Poll: Can piracy be justified?

[4RM3D]

Surprised you didn't have broken/lost disk on there. If I lost a disk for some old game I see no issue with pirating.

I didn't think of everything. Also, it has never happened to me. I always take very good care of my game and movie collection, unlike some people I know.

I think it can be trivializes too.

I mean, if 2 Million people have downloaded a game, and you decide to as well.

You're really not hurting anyone at that stage, it's gone beyond the point of being a meaningful amount.

Not to say you should, but, being one in two million or something means very little.

One in two million is very little, but the argument itself is faulty. If everyone would start pirating then the media will either cease to exist from lack of profit or the business model for that media will change and by that extend probably the media itself.

It doesn't matter if you are one of two million or one of two. You should take responsibility for your own actions and not hide behind numbers. Not saying that you aren't taking responsibility; just pointing out the fallacy.

"I think these people have enough money" does not give you the right to be a thief. Stealing is illegal. And no amount of bullshit self-justification is going to protect you from a charge of copyright infringment.

But piracy is not stealing. It's copyright infringement, that's different.

 

[deathzero021]

Here's what i always thought of online "piracy":
1. it's not f***ing piracy! it's file-sharing.
2. You are not stealing from someone forcibly.
3. it's sharing something the same way you share a movie with your friends at your house.
4. duplication has existed for a very long time. photocopy a book, write down notes from a book, record cassette tapes from the radio or make a copy, burn CD's and record television with VHS tapes. Why it's a problem today? i don't know.
5. Nobody is making money off of sharing so i don't see how it's "copy-right infringement"
6. companies are just being douchebags and thinking they can make more money if they fight against file-sharing.
7. you should never have criminal charges for such a thing.

 

[The Lunatic]

One in two million is very little, but the argument itself is faulty. If everyone would start pirating then the media will either cease to exist from lack of profit or the business model for that media will change and by that extend probably the media itself.

It doesn't matter if you are one of two million or one of two. You should take responsibility for your own actions and not hide behind numbers. Not saying that you aren't taking responsibility; just pointing out the fallacy.

But not everyone will.

If it ever got to that stage, nothing would be released in the first place.


But, people are always going to buy things.

This is why music still exists, despite something like 90% piracy rate, people still buy it.

I'm just saying that, at 2 Million pirated copies, you're not going to change a thing, the game has likely ran it's course and sold all the copies it's going to sell, and been pirated the most amount of times it's going to be pirated it.


Not to say you shouldn't buy it, but, regardless of your actions at that stage, you're going to get the same thing either way.

If you enjoy a game, you should always seek to fund the developer, however. This is without doubt.

 

[In Search of Username]

No. Not in ANY case. And for a single reason that nobody seems to notice.

There are a lot of reasons people will give to justify piracy, such as price, business practices personal taste of the choice of game/film/ect. But if you're still pirating the game/film to play/watch it, it renders all your reasons meangless because it's still worth owning despite the flaws. And it's it's worth owning, it's worth paying for.

If you're going to pirate, then pirate. But admit that you're doing it for the same reason everyone else is doing. Because you don't want to pay for anything. Don't pretend you're some Robin Hood standing up for consumer rights, when all you are is a thief.

Because none of your justifications are going to have any merit if the police come knocking at your door. And contrary to popular belief, you don't get to shirk the law when it becomes bothersome to you.

How about the argument that, for example, the band you're illegally downloading music from already have far more money than you will ever see in your life, whereas you, the person downloading the music, may not have much money at all? How can you possibly argue that they need your money more than you do? They're not going to struggle because they don't have it. They're not even going to notice the difference.

Honestly, I think the only time you can argue against piracy is when you're talking about some indie game or some obscure music made by people who will really be affected by your piracy.

No. Being wealthy does not make your ownership of your music/game/film any less valid. If you want music, pay for it. If you don't have a lot of money, don't buy the music. It's not "don't buy it and steal it" it's "do without." Stealing a big Triple-A game is just as wrong as stealing an indie game. Rich people have the right to their intellectual property just like your or I do.

Once again, nobody needs entertainment products. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is one thing, but music and games are not something you have a right to. They are luxuries you indulge in if you have the resources to do it. The wealth of the provider is irrelevant, it does not make the effort they put into creating their work any less valuable.

How can the music I want to listen to be an unnecessary luxury while piling even more money on top of an already vast fortune is perfectly reasonable as long as it's 'earned'? Your idea of morality must be very different from mine. Everyone needs to make a living, but if you have so much money that any contribution from me becomes meaningless, I don't feel the need to pile on more. Just as by the same logic I wouldn't have a problem giving money to charity without ensuring they'd definitely 'earned' it. It goes both ways.

There's a reason those people are weathly. They make something people want.

"I think these people have enough money" does not give you the right to be a thief. Stealing is illegal. And no amount of bullshit self-justification is going to protect you from a charge of copyright infringment.

Yeah, and now they have all that money so we should move on to giving it to someone else who makes something people want but hasn't been as successful yet.

Well yeah. We're talking about our personal morality here, none of us are under the impression we'd be able to argue against the law no matter how wrong we think it is. That doesn't make me feel any differently, nor should it.

 

[Genocidicles]

I believe it is justified unless the person who you're stealing from is an indie musician or author.

Otherwise the majority of the money is just going to the publishers, who are unnecessary middlemen in this day and age.

It's not so cut and dry with games or movies though, as there are huge teams making those, and they need funding from a publisher/studio. So unless the publisher/studio is an asshole (With awful DRM, or trying to force through crap like SOPA) it's not ok to pirate their stuff.

 

[4RM3D]

Here's what i always thought of online "piracy":
1. it's not f***ing piracy! it's file-sharing.
2. You are not stealing from someone forcibly.
3. it's sharing something the same way you share a movie with your friends at your house.
4. duplication has existed for a very long time. photocopy a book, write down notes from a book, record cassette tapes from the radio or make a copy, burn CD's and record television with VHS tapes. Why it's a problem today? i don't know.
5. Nobody is making money off of sharing so i don't see how it's "copy-right infringement"
6. companies are just being douchebags and thinking they can make more money if they fight against file-sharing.
7. you should never have criminal charges for such a thing.

3. Amongst friends? Yes. On the Internet? No. Even before the rise of the Internet, it was not allowed to show a copyrighted movie in a public area (e.g. school), without consent.
4. Duplication has existed for a long time, yes. But when we went digital, duplication became a lot easier and cheaper and most important of all, it became exactly like the original product without any loss in quality.
5. That is not true. Torrent sites make loads of money. Also, copyright infringement says nothing about making money. If you share a copyrighted video for free, it's still copyright infringement.
7. True

 

[Olas]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

 

[Reaper195]

I only pirate stuff if I can't legitimately buy a copy (And if it's a game or movie, fuck buying it from overseas, since it's always region locked), or if I have no money. At the moment, I've got no job and I;ve downloaded a fair amount of stuff. The moment I get a job and some decent money rolling in and bills paid, I plan on buying those things.

 

[crazyrabbits]

No, its not a strawman argument. Murder is seen as worse or more offensive then piracy. If it can be justified then surly piracy can be more easily justified.

Also, just because something isn't available to you doesn't entitle you to be able to get a copy. The copyright owner has the right to say 'fuck it' and keep anyone from every getting a copy. 'I can't get it otherwise' is not a proper justification in and of itself.

Yes, it is a strawman, and your follow-up justification is incorrect. Murders, by and large, are much more publicized than piracy, which (most of the time) is small-scale in nature. I don't know of anyone who would rationalize an argument that someone who takes a life/multiple lives is on the same level as someone sharing or copying existing data, which is not deleted in the latter case. It's a fallacy and strawman, so you need to stop bringing it up, because you're wrong. Plain and simple.

As far as your second point goes, if the copyright owner deliberately doesn't make their product available, and there's a demand from the public for it, it's their loss if people download it. The copyright owner is simply not capitalizing on potential profit. I'm not justifying it. I'm just pointing out that people will gravitate towards the method of distribution (legal/illegal) which is the easiest to access. If the owner doesn't make/doesn't want to have their product available, it's their problem when people download it.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Yes, if you can't find what you're looking for anymore, like really old games or something they no longer sell in stores.

 

[In Search of Username]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

 

[Phlakes]

It's all a bunch of shades of grey (don't), but if you have relatively easy access to the game, then the answer is pretty much no. The only times it moves over the a lighter part of the spectrum is something like when the game isn't available in your region, or it's an old one that you can't find without spending $500 on eBay.

But people who pirate in protest or because they "can't afford" it, that's bullshit, and they're criminals.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You can justify anything. That doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong or right. There are stone cold murders who think they've done nothing wrong and are perfectly justified.

That's a strawman argument. The taking of a human life in no way equates to copying or sharing data.

Again, if a product isn't available in your country (and never will be), its copyright owner has suppressed all avenues of obtaining it legally, and/or it has been out of print for years, there's nothing wrong with downloading a copy. The owner isn't losing a sale simply because they didn't make it available in the first place.

No, its not a strawman argument. Murder is seen as worse or more offensive then piracy. If it can be justified then surly piracy can be more easily justified.

Also, just because something isn't available to you doesn't entitle you to be able to get a copy. The copyright owner has the right to say 'fuck it' and keep anyone from every getting a copy. 'I can't get it otherwise' is not a proper justification in and of itself.

Wow.. actually yes, yes it does. If the owner doesn't want to make available what he has, then he is not being harmed in the slightest if you obtain a copy. He wasn't going to make money off it anyways, but if it suddenly does become available, you should probably go buy a copy.

Having said all of that... the copyright apologists in forum never fail to amaze me, people really need to understand how flawed copyright and IP laws are. Just because they are *legal* (and mostly due to corporate lobbying by corporations who would murder you for extra profits if they could), does not make them right.

Also logical fallacy with your first example, a straw man to be exact. ANYTHING can be rationalized by anyone, it does not suddenly make your analogy correct. Especially "stone cold murders" who are likely insane.

You do realize that your argument that I'm making a straw-man argument relies on you accepting that my initial argument, anything can be rationalized, is true. Thus you've invalidated the whole exchange by accepting the reasoning I initially started with. i don't care about arguing what thing is more morally wrong I was only stating that anything can be rationalized, thus pointing out the flaw in the logic of this thread's whole question. Talking about whether piracy can be rationalized is pointless. Arguing about copyright law or the goals of laws that prevent piracy would be interesting.

Also,about your first statement. Your essentially saying that if the owner does not wish to make copies of his work available, for whatever reason and giving whatever resulting context, then you should still be able to get a copy. Thus the owner has no right to control distribution of his work. Thus he has no control over his work and idea. To this statement I can only make one response: "Go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars." I believe in people having the right to control their creations and ideas and I consider it theft to steal intangible possessions as much as stealing tangible ones. Copyright law may suck ass but the core idea is still one worth defending.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You can justify anything. That doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong or right. There are stone cold murders who think they've done nothing wrong and are perfectly justified.

That's a strawman argument. The taking of a human life in no way equates to copying or sharing data.

Again, if a product isn't available in your country (and never will be), its copyright owner has suppressed all avenues of obtaining it legally, and/or it has been out of print for years, there's nothing wrong with downloading a copy. The owner isn't losing a sale simply because they didn't make it available in the first place.

No, its not a strawman argument. Murder is seen as worse or more offensive then piracy. If it can be justified then surly piracy can be more easily justified.

Also, just because something isn't available to you doesn't entitle you to be able to get a copy. The copyright owner has the right to say 'fuck it' and keep anyone from every getting a copy. 'I can't get it otherwise' is not a proper justification in and of itself.

Then what *is* a proper justification for morality?

For example, what entitles the copyright owners to their "right to say 'fuck it'"?

There is no proper justification for morality, it's subjective. However when it comes to this issue, the law lets a person do that. You can argue that the law should change and state opinion and such but its still the law and my opinion is that the core idea of that law is good. If the previous poster had been more explicit on the idea that he opposed said laws and thinks his idea are correct, I probably wouldn't have bother to respond, but his brazen disregard for the law and issues and simply stating his idea as if it was undeniable irked me.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No, its not a strawman argument. Murder is seen as worse or more offensive then piracy. If it can be justified then surly piracy can be more easily justified.

Also, just because something isn't available to you doesn't entitle you to be able to get a copy. The copyright owner has the right to say 'fuck it' and keep anyone from every getting a copy. 'I can't get it otherwise' is not a proper justification in and of itself.

Yes, it is a strawman, and your follow-up justification is incorrect. Murders, by and large, are much more publicized than piracy, which (most of the time) is small-scale in nature. I don't know of anyone who would rationalize an argument that someone who takes a life/multiple lives is on the same level as someone sharing or copying existing data, which is not deleted in the latter case. It's a fallacy and strawman, so you need to stop bringing it up, because you're wrong. Plain and simple.

As far as your second point goes, if the copyright owner deliberately doesn't make their product available, and there's a demand from the public for it, it's their loss if people download it. The copyright owner is simply not capitalizing on potential profit. I'm not justifying it. I'm just pointing out that people will gravitate towards the method of distribution (legal/illegal) which is the easiest to access. If the owner doesn't make/doesn't want to have their product available, it's their problem when people download it.

Wait, what? I said murder was worse then piracy and you agreed but disagreed... or are you saying that they're incomparable? Are you saying that one being worse means it can be justified but something else bad can't? I don't know what just happened.

Yeah, it is their problem. They want to, for whatever reason, not distribute their idea/product/whatever, which is legally theirs and people are doing what they like anyways. It's also the problem of the victim when their house is burglarized. That's why laws exist to combat such situations.

 

[4RM3D]

Talking about whether piracy can be rationalized is pointless. Arguing about copyright law or the goals of laws that prevent piracy would be interesting.

Feel free to give your insight/opinion on copyright laws or the goals of laws that prevent piracy.

I believe in people having the right to control their creations and ideas and I consider it theft to steal intangible possessions as much as stealing tangible ones. Copyright law may suck ass but the core idea is still one worth defending.

Yes, people have the right to control their own creations (not withstanding contracts with companies/publishers). But if people don't care about releasing their product in certain parts of the world, then by extend, they also don't care about profit in those parts. That might not justify piracy, but it would come a long way to rationalize it. To throw it in an even more gray area, those people usually have a contract with a publisher and thus it is the publisher's choice not to release the product in certain countries. I am willing to respect a person's individual choice not to release a product in certain countries. But screw the publisher; they only care about money.

 

[Aaron Foltz]

I use to pirate PC games when I lost my job. Was on foodstamps and had little money for entertainment. So I pirated BUT now since I got a well paying job I have since bought every game I pirated, for real.

 

[afroebob]

I think that it is justifiable if the software you are pirating is not being made anymore (old games, computer programs, etc.), if it is unattainable in your country (China is a big example), and if the product is ridiculously overpriced. DRM is a tough one, I mean if you really have a problem with the DRM just download a crack.

 

[Olas]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

But doesn't it defeat the entire point of a law if the only ones we follow are the ones we already agree anyway and therefore would obey anyway? A law, in order to be effective has to restrict people from doing things they'd normally choose to do on our own. If we pick and choose which laws to follow we've essentially removed their purpose in the first place and yes that does make you an anarchist, even if you don't realize it.

For example, take the Joker from TDK. He obeys many many laws in that movie, it's illegal to rape people and he never rapes anyone. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated and we never see him do that. It doesn't make him any less of an anarchist. It's because he doesn't have any intention of doing these things in the first place, regardless of their legality.
So that fact that there are some rules you choose to obey doesn't really mean anything.

Believing that laws should exist but then choosing to disregard whichever ones you don't like just makes you a hypocritical anarchist.

 

[In Search of Username]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

But doesn't it defeat the entire point of a law if the only ones we follow are the ones we already agree anyway and therefore would obey anyway? A law, in order to be effective has to restrict people from doing things they'd normally choose to do on our own. If we pick and choose which laws to follow we've essentially removed their purpose in the first place and yes that does make you an anarchist, even if you don't realize it.

For example, take the Joker from TDK. He obeys many many laws in that movie, it's illegal to rape people and he never rapes anyone. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated and we never see him do that. It doesn't make him any less of an anarchist. It's because he doesn't have any intention of doing these things in the first place, regardless of their legality.
So that fact that there are some rules you choose to obey doesn't really mean anything.

Believing that laws should exist but then choosing to disregard whichever ones you don't like just makes you a hypocritical anarchist.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it does. I believe that laws should exist because most of them are vital to keep society working, but some of them I disagree with and would prefer not to exist. In an ideal world, I'd hope they'd be changed and thus I could be entirely lawful as well as true to my own moral code. But in the absence of that, I don't see what's wrong with breaking the occasional rule that I disagree with. It's like, I dunno, provisional anarchy. There's little hope of all the laws I disagree with being changed any time soon, so it's either that or blindly follow all laws whether or not they conflict with my views - and if everyone did that, laws would never change in the first place.

For example by your logic, anyone who lives under some kind of totalitarian regime has the option of either being considered an anarchist (regardless of how they'd feel towards living in a more democratic state) or being entirely subservient. So I think calling someone an anarchist for disagreeing with certain laws is too simplistic a view. I'd concede that disobeying laws is partially anarchistic but by your definition there is no difference between someone who rejects all forms of authority and someone who rejects only those they consider unjust.