If you disagree with what this anti-piracy group is doing, how is it fair to apply the standards they support? Isn't it necessarily, then, unfair to apply their standards to anyone, if you disagree with those standards?
It seems like you'd be agreeing with them if you asked them to apply their own standards to themselves. You either think they're right or they're wrong, and if you think they're wrong, some poetic justice shouldn't be enough to break your own moral code. That seems more indefensible than holding an incorrect set of views - to attempt to knowingly apply views you believe are wrong to someone because it satisfies a primal urge for vengeance.
If you disagree with what this anti-piracy group is doing, how is it fair to apply the standards they support?
I prefer to ask you, how isn't it fair? You are free to believe that 'You either think they're right or they're wrong'. I am equally free to believe that things are more complicated.
In this case I'll go by my own standard (which I apply not only here and now but whenever I have cause to consider such things in my interactions with others) - that of pragmatically holding others to their own principles even when I disagree with them.
If this group embarks on a journey of introspection and decides to profess a different set of principles, I'll gladly alter my opinion to suite. Until then they'll simply have to live with me being disappointed in them on the Internet. Or something.
He's pointing out that they're not adhering to their own moral code, rather than trying to hold them to his. That said, they might be able to assert an innocent infringement defense:
Not if they then continue to apply that code to other people after not adhering to it themselves. Experience suggests that this is most likely what they will do.
If this is taken as a voyage of personal discovery and they change their ways, then we can applaud their critical thinking ans self inspection. Otherwise we can justifiably cry hypercrit (for all the difference it will make...).
(replying to my own comment instead of diminoten's reply as HN seems to have a nesting limit)
> Either their moral code is something you agree with, or it's something you don't. Who they apply it to is completely irrelevant.
I didn't say they had to apply their own code to themselves to not be completely hypercrits - the other option (as I have already explicitly stated) is to modify their practises to account for their new found enlightenment.
Either their moral code is something you agree with, or it's something you don't. Who they apply it to is completely irrelevant.
Furthermore, you can "cry" whatever you like. Personally, I find calling someone hypocritical to be utterly banal and entirely pointless. It means nothing for their argument. Man is flawed independent of his convictions.
> Either their moral code is something you agree with, or it's something you don't. Who they apply it to is completely irrelevant.
I do not agree. Showing that they hold themselves to a double standard undermines their credibility when they're trying to claim the moral high ground on an issue like this.
If, however, they own up and admit that they screwed up, I will give them due credit for that. I believe I've already mentioned the concept of innocent infringement which may be relevant here.
There is a certain amount of schadenfreude involved in seeing someone hoisted by their own petard. This is true whether or not you agree with the reasons for said hoisting.
Interesting point from more of a logical perspective...I upvoted you for sparking discussion, although I think there's a flaw there. Namely, I think your argument would only hold water (logically) if the anti-piracy group intentionally violated their own standards, which I don't believe they did. It was accidental violation, which just goes to support the anti-anti-piracy view, that pinning down "ownership" in the era of digital content can be so difficult that even anti-piracy groups mess it up.
If they disagree with what they do, when it could be applied to themselves, how is their position fair at all either?
I made no statement as to whether I agree with what they expect of others - I simply suggested they should do what they would expect others to do, lest they be classified hypercrits.
It seems like you'd be agreeing with them if you asked them to apply their own standards to themselves. You either think they're right or they're wrong, and if you think they're wrong, some poetic justice shouldn't be enough to break your own moral code. That seems more indefensible than holding an incorrect set of views - to attempt to knowingly apply views you believe are wrong to someone because it satisfies a primal urge for vengeance.