Helping “bad people”? There’s nothing inherently more bad about Palestinians than any other nationality.

If you go see an independent mental health professional aren’t there only two outcomes?

1. They confirm you are as mentally fit as you think you are and you go on with your life (possibly with more resources than you previously had if your mental health really does take a dive).

2. They identify something that is actually wrong with your mental health and help you fix or learn to cope with the issue.

I’m not seeing the downside here. Who cares if it’s coming from some shady government boogeyman or some random stranger?

To go further, you can have a conditional claim like “A implies B”, that doesn’t beg the question, but in your reasoning for showing why A really does imply B, you can still beg the question (which is what happens in my pythagorean example).

Certain arguments can have premises that do essentially beg the question too though. If I make a conditional claim like “A and B are true therefore B is true”, then my conditional claim assumes B is true in the first place. You can’t really tell anything about whether or not B is actually true from my claim because my claim assumes B is true from the start.

Just having to assume certain premises isn’t inherently logically fallacious. All true conditional claims depend on their premises to guarantee the truth of their conclusion. The issues that can arise with conditional claims are usually that their premises are false or that their premises don’t actually imply their conclusion.

Having to accept certain premises isn’t exactly the issue with begging the question.

Begging the question is when a person accidentally or intentionally assumes their conclusion, i.e. the thing they’re trying to prove/argue for.

For example, if your friend is trying to prove the pythagorean theorem from math to you, and after a long list of geometric and algebraic work they sneak in a usage of the pythagorean theorem to reach the conclusion without either of you noticing, then your friend has begged the question. Their usage of the pythagorean theorem assumes the thing they wanted to prove in the first place was true.

If you’re talking about having family photos pirated, there’s a privacy issue, not a property issue.

It’s pretty clear that I’m talking about more than just family photos. It’s also pretty clear that what I’m saying is that privacy problems are one of possibly many issues with copying data without permission. My actual point here from the start has been that it’s not always ethical to copy other people’s data without permission.

Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that’s on you, but you’ll be yapping in the void as that isn’t what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.

All of the types of media and data I’m talking about are distributable in a colloquial sense. This conversation is about the fact that copying data without permission isn’t always ethical. The data we’re talking about here absolutely includes secrets, private documents and so on.

As for the term of taking, it’s clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn’t mean the same as taking a shit either,

I don’t think that’s what’s happening. I’m talking about the ethics of copying data. Perhaps sometimes copying data can be considered theft, but whether or not copying data is theft, has nothing to do with my point. A thing being called theft doesn’t make that thing morally wrong or right. The term theft itself has little to do with the actual issue we’re talking about.

Also, I’ve never actually claimed piracy is theft. I’m also not claiming piracy is morally wrong, or even that theft is inherently morally wrong for that matter (a person can be justified in stealing in some cases).

it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.

Lets assume you’re right and that literally everybody in the world uses these words the way you do (they don’t). I don’t think arguing “but that word means…” makes a very good argument against the fact that copying data from other people just isn’t always morally right. The fact that you don’t like how I use certain words is just not a good argument against what I’m saying. If you understand what I mean and you disagree with what I’m saying, then why not argue against my point instead of complaining about the fact that you don’t like HOW I use certain words? If you understand what I’m saying and you agree that sometimes it’s wrong to copy other peoples data without permission, then why are we still discussing this?

I’m imposing that property on it because for the overwhelming majority of media that is absolutely the case.

I don’t see why this is such a necessary property of media? Arguably there could be more media inside peoples private homes and hard-drives that is not for sale than media that is for sale. On top of that, this kind of thing depends on how we define media, we can take more or less inclusive definitions of this term.

It should also be clear that the kinds of things that I’m talking about in my original post refers to more than just movies, music, games and software (despite me using “media” as a convenient example in my previous post).

If it’s for sale it’s something you do not mind other people seeing. My documents I do not sell because I don’t want people seeing it. If I were to sell them, clearly I don’t mind people seeing it.

I don’t agree. I’d bet a lot of people are willing to sell plenty of ordinarily private things given a high enough price. I don’t think the notion that something is for sale all of a sudden makes that thing magically not private? When you sell something you don’t always make the thing you’re selling available to the public, just to the buyer, and until the sale is complete you’re not typically giving anybody full access to the thing. If it were public/not private the minute you made it for sale, then what is the point in selling it?

Making it for sale means you intend to share it, even if conditionally. Also “taking it” doesn’t apply, making a copy isn’t taking anything.

This isn’t true either. Sometimes people make things for sale with no actual intent of selling. And the intent to share, does not make something all of a sudden not private either. You might share something (perhaps a secret) with a friend, that doesn’t mean the thing you are sharing suddenly becomes not private/public, but that the scope of people you’re will to share this thing privately with has increased by a small amount.

I also disagree with the notion that making a copy just inherently isn’t “taking” things. This is also a matter of definitions, but people actively use the word “taking” to encompass more than just physical things. Phrases like “he took my idea”, “she took my credit card information” and so on are examples of this. Obviously people do consider “taking” to include acts of copying in some cases. If you mean something else by taking, that’s fine, but your personal definition for taking isn’t really relevant when the point I’m making regards a more inclusive notion.

I’ll take your approach. No, that’s not what “taking something” means, because clearly the definition they’re using for that is more inclusive.

Keep telling yourself that champ.

its not piracy. this is /c/piracy

The ethics of data reproduction have been discussed in piracy communities for decades. It’s a central topic to communities centered around data reproduction. Pretending otherwise is stupid.

you dont need my permission you are just making a fool of yourself by trying to call piracy what is not piracy again in /c/piracy

Am I? Or are you arguing in bad faith on a topic you didn’t bother to read the context of?

Feel free to clarify why? At what point does my example become what we’re talking about? Is it the number of people the content is sold for? Is it the amount of money the content is sold for? Enlighten me.

I feel like many people would disagree with you.

I don’t see why I need your permission? I feel like talking about when it is and isn’t ethical to reproduce data is appropriate in this sort of community.

making a copy of Frozen is not.

I feel like I’ve been pretty clesr that this sort of example is not what I’m talking about…

piracy is distributing copies of publicly available media.

Arguably software, films and music aren’t “publically available” in the sense that they’re only conditionally available to the public (ignoring piracy).

But okay, lets take the pornographic example. Say they occasionally sell nude photos to acquaintances too. Now the photos are in some sense “publicly available” in the sense that some people can buy them. Is it now suddenly okay to pirate this media? If so, then why?

accessing a private device and making copies of personal content inside is illegal and unethical.

Did you not read my very first example where I claimed almost exactly that. What have you been thinking I was talking about?

The only response you’ve given is “that’s not harmful”, which is in no way an argument for why it isn’t. It’s not totally inconceivable that taking things, even data, without permission can be harmful and to claim otherwise seems willfully stupid and in this case self serving.

The only response you’ve given is “that’s not harmful”, which is in no way an argument for why it isn’t. It’s not totally inconceivable that taking things, even data, without permission can be harmful and to claim otherwise seems willfully stupid and in this case self serving.

Your point is wrong. My point is that you can’t always (ethically) just copy other peoples stuff, just like you can’t always just take things from people. My point is not that piracy is never justified. My point is not that you are personally doing something wrong by pirating things. My point is not that you can’t be justified in copying other peoples stuff sometimes without permission. My point is not that piracy or copying other peoples data and documents always causes harm.

Edit: When was pirating “publically available” software specifically ever central to my point?

wut??? nobody in their right mind downloads that stuff! that is NOT what we are talking about, we are talking about movies and games and music

I felt like it was pretty clear that I was not talking about things as small as pirating a couple movies and games from multimillion dollar companies?

you really made this up out of nowhere. nobody defends distribuiting private pictures of people… and BTW in that case is not piracy by definition…

Is it not piracy? Please clarify the difference to me?

Here’s another example. Say a person makes pornographic photos and videos for their significant other, suppose that content gets leaked onto the internet and is uploaded to popular torrent sites without their permission. How is piracy of this sort of content not an invasion of privacy? How is piracy of this sort of content not unethical?

In my example privacy invasion definitely occurs. If you disagree with that, then you should review what I initially said.

If the notion that when people don’t want to share things with you, you have an unqualified right to take those things, and that doing that is just inherently not damaging, then I think your position is unrealistic and incredibly self serving.

Do you have some point to make here besides claiming you’re just never doing anything wrong when it serves your interests?