I fucked with the title a bit. What i linked to was actually a mastodon post linking to an actual thing. but in my defense, i found it because cory doctorow boosted it, so, in a way, i am providing the original source here.

please argue. please do not remove.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    if anybody gets a copy of it, they have no ethical obligation not to share it, and every ethical justification for sharing it.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        this reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you have an objection to what I said please state it.

        • Batman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Every web request costs someone money. If you aren’t paying them you are being provided a service. They’ve given you knowledge/ material in their possession free of charge. You are taking advantage of that good will by using the content for purposes not intended. That is a moral failing.

          To be clear the ownership of the material is not important, just the access is immoral, as the harm is already done.

          Ill add the caveat that it can be moral if they’ve specifically told you you can via the websites robot.txt file which websites of consequence all have. But the assumption has to be they don’t intend this because that is how consent works.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            the assumption has to be they don’t intend this

            why? if someone publishes something on port 80, why should I ever assume they mean anything but for me to have and use that data?

            • Batman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Because there is a standard way for people to make their consent known. Just because you ignore someone withholding you consent doesn’t mean you are free morally.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            an appeal to ridicule is also called a horse laugh fallacy. it’s like writing lol instead of actually explaining what’s wrong with the position to which your objecting. this response also reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you can’t explain what’s wrong with my position, maybe you shouldn’t be speaking about my position.