We pirate movies, games and songs that are made by workers who would undoubtedly make more money if we had bought them instead. Nevertheless we justify piracy by saying that intellectual property is unjust and exploitative.

So wouldn't the same logic apply to OnlyFans? There is currently a movement where people are subscribing to OnlyFans, uploading all the content on porn sites and then unsubscribing. I'm seeing this get criticized, but it's the same things as piracy right? Those who do want to pay will pay, while those who pirate are those who never would have paid in the first place.

  • weshallovercum [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    It's said that Marx laughed whenever people talked to him about morality. Giving the moral question context does not make it a material analysis. All normative philosophy is idealist. Anyway, I'm only saying this because you called me an idealist as if your analysis is somehow a materialist analysis. We are both engaged in idealism.

    Anyway enough with the philosophical essays. The commodity 'porn' is produced using the means of production 'human body, sex toys etc'. Labor is the actual work of making porn. Labor such as factory labor or farm labor produce commodities like cars or wheat, and the means of production are 'factory' and 'farm'. There is no confusion here. Sex-workers own their means of production.

    Finally, there are laws against publishing nonconsensual pornography called revenge porn laws. But onlyfans is consensual pornography, and only IP laws apply to their free distribution. So it is wrong to use the argument "you are distributing against their consent", as if the same doesn't apply to movies or games.

      • weshallovercum [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I'm sorry but you'll probably be one of the greatest philosophers of all time if you think you have found a material basis to morality. Until then, Marxist-tinged or not, morality is still an idealist affair.

        I am a communist. The act of piracy will have almost no effect on the socialist project. I have no idea why you're bringing that up.

        Piracy harms the person making content, true. Not pirating harms the buyer who has to part with their hard-earned money for something that can technically be replicated at zero cost, this is also true.

        You haven't actually explained why it is morally acceptable to pirate games or movies.

        EDIT: What is the MOP that petit-bourgs such as independently practising doctors or lawyers use? Your understanding of MOP is flawed.

          • weshallovercum [any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            The idea that consequentialism is right itself is predicated on the belief that "ends justify means". There is no material basis here.

            Yes, you are right about doctors and lawyers. Similarly, for online sex-workers the MOP are cameras, internet, sex toys and their BODY (not labor, but the physical object of their body). Sex-workers who perform physical sex-work are not petit-bourg, as Marx himself clearly said. Marx classified those as lumpen.

            You still haven't explained why pirating games or movies is morally acceptable.

              • weshallovercum [any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I’m saying consequentialism is necessary to successfully interact with a system of practical material prescriptions

                Ok lets use consequentialism. Goal : Decommodify the economy and provide free stuff to people. Action : Pirate everything, including porn. Consequence : Some people lose their livelihood, most people gain. So it is morally acceptable to pirate everything.

                You’re trying so desperately to cling to something to be right about, but it’s not gonna happen.

                Pure projection. I'm not the one writing essays about a minor point that is irrelevant to the main argument. I didn't even realize you agreed with me that OF users are petit-bourgs. I see no further reason to argue about whether a body can be MOP or not.