> You mean like copyright holders? Patent holders? Somebody with a trade secret?
These are legal fictions that exist because the state’s monopoly on violence. Like I said, I understand the motivation to enable e.g. book writers to seek profit for their work. That’s about where my sympathy ends, especially when those mechanisms are abused for petty control by entities making billions. I hardly view them as ethical constructs, in fact I think the vast majority of restrictions based on these are unethical and immoral.
> Why wouldn't you propose as counterexample a model like medicine's "informed consent"
I think there’s a disconnect here. “Consent” in a sexual or medical context is ethically necessary due to the fact that the asker wants to perform acts directly upon/with the concerned party. Consent to play outside or make use of information does not involve the intimate invasion of one’s person, and really does not need to involve this other arbitrary party at all. This is what I was trying to express in my previous reply.
I don’t see why anyone is ethically entitled under these conditions to insert themselves as a governing authority of how people use information. It’s not even a realistic expectation to hold, information wants to be free and people will do what they want with it regardless.
> You're just saying "I don't think people should disagree with me"
I mean, we are talking about ethics here after all. The best I can do is disagree with your conception of consent and make my own arbitrary value judgement.
>These are legal fictions that exist because the state’s monopoly on violence.
Well, ok I get you there. But they're not really "fictions" when backed by the force of that violence. This critique makes sense, I just don't know if it really can ignore the fact that the legal regime applies in most cases.
These are legal fictions that exist because the state’s monopoly on violence. Like I said, I understand the motivation to enable e.g. book writers to seek profit for their work. That’s about where my sympathy ends, especially when those mechanisms are abused for petty control by entities making billions. I hardly view them as ethical constructs, in fact I think the vast majority of restrictions based on these are unethical and immoral.
> Why wouldn't you propose as counterexample a model like medicine's "informed consent"
I think there’s a disconnect here. “Consent” in a sexual or medical context is ethically necessary due to the fact that the asker wants to perform acts directly upon/with the concerned party. Consent to play outside or make use of information does not involve the intimate invasion of one’s person, and really does not need to involve this other arbitrary party at all. This is what I was trying to express in my previous reply.
I don’t see why anyone is ethically entitled under these conditions to insert themselves as a governing authority of how people use information. It’s not even a realistic expectation to hold, information wants to be free and people will do what they want with it regardless.
> You're just saying "I don't think people should disagree with me"
I mean, we are talking about ethics here after all. The best I can do is disagree with your conception of consent and make my own arbitrary value judgement.