for libertarians to say, “Well, I’m in favor of the good outcomes from respecting IP, but I’m not in favor of people making me respect IP at gunpoint”.
There are plenty of things that I don’t do that I nonetheless don’t want there to be laws against.
Yes, I was only saying it screens off one set of factors with respect to some what potential creators plan to do; that doesn’t deny that someone could still dislike some of the screened off factors.
Also, I’m not sure that being “pro-good outcomes” is a political position, at least not a meaningful one. Besides, the people I’m arguing against don’t even seem to seem to regard it as good, even on the level of “this would be polite” to honor IP claims, although they eventually shift back and forth on this.
Ok, why the downvoting? I understand the downvoting for my first comment (though I don’t understand why it’s parent is +1), but −1 for pointing out an inaccuracy? An explanation would be welcome.
I wasn’t one of the persons downvoting. However, there are many reasons why people here downvote, and one is moral disapproval. This is likely the reason for the downvoting of both comments.
You pirating a book will, personally, make you poorer more than it will richer? Even though it’s impossible that you will get even 100% of the amount you would otherwise pay for a book?
I suppose you might feel guilty about it, and the negative utility of guilt might be greater than the economic cost, but purely economically, it’s clearly good for you personally to get something for free that you would otherwise pay for.
I interpreted your statement as:
But it seems you meant:
I’m unsure if legally enforced copyright is on net good or bad for the world but I’m inclined to think bad. As a content creator however copyright laws represent an implicit subsidy on my income and since all of my income ultimately derives from the sale of content but only a fraction of it is spent on content I’m inclined to think that [widespread, unchecked] piracy is bad for me selfishly even though [my individual act of] piracy could be good for me selfishly.
You are exactly the kind of person my recent blog post was written for. (I didn’t post it here because of the obvious political focus.)
In short, do you consider it selfish to refuse to pay Omega on the Parfit’s Hitchhiker problem? If so, what exactly are the boundaries of the space called out by the term “selfish” in this case? Do you generally believe it’s a good idea to act selfishly in that sense?
I agree with the general thrust of your argument (though as usual Omega makes it less rather than more convincing for me than merely phrasing it in terms of the way things actually work in the real world) but I don’t think this is a convincing argument for legally enforced IP, merely an argument for the rationality of cultural norms around authorship rights.
True. Like I said to nfactor13, the actual (expected) norms favoring IP screen off all other factors. Whether people generally respect IP because of religion, cultural norms, or successful police prodding is irrelevant once potential creators form a belief about how well their exclusivity is respected.
That might be a hard sell, especially to libertarians. I’m not sure if I missed a relevant post of yours on it. While I accept that in the sense that you’re concerned about it, the norms favoring IP screen off other factors, that still leaves room for libertarians to say, “Well, I’m in favor of the good outcomes from respecting IP, but I’m not in favor of people making me respect IP at gunpoint”.
There are plenty of things that I don’t do that I nonetheless don’t want there to be laws against.
Yes, I was only saying it screens off one set of factors with respect to some what potential creators plan to do; that doesn’t deny that someone could still dislike some of the screened off factors.
Also, I’m not sure that being “pro-good outcomes” is a political position, at least not a meaningful one. Besides, the people I’m arguing against don’t even seem to seem to regard it as good, even on the level of “this would be polite” to honor IP claims, although they eventually shift back and forth on this.
Ok, why the downvoting? I understand the downvoting for my first comment (though I don’t understand why it’s parent is +1), but −1 for pointing out an inaccuracy? An explanation would be welcome.
I wasn’t one of the persons downvoting. However, there are many reasons why people here downvote, and one is moral disapproval. This is likely the reason for the downvoting of both comments.