Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
The Problem of Piracy
2 points by WesleyCGoss on April 6, 2024 | hide | past | favorite | 2 comments
I saw a post on Hacker News that made one of the better arguments against piracy. I want to be upright and give up piracy if convinced but I’m unsure of the soundness of this argument. It went something like this:

1) It is immoral to willfully break an implicit agreement 2) Piracy willfully breaks an implicit agreement 3) Therefore, piracy is immoral

The first premise (it is immoral to break an implicit agreement) is doubtful. Consider the following info about Rosa Parks.

She enters into implicit agreement with Montgomery Buses: You agree to give up your front seat if you ride the Montgomery Buses. She enters the bus with the intent of sitting in the front seats even if they fill up (aka enter with the intent of breaking agreement). She clings to front seat after the section fills up. We celebrate her moral achievement.

And consider the similarity of the situation with me and piracy.

I enter into implicit agreement with Bard Press: I agree not to make copies of books published by Bard Press that I have access to. I enter a shadow website with the intent of making a copy of a book published by Bard Press (aka enter with the intent of breaking agreement). I make a copy of the book. What should be the reaction?

I think if one is freed, they both are freed, on the basis of this argument:

1) One has a moral responsibility to break unjust agreements 2) The agreement with Montgomery Buses/Bard Press is unjust 3) Therefore, one has a moral responsibility to break the agreement with Montgomery Buses/Bard Press

This seems right. Suspect the true issue of piracy lies with premise two: “the agreement with Bard Press is unjust”. This is an expression I might hear from the shores of The Pirate Bay and among the leaders of the Copyright Abolitionists. Pirates denounce today’s agreements unjust while the law prescribes them just. This to me is the crux.



Part of the problem is that software itself can be infinitely reproduced without paying for anything other than electricity, storage and internet. Piracy is inherent to the existence of software; as long as we're distributing software along the lines of implicit agreements, there will always be an explicit reality that exists regardless of morality.

Interestingly, this is the on-ramp to perceiving piracy as a services problem. Pirates do pay for stuff when they feel like they're getting their money's worth. Therefore the goal shouldn't be minimizing the irreversible reality of software distribution, but instead creating more attractive and innovative delivery platforms.


You're describing civil disobedience, and its moral justifiability is a well-research topic of ethics.

In my understand, there are several elements for something to be civil disobedience, and therefore possibly morally justifiable: (1) having exhausted other means, (2) using it for political purposes (in the sense that you're doing it to inform/affect your polity--your community), and (3) accepting the legal consequences of your actions (i.e. turning yourself in).




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

Search: