Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism To me, there is no intuitive moral wrong here to start with.

>Let's say that someone produces a musical album, and, knowing they cannot legally stop you from downloading it, they ask you not to copy it unless you send them $5. Would it be morally wrong to copy without paying?

Trent Reznor actually did this recently with his Ghosts I-IV album. It was released under a CC non-commercial license, making it freely copyable. But the only Reznor-endorsed way to download it was to pay him $5. In this particular case, at least, there is absolutely nothing immoral about downloading Ghosts from The Pirate Bay, even if Reznor would like the $5.

Reznor seemed guilty about pulling the pay me to download a CC album; his most recent album had sanctioned free bittorrent downloads of ultra-high resolution music files.



If Reznor had not CC'd it, had simply posted it at a URL on his site along with a PayPal link, and said "do not download this until you've paid me", would it still be moral to download it from The Pirate Bay?


My moral relativism on this issue is as liberal as it gets, so my personal answer is a combination of "yes" and "it doesn't matter."


Which is why I have to suffer FairPlay DRM to download songs from iTunes. Thanks.


I think you have a moral duty to hasten the death of corporations that use DRM.


I have one Waffles invite left... ;)


I'd rather sulk.


No, that is the RIAAs fault.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: