I'm not equating it. I'm comparing it. They are simply explicit and blunt examples to make a point, more relatable examples would be traditional models of miasma causing disease or of the Earth being flat. But you also reinforce my point - it feels more explicit when the consequences of a misguided social order have physical ramifications in the immediate, rather than the sociological spanning the entirety over a long time. Probably the greatest relatable yet poignant example would be the cultural view of women as helpless or lesser than men for most of history since cultivation of crops began. It started as a tool of control, and was passed down in an ingrained psyche we have still not fully escaped. But we can fully understand both that people borne into it assumed it to be an absolute of the world, the same as how many think copyright and intellectual property must be, while also recognizing how wrong they can be.
> Almost everyone I've ever discussed copyright with is perfectly capable of appreciating the systemic perpetuation of privilege that inheres in copyright monopolies. You're waving a bloody shirt for the moral equivalent of a paper cut; it's not OK to borrow the vastly more intense sufferings of others to make more of an emotional impact.
This is also the point. It is not about the privilege of the owners, it is about the damage inflicted by it. It is not about money earned but history, knowledge, and potential lost. You can see the immediate consequences of slavery, but also recognize that such a sin of culture has consequences in the potential of everyone involved beyond the subjugated. If a debate on copyright devolves into pursuits of wealth or privilege, the macro impact is already lost. In addition, anyone you are having a debate with is probably already putting in the effort. I speak of the other 99% of peoples who give it no consideration and assume it as natural as gravity or light.
And I'm not claiming to be some enlightened saint. As others have said, these flaws in social organization of peoples require mental effort to grasp and overcome. You always want to presume what you know is what is right, and I am certain I have my own assumptions that are as moralistically wrong as copyright that I have not yet, or may never, challenge. And hopefully whatever we are in that thousand years looks back and sees them all as backwards and unreasonable as we see so many historical practices as wrong.
> Almost everyone I've ever discussed copyright with is perfectly capable of appreciating the systemic perpetuation of privilege that inheres in copyright monopolies. You're waving a bloody shirt for the moral equivalent of a paper cut; it's not OK to borrow the vastly more intense sufferings of others to make more of an emotional impact.
This is also the point. It is not about the privilege of the owners, it is about the damage inflicted by it. It is not about money earned but history, knowledge, and potential lost. You can see the immediate consequences of slavery, but also recognize that such a sin of culture has consequences in the potential of everyone involved beyond the subjugated. If a debate on copyright devolves into pursuits of wealth or privilege, the macro impact is already lost. In addition, anyone you are having a debate with is probably already putting in the effort. I speak of the other 99% of peoples who give it no consideration and assume it as natural as gravity or light.
And I'm not claiming to be some enlightened saint. As others have said, these flaws in social organization of peoples require mental effort to grasp and overcome. You always want to presume what you know is what is right, and I am certain I have my own assumptions that are as moralistically wrong as copyright that I have not yet, or may never, challenge. And hopefully whatever we are in that thousand years looks back and sees them all as backwards and unreasonable as we see so many historical practices as wrong.