zlacker

There is IMO a coherent moral framework that says "this is harming no one"

>>alexil+(OP)
I think that's borderline a similar argument to loss prevention in department stores. I don't know hard numbers, but assuming there's a 2-3% loss in goods due to theft, the department stores can still make profit. "No one is harmed yet" If everyone stole goods, the stores would go bankrupt.

I think the same argument can be made for pirating. It's harming no one as long as it remains a minority action. If the entire population felt the same as you, the movie/game/show industry would take a huge crash.

My personal believe is that morals shouldn't rest on other people not doing what you're doing for it to be ok morally. It needs to be applicable for 100% of the population for it to be moral. (barring obvious exceptions like handicapped people using handicap stalls, etc)

>>xeroma+SF
Nobody will miss neither Disney or Merck or Elsevier, or any other company whose bussiness is copyright and artificial scarcity. 100% of people can pirate their content and noone will miss them because we didn't need them in the first place.

Content will still be created.

>>alvare+HI
This is a nice fantasy but it's not grounded in reality.

>>xeroma+pR
Art has existed for much longer than copyright.

>>stonit+cI1
We're talking about digital piracy.