Replies to post #6264 on The Free Zone Board

[RoguePlanet]

Going back to my beach house squatting example . . .

Spall, is it correct to say that in my example, you didn't think the squatter was doing anything morally wrong because you, the homeowner, suffered no harm? What if a squatter occupied your own house, the one that you lived in, while you're out of town for a weekend? He doesn't take anything or use any resources or damage anything, he just hangs around your house and maybe rifles through your wife's lingerie drawer (neatly putting everything back in its place). On your return, you don't even know he's been there. So you would you say he hasn't done anything morally wrong?

What about a peeping tom? Are you going to say that he's not doing anything morally wrong, as long as he doesn't get caught? If he creeps into someone's backyard and crouches behind the shrubs and peeps through the blinds at the lady of the house coming out of the shower, but she never finds out, does your view of morality hold that he doesn't anything morally wrong, because she hasn't been harmed?


As for the beach house analogy, I would say there is harm - it's not really quantifiable harm like property damage would be but the squatter is violating your property rights.

[Spallenzani]

Well, here is the problem with your argument. You seem to be implying that someone who sells intellectual property for a living is entitled to that money to sustain himself

Uh, yeah. What exactly is the problem with that?

The problem is that no one who does anything for a living is entitled to a living. Only if people willingly pay him for his services is he entitled to a living.

If you can't sell your songs because people who would otherwise buy them are downloading mass quantities of them illegally, that's a problem for society.

Agreed, but remember that we are only talking about the people that would not otherwise buy them.

And is cable service significantly different from intellectual property?

I would say yes. If you steal cable service you're not just stealing an idea or a song. You're actually using the cable company's property.

I'm not entirely familiar with the way cable signals are transferred, but my guess would be that the electricity charge for one additional user is not even recognizable.