You gave "It's not hurting anybody." as a false counter-argument.
I'm clarifying that you believe, as a matter of fact, that every single movie download hurts someone.
After that clarification, I will ask for a clarification about who is hurt and point out particular cases of downloading where, as a factual matter, I don't see that they (the people you say are being hurt) could make an argument that they were hurt. Certainly not one that could hold up in court (which is the appropriate standard for determining if the person really was hurt, correct?)
I'd read all your posts and you only "declared" that it's morally wrong. You didn't present any argument to support your claim. I am not saying that there is no existing valid arguments, just pointing out that you forgot the most important part in your post.
That's why people are second guessing you by asking "who is hurt?" and things like that.
OP asked A or B. I said neither because neither addressed the fundamental underlying issue: that it's wrong. I changed the focus of the question without backing up my claim by presenting an argument. So I got second guessed, a logical development.
This presents me with a dilemma. I could present philosophical arguments about why it's wrong or I could just "wave my hands" and say it's outside the scope of this thread.
People may not like it (and I may lose this "debate"), but I choose to do the latter.
I could cop out and claim that Hacker News is a community for fellow hackers and business people to learn and share together, so a philosophical discussion of right and wrong borders on the religious and doesn't belong here.
Or I could say no one would win such a debate, so why bother just getting people upset?
I think I'll take the third option, which probably puts me in the worst light, but...
If I have to debate right and wrong with you, let's just say that I'd rather not debate at all and move on to doing business with someone who thinks a little more like me.
So, if it's not true that someone is hurt by every movie download, then why are the movie downloads, where no one is hurt, ethically wrong? Why is "it's not hurting anyone" a bad ethical argument in the cases where it's factually accurate?
I'm clarifying that you believe, as a matter of fact, that every single movie download hurts someone.
After that clarification, I will ask for a clarification about who is hurt and point out particular cases of downloading where, as a factual matter, I don't see that they (the people you say are being hurt) could make an argument that they were hurt. Certainly not one that could hold up in court (which is the appropriate standard for determining if the person really was hurt, correct?)