Can (Internet) Piracy ever be Justified?

[Hive Mind]

OT: Does a kid in a poor, 3rd world nation not have the right to play any games whatsoever, because not a SINGLE game Publishing company in the world, sends a Single copy of any of it's games to his/her country's shops? He loses the right to play video games, watch Int'l movies, or hear foreign music, because s/he just so happens to have been born to a couple living in said poor country?

I'm not going to answer that ofcourse. I'm just going to leave that there....

You aren't entitled to something because you have bad luck.

Oh no, this kid was born without arms, he's not entitled to help though, he was just unluckym

What part of 'help' reads as 'is entitled to steal video games'? Am I missing something?

Dont you think that these children deserve some kind of luxury? Something that can make them feel happier if even only for a few hours?

You don't magically become entitled to steal something because you have terrible luck.

Do I have to point you to the legal definition of theft and the legal definition of copyright infringement (the legal term for what we call piracy)? Because they're two different concepts.

Would you like to imply that being unlucky gives you the right to commit a crime other than stealing, such as copyright infringement? If not, your post adds nothing to the conversation and your strawman is an abysmal failure.

No, it's legitimate: we're talking morality here, I've never once said piracy was in any way legal. How is it that being lucky makes it morally right to have access to something, which being unlucky makes it morally wrong for one to have access to?

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

 

[Reaper195]

I buy just about everything I can. The only reason I'll pirate something is if it has next to no chance of coming out where I live (I live in New Zealand. It took nine fucking years before I found Boondock Saints on DVD ANYWHERE! But I did buy it three years after I downloaded it).

I'm not sure where I stand on piracy really. If you don't have the money, get a job, work more hours, or get a better job. If you're in a position to not be able to buy things (Bills higher, rent higher, etc), then just deal without them. But some things on the other hand are totally not worth the money. I'm glad I never paid for Twilight. I never knew anything about the series when I watched the first movie, got fourty minutes into it and told it to fuck right off. Average acting, shitty plot, shitty disgrace of an excuse for anything that drinks blood (Bring back 30 Days Of Night like vampires! They cool guys that eat your face!)

 

[Hive Mind]

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

Entitlement is a concept created by the elitists on top to keep the average man down.

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

OT: Does a kid in a poor, 3rd world nation not have the right to play any games whatsoever, because not a SINGLE game Publishing company in the world, sends a Single copy of any of it's games to his/her country's shops? He loses the right to play video games, watch Int'l movies, or hear foreign music, because s/he just so happens to have been born to a couple living in said poor country?

I'm not going to answer that ofcourse. I'm just going to leave that there....

You aren't entitled to something because you have bad luck.

Oh no, this kid was born without arms, he's not entitled to help though, he was just unluckym

What part of 'help' reads as 'is entitled to steal video games'? Am I missing something?

Dont you think that these children deserve some kind of luxury? Something that can make them feel happier if even only for a few hours?

You don't magically become entitled to steal something because you have terrible luck.

Do I have to point you to the legal definition of theft and the legal definition of copyright infringement (the legal term for what we call piracy)? Because they're two different concepts.

Would you like to imply that being unlucky gives you the right to commit a crime other than stealing, such as copyright infringement? If not, your post adds nothing to the conversation and your strawman is an abysmal failure.

No, it's legitimate: we're talking morality here, I've never once said piracy was in any way legal. How is it that being lucky makes it morally right to have access to something, which being unlucky makes it morally wrong for one to have access to?

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

No, I perfectly understood what you were saying; it's a common argument, and one which is blatantly hypocritical for exactly the reasons I pointed out. You're basically saying that luck of birth has more bearing than anything else, which is highly suspect, morally, and something that makes you at the very least appear to be an entitled rich person acting all high and mighty because a poor person tried to do something more than lick your boots, if not actually someone who holds that opinion.

 

[carelesshx]

I watched that show Cribs on MTV once.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

Entitlement is a concept created by the elitists on top to keep the average man down.

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

Theft (in English Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)

Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Please quit conflating them.

 

[Hive Mind]

OT: Does a kid in a poor, 3rd world nation not have the right to play any games whatsoever, because not a SINGLE game Publishing company in the world, sends a Single copy of any of it's games to his/her country's shops? He loses the right to play video games, watch Int'l movies, or hear foreign music, because s/he just so happens to have been born to a couple living in said poor country?

I'm not going to answer that ofcourse. I'm just going to leave that there....

You aren't entitled to something because you have bad luck.

Oh no, this kid was born without arms, he's not entitled to help though, he was just unluckym

What part of 'help' reads as 'is entitled to steal video games'? Am I missing something?

Dont you think that these children deserve some kind of luxury? Something that can make them feel happier if even only for a few hours?

You don't magically become entitled to steal something because you have terrible luck.

Do I have to point you to the legal definition of theft and the legal definition of copyright infringement (the legal term for what we call piracy)? Because they're two different concepts.

Would you like to imply that being unlucky gives you the right to commit a crime other than stealing, such as copyright infringement? If not, your post adds nothing to the conversation and your strawman is an abysmal failure.

No, it's legitimate: we're talking morality here, I've never once said piracy was in any way legal. How is it that being lucky makes it morally right to have access to something, which being unlucky makes it morally wrong for one to have access to?

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

No, I perfectly understood what you were saying; it's a common argument, and one which is blatantly hypocritical for exactly the reasons I pointed out. You're basically saying that luck of birth has more bearing than anything else, which is highly suspect, morally, and something that makes you at the very least appear to be an entitled rich person acting all high and mighty because a poor person tried to do something more than lick your boots, if not actually someone who holds that opinion.

Can you afford it?

A) Yes. Go to 1.
B) No. Go to 2.

1. Buy it.
2. Bad luck.

Why on Earth you would suddenly gain the right to steal something just because you can't afford it is beyond me.

Simple, really.

 

[Hive Mind]

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

On the contrary, they can steal it, not due to "rights", another ridiculous concept, but because... wait, I think someone else said it pretty well

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

Alright sweet

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

Entitlement is a concept created by the elitists on top to keep the average man down.

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

Theft (in English Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)

Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Please quit conflating them.

"The function of representation comes to grief when words lose their connections with things - in short, when language represents itself."
Mark Poster, The Mode Of Information

Says it all really.

Good day.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

OT: Does a kid in a poor, 3rd world nation not have the right to play any games whatsoever, because not a SINGLE game Publishing company in the world, sends a Single copy of any of it's games to his/her country's shops? He loses the right to play video games, watch Int'l movies, or hear foreign music, because s/he just so happens to have been born to a couple living in said poor country?

I'm not going to answer that ofcourse. I'm just going to leave that there....

You aren't entitled to something because you have bad luck.

Oh no, this kid was born without arms, he's not entitled to help though, he was just unluckym

What part of 'help' reads as 'is entitled to steal video games'? Am I missing something?

Dont you think that these children deserve some kind of luxury? Something that can make them feel happier if even only for a few hours?

You don't magically become entitled to steal something because you have terrible luck.

Do I have to point you to the legal definition of theft and the legal definition of copyright infringement (the legal term for what we call piracy)? Because they're two different concepts.

Would you like to imply that being unlucky gives you the right to commit a crime other than stealing, such as copyright infringement? If not, your post adds nothing to the conversation and your strawman is an abysmal failure.

No, it's legitimate: we're talking morality here, I've never once said piracy was in any way legal. How is it that being lucky makes it morally right to have access to something, which being unlucky makes it morally wrong for one to have access to?

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

No, I perfectly understood what you were saying; it's a common argument, and one which is blatantly hypocritical for exactly the reasons I pointed out. You're basically saying that luck of birth has more bearing than anything else, which is highly suspect, morally, and something that makes you at the very least appear to be an entitled rich person acting all high and mighty because a poor person tried to do something more than lick your boots, if not actually someone who holds that opinion.

Can you afford it?

A) Yes. Go to 1.
B) No. Go to 2.

1. Buy it.
2. Bad luck.

Why on Earth you would suddenly gain the right to steal something just because you can't afford it is beyond me.

Simple, really.

Because theft and copyright infringement are two completely different concepts, I even gave legal definitions for both one post up. The current copyright system has been rendered completely outdated by the internet, for purely practical reasons. Saying people in poor nations shouldn't pirate games is like, in a hypothetical situation where Star Trek style replicators suddenly came into existence, holding them back from ending world hunger and spreading luxury goods to the world just because they can make things that infringe on patents. Newsflash: in the world of supply and demand, an infinite supply makes the price free.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

On the contrary, they can steal it, not due to "rights", another ridiculous concept, but because... wait, I think someone else said it pretty well

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

Alright sweet

As you have failed to understand the conversation (as you weren't involved) I will show you your mistake:

I made the claim you are not entitled to commit piracy because you have bad luck. If you have the bad luck to be born so far from something and do not have the money to get to it that you will never have it, tough.

Entitlement is a concept created by the elitists on top to keep the average man down.

If someone wants something they do not suddenly have the right to steal it because they will never have it.

The world isn't nice or fair. It just is.

Theft (in English Common Law)

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)

Copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Please quit conflating them.

"The function of representation comes to grief when words lose their connections with things - in short, when language represents itself."
Mark Poster, The Mode Of Information

Says it all really.

Good day.

The disconnect is in your logic, not in my definitions; good day yourself.

 

[gardyna]

People made the claim about themselves, because they have the self knowledge to know they have done it. And by the way, you never did answer my question about youtube videos. Have you never watched a video that was put up by someone other than the copyright holder? have you never gone to youtube to look up a song? And if not youtube, then some other streaming video site? If you can say no to that question, I'm honestly puzzled at what you use the internet for.

A) You have pirated and therefore that is all the evidence you need that everyone in the world that uses the internet is a pirate? Your logic alludes me.

B) I don't use Youtube. I use my computer for MSN, writing my articles and playing my games.

Once again, you cannot provide any evidence at all and resort to 'because it just is' 'logic'.

http://www.tarkvaraliit.ee/UserFiles/.files/IDC%20Piracy%20Study%202009%20final%20report.pdf

go to page 7 to see a nice little graph (however this does not take into consideration youtube (which by what i gather from your previous posts you don't use)

I'd estimate (random guesing) that about 3 out of 5 people on the internet pirate copyrighted material in some shape or form. Piracy is a HUGE problem in the modern media and computer industry and should not be taken lightly couse it hurts the publishers retailers and developers(some of which are not in it for the "art"). my personal opinion of this matter is that pirating in 99,9% of cases is immoral and wrong(if a person who has copyright over the property says you are allowed to pirate his property go ahead but on other cases it's a NO.).

P.S. I'm not gona put myself on a high horse an say I have never pirated anything and I'm openly admiting to having even pirated 2 games (in both cases i regreted it so badly I went out and bought them legaly and am now keeping an eye on said developers so I can purchase their next product as soon as it comes out)

 

[ShakyFiend]

Considering piracy isnt really stealing in the usual sense (as Notch pointed out, you arnt actually taking a product, your copying it and taking that). Then I think it is justified in circumstances where the piratee has no other way of accessing the file. Someone living in eastern Estonia for example who has no access to a Gamestop, I would not have any problem with them pirating.

Otherwise, its just lazyness really, and its pretty much impossible to justify for anyone who can access the real copy.

 

[Penguin_Factory]

I generally don't go in for the "the evul corporate fatcats are charging too much, therefore I must pirate! Viva freedom!" argument, but there have been a handful of times when stuff really has been released at exorbitant prices.

For example, I'm an anime fan and I really want to get a Blu-Ray of the movie Wings of Honneamise. Unfortunately, the Blu-Ray was released for $80 dollars. Keep in mind this is a single movie, bot a box set or a series.

I haven't actually pirated this because I could still legally buy the old crappy DVD release, and I'm holding out hope that I might one day find a cheap copy of the Blu-Ray, but if someone else pirated it (and I gather that many people did) I couldn't really blame them. This is one of the very few instances where the "piracy as protest" idea holds any water for me.

The only other time I'll pirate is to get around region restrictions. When Silent Hill Shattered Memories came out I wanted to play the game early so badly that I modded my Wii and bought an American copy, but it turns out the mod chip wouldn't recognise the legit disc- it would, however, recognize a burned copy from the internet. Since I did actually pay for the game I don't feel bad about this.

 

[Agayek]

A husband and wife vaginally and anally rape and torture their eleven month old baby with a hammer over a period of several days, before then killing the newborn by bashing her skull in. They dispose of the corpse via a trash shoot. When asked why they committed the crimes they responded with: "Because it was fun." The women is currently serving a life sentence in my father's prison for, among other crimes, murder and rape.

Justify this for me.

P.S: Justify -

"To prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.
B (1): to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property"

Justification is a completely subjective thing. I'm sure the duo you describe here felt fully justified in their actions, because "it was fun".

When someone does something, they have a reason to do it. When someone has a reason to do something, that action is justified to themselves.

Our legal system is based on the morals and ethics of our society. These are molded by a wide variety of factors, and since I really don't want to get into a debate about psychology and the cultural zeitgeist I'm not going to go into too much detail. The fact of the matter is, what societies value and/or find morally just is purely subjective. A great quasi-modern example is Nazi Germany. They felt perfectly justified in the systematic murder of 11,000,000+ individuals. Our society disagreed, and we say it was unjustified. Then we fought a war over it.

There is no objective "this is right/that is wrong" standard, or at least not one comprehensible by the human mind. If an individual feels an act was just, it is justified for them, regardless of what the act itself was.

 

[AWC Viper]

My stance on piracy is like someone stealing my car, but it being there in the morning.

 

[Sammi Costello]

I'm a big fan of many RPGs, such as WoD, D&D, Eclipse Phase etc, trust me, the list goes on for quite a while - Shadowrun - sorry, I'll stop now.

My point, is that, while I have an extensive collection of hard copy books, it just isn't pracical to carry all of these books back and forth to whereever we're gaming at. Sure, I could just take 1 or 2, but, instead, I got PDF copies of all the books that I own on my laptop, and now I just take my laptop.

I'm not saying it justifies piracy, I'm just saying that at least I paid for the original content first.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

"The function of representation comes to grief when words lose their connections with things - in short, when language represents itself."
Mark Poster, The Mode Of Information

Says it all really.

Good day.

lolwot

It says it all, if "it all" is "I have no idea how to justify my own position, here is a quote from someone else. Quoting an author makes me right. Althought I tend to just stop arguing when confronted with points I can't respond to and go off of tangents instead. You know, like this one"

The sad thing is, if he really does stick to his "Good day" and leave the thread, all we've managed to do is out-troll a troll. Where are the moderators this morning, anyway? I reported this guy for inflammatory remarks several times, and going back through his post history, he has a history of ad hominem attacks, despite having less than 100 posts to his name.

 

[llubtoille]

It's fairly easy to self-justify your own piracy, especially if you know you'd have not bought it either way,
but trying to justify it to someone who disagrees with piracy is fighting a loosing battle XD

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The sad thing is, if he really does stick to his "Good day" and leave the thread, all we've managed to do is out-troll a troll. Where are the moderators this morning, anyway? I reported this guy for inflammatory remarks several times, and going back through his post history, he has a history of ad hominem attacks, despite having less than 100 posts to his name.

Yeah, I had some arguing with him last night too. It was kinda sad. I hate using the word "troll", but I swear he is. Nobody can be that dumb and hold such insane self-belief... right?

Look at the first three times he quoted me. He used inflammatory remarks specifically to get a rise out of me; that is the absolute definition of a troll.

 

[night_chrono]

words

Please answer this question then:

If it was the social norm for all forms of music and art to be freely exchanged, would you still be against it, and why?