Poll: Piracy is legal

[BrassButtons]

If I were to copy your profile image and use it for some forum that you had never heard of, then my action would not be effecting you in any way. You would never even find out. What's more, the people on that forum would admire the artwork and more people would be made happier from it, so why would you want to stop me? Why would you care?

You're right: if I never found out, I wouldn't care. Similarly if someone insulted you behind your back and you never found out, you wouldn't care. That doesn't mean you have to think it's okay for people to do that.

But let me ask you some questions: if you wanted to use my picture somewhere, why wouldn't you just ASK? Why would you simply take it? Do you think you're entitled to the image?

Given that he/she is already distributing that image over the internet for free right now, for all of us to download a copy through the net and see it, while calling it "stealing", I'm pretty sure that he is just sarcastically demonstrating exactly that.

I have the image online because I want people to be able to see it. That doesn't mean I'm cool with the idea of people taking it without permission--I know it will probably happen, but that doesn't mean I have to find it acceptable. It's a dick move, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone can disagree. Would it really be a herculean task to say "Hey, BB, mind if I copy that picture of yours?" If you admire the work enough to want to use it, why would you not give enough of a damn about the artist to show basic courtesy?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Did you pay to see a movie? Did you pay for the music you downloaded? Did you pay to play the game? If not then you're stealing.
Saying "oh it doesn't have a demo" isn't a good excuse. Saying "I'm not paying in protest of DRM" is not a good excuse if you download a copy to crack it. Owning a copy and cracking it is still an area I'm not 100% sure of, but to me isn't something I'd do since I've never had any issues arise from DRM that prevented me from playing.
Sorry folks, thats just the way I'm built. I feel the product requires payment unless it was already released FOR FREE by the creators/publishers. Otherwise no matter how you attempt to justify it, you ARE stealing. Digitally or physically isn't a debate its semantics.
Just like modding a multiplayer game is cheating piracy is stealing.
You wanna protest? DON'T PLAY THE GAME.

 

[Entitled]

Piracy isn't right. Maybe it's easier for me to get that taking the creation of another sucks for the creator since I come from a graphic design background but it has always just baffled me why people believe that it's OK to take something just because it's not a physical product (which always seems to be the primary argument for why it's not stealing and that makes it OK).

[examples]

While these examples are good proof that "it's OK to take something just if it's not a physical product" is a fallacy, because there ARE ways to harm someone without taking away their physical property, they don't prove anything about piracy itself. They are only connected through the increasingly shaky analogy of "theft".

But though your examples are immoral acts, they are not "theft" any more than copyright infringement is, these all fall into the category of "breaches of contract", and they all involve causing harm to the worker by implying that you are going to pay, and then refusing to do so after he investedtime in you. So yeah, theft is bad, and breach of contract is bad too. That in itself doesn't prove why a third, tangentially related act is also wrong.

It's like if you would say "if killing people would be murder, then killing kittens would also be murder, therefore killing the presence of modern sexism would also be a form of murder".

For beginners, copyright infringement doesn't automatically involve either taking anything, or even harming the worker, in the same way as a breach of contract would.

You say you have heard all debates about piracy. If that's the case, why are you starting with the most basic fallacy, and lining up a bunch of analogies where criminals actively harm others, to another where criminals refuse to actively support others?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Piracy is not theft, to whomever makes that absurd claim. It's copyright infringement. This can easily be confirmed by reading about the law. You're plain wrong and the law will clarify it.

Anyway, I don't particularly care, certainly I don't have any moral qualms. For one thing, I think companies like EA are doing more harm to the video game industry than any amount of piracy. They show the stupid ads in the cinemas now of barren movie theatres, promising the death of an industry and yet "Avatar" made over $2bill, "Avengers" probably close to the same. Seems like a rather large amount.

I actually believe that many of the suggested findings are true, insofar as people who download often then purchase what they enjoy (for example, downloading a "screener" ahead of a DVD release), own the albums for their favourite band(s), do in fact frequent live gigs and so on.

Anyway, I absolutely agree that distributing other peoples' products whether for profit or not (though more so for those reselling) is quite despicable. However I am all for the removal of restrictions, copy protections, limits and all forms of DRM. If you include Javik on the disc for example, then try to resell him separately I have no sympathy when people work out how to unlock him for themselves. In the same way that the guy who cracked CSS won his case against the DVD consortium, when he wanted to use his legally purchased products his way and power to him. When I buy something, it's mine to do with as I choose for my own personal use, not to be dictated to by the publisher.

And for anyone who thinks to call me a moral vacuum or other such thoughtless remarks, I would be deeply surprised if my Steam account isn't worth more than any 3 of yours combined.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

John Locke's philosophy was based around the idea of human rights and these included the right to property. Surely he of all people thought that the creator of a work should get his due from said work.

Property relates to "intellectual property", in the same way as a killer realates to a "killer app", or a nazi relates to a "grammar nazi".

It was always supposed to be a FIGURE OF SPEECH, an analogy to compare authoritive control over a set of monopolistic regulations over a piece of information, to physical control over a sack of wheat.

Besides, that phrase, "intellectual property" wasn't even invented until the 19th century, or popularized before the latter half of the 20th century, when the copyright industry picked it up it along with other faulty analogies, so it's unlikely that Locke would have ever had even a chance to fall for the rhetoric and think of "IP" rights, first described in the Statute of Monopolies as a set of "property laws".

Locke was an early founder of libertarianism, he would have believed that "your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I'm pretty sure that if Locke would have read a book from a writer against the writer's will, he wouldn't have considered it a case of "harming the writer", analogously to punching him in the face.

But the modern copyright ideology is a pretty anti-libertarian idea, it basically say that "the viewer's right to swing his fists ends where an artist feels intellectually violated".

It's not about protecting a creator's "property", but about giving a creator all sorts of extra rights over the free market, over free speech, and over controlling the minutae of your daily life to increase their profitability, and identifies the defiance against these monopolies as "harming the artist".

Yes it is a fairly modern invention, but then again it is digital media that truly revolutionized the entertainment industry. Earlier than the 19th century and plagarism of theater was rampant and authors attempted to combat it, however there were no legal protections. As for the relation of property, in a free market if no one is willing to give someone money to do something than it is not a profitable venture, and lets face it, the entertainment industry is dedicated to profit first, art second. In addtion creating something does give you certain rights over its usage and the like, just as making something physical from material freely avalible makes it yours, not everyones. A author deserves to profit from his own labors as much as any other worker. Of course intrusive and draconian measures to combat piracy are aginst libertarian philosophy but it would seem to me that protection of a person's rights to their own creation fits very well with libertarian philosophy.

 

[Entitled]

I have the image online because I want people to be able to see it. That doesn't mean I'm cool with the idea of people taking it without permission--I know it will probably happen, but that doesn't mean I have to find it acceptable. It's a dick move, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone can disagree. Would it really be a herculean task to say "Hey, BB, mind if I copy that picture of yours?" If you admire the work enough to want to use it, why would you not give enough of a damn about the artist to show basic courtesy?

Are you at least aware that you are reading a forum with various other people showing avatars with screensots and animations taken out of content created by other people?

On this page alone, I see a certain Admiral whose visage is currently owned by Disney, and a scene from the anime Deadman Wonderland. Do you feel worried that those people "stole" their avatars?

By the way, so far, yours is the most consistent claim in the thread so far.

I don't agree with it, of course, but at least you really demonstrate that you treat the obviously legal (Fair Use) instances of data sharing in the same way as illegal piracy.

 

[tippy2k2]

While these examples are good proof that "it's OK to take something just if it's not a physical product" is a fallacy, because there ARE ways to harm someone without taking away their physical property, they don't prove anything about piracy itself. They are only connected through the increasingly shaky analogy of "theft".

But though your examples are immoral acts, they are not "theft" any more than copyright infringement is, these all fall into the category of "breaches of contract", and they So yeah, theft is bad, and breach of contract is bad too. That in itself doesn't prove why a third, tangentially related act is also wrong.

It's like if you would say "if killing people would be murder, then killing kittens would also be murder, therefore killing the presence of modern sexism would also be a form of murder".

For beginners, copyright infringement doesn't automatically involve either taking anything, or even harming the worker, in the same way as a breach of contract would.

You say you have heard all debates about piracy. If that's the case, why are you starting with the most basic fallacy, and lining up a bunch of analogies where criminals actively harm others, to another where criminals refuse to actively support others?

Why is it "Actively harming" the mechanic who has used his time and resources to do something for you and not "Actively harming" the developer (who has dedicated time and resources to create the piece of content you are using)? Why is it OK to *steal from content creators but not people in your community who have provided a service for you? Why are these situations not the same? In any of those cases, you are taking something (time and resources) without giving something in return.

*I classify it as theft because you are taking money away from the people who created the game. I couldn't care less the actual charge would be if the police started breaking down doors. If you'd rather pretty it up and say "copyright infringe upon" or "breaking contract" then go ahead; those sound much less bad than steal so that makes it OK.

 

[BrassButtons]

Are you at least aware that you are reading a forum with various other people showing avatars with screensots and animations taken out of content created by other people?

Of course I'm aware of that. The creators of said content may or may not be bothered by this use of their work. How does that impact how *I* should feel about *MY* work?

On this page alone, I see a certain Admiral whose visage is currently owned by Disney, and a scene from the anime Deadman Wonderland. Do you feel worried that those people "stole" their avatars?

Does it worry me? No. Do I think it's a good thing to do? Again, no. Which is part of the reason why I don't use such images as my avatar.

I don't agree with it, of course, but at least you really demonstrate that you treat the obviously legal (Fair Use) instances of data sharing in the same way as illegal piracy.

I wasn't aware forum avatars fell under Fair Use. But I'm not arguing that legal = right, so that doesn't really matter.

 

[Entitled]

Did you pay to see a movie? Did you pay for the music you downloaded? Did you pay to play the game? If not then you're stealing.

Today, I downloaded Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Ludwig van Beethoven's Für Elise. Was I stealing any of them?

 

[Brainwreck]

Online piracy is a completely new and unprecedented form of 'crime'. Humanity has yet to deal with it, morally and otherwise, because it can't just be filed under theft.
And it's not illegal where I live, so I come from the other side of the fence.

On the other hand, the law is not sufficient as a moral basis, and I know that my moral compass is already skewed towards the 'if it's a minor crime and/or you're not causing much harm, it's ok' attitude, so I should probably not decide what's wrong and right with regards to this issue.

Why the fuck did I post this again?

 

[General Twinkletoes]

I don't see how the legality of piracy ever really mattered to anyone, who apart from a few providers was actually was at risk of being caught and punished?

It's always been a morality thing. Whether it's legal or not, my opinion stays the same.

I almost don't know what to say - it's fundamentally a legal question. Asking whether piracy is "okay" is basically asking "is it legal?" Copyright infringement is a legal concept with a legal definition. Morality never really comes into it.

It's not like, say, lying, which can sometimes be illegal (such as with fraud) but which is fundamentally a moral question. Copyright infringement only exists because the law has created intellectual property rights to be infringed. It has zero basis in moral principles. Even "giving the creator their due" isn't a foundation principle for copyright law - if it was, the rights would be inalienable like they are in Germany, meaning the creator can never sell them away.

Basically, it's a bad thing because the law says so, not because people actually think it's a bad thing. I don't think I've ever met anyone face-to-face who sincerely thought pirates were bad people.

I don't think pirates are bad people, but that doesn't mean piracy isn't a morally wrong thing. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with it? Only a few providers are at risk of getting caught, everyone who doesn't pirate does it because they think it's morally right, not because they're afraid of getting punished.

Honestly, you see nothing morally wrong with piracy?

 

[BrassButtons]

Online piracy is a completely new and unprecedented form of 'crime'.

This isn't entirely true. The online part is correct, but the idea of copying someone else's work being a crime is fairly old. Cartographers used to intentionally misspell certain town names on their maps so that they could prove if someone else copied their maps, for instance.

Copying was a lot HARDER before the internet, but it was not an unknown problem.

 

[Entitled]

Are you at least aware that you are reading a forum with various other people showing avatars with screensots and animations taken out of content created by other people?

Of course I'm aware of that. The creators of said content may or may not be bothered by this use of their work. How does that impact how *I* should feel about *MY* work?

Well, if you know about a forum where you accidentally end up stealing from artists from day to day, and you consider that "stealing" such an abhorrent crime, I would expect that you wouldn't want to go there again.

 

[joshthor]

I think its important that piracy is decriminalized. The fact that there can be stricter penalties for internet piracy than actual physical theft is a ridiculous abuse of the legal system. That being said piracy is IMO morally wrong. However, morals are just that - opinion. Thus content providers need to go on the offensive and make their stuff worth buying. Insensitive buyers instead of hurting them for actually buying. (*cough* *cough* command and conquer 4 *cough*)

 

[Mikeyfell]

The way I look at it is that if someone releases something for retail it is going to be pirated by some percent of people. so if you don't feel inclined to pay for it that's your prerogative.

But if you pay for it, that means it's all the more likely that that company is going to keep making things like the thing you payed for.

Morality is subjective but if you're pirating something you like and/or want to see more of you're stupid.

Same thing goes with used stuff.
Buying used is fine, unless you want to see the squeal.

 

[Entitled]

Yes it is a fairly modern invention, but then again it is digital media that truly revolutionized the entertainment industry. Earlier than the 19th century and plagarism of theater was rampant and authors attempted to combat it, however there were no legal protections.

No, you misunderstand me. IP laws existed before the 19th century. Th Statute of Monopolies in 1624 was the first patent law, and the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 was the first copyright act. The Statute of Anne in 1710 was the first one that gave rights to the writers and not to the printers.

IP is old. It is the PHRASE "intellectual property", that is a very new invention.

As for the relation of property, in a free market if no one is willing to give someone money to do something than it is not a profitable venture, and lets face it, the entertainment industry is dedicated to profit first, art second.

What does this have to do with relation to property? My farts are not selling on the free market, that doesn't make them property.

 

[LetalisK]

The morality of piracy is not dependent on the legality of the act and vice versa.

In my opinion, piracy is immoral in general, though more often than not I have difficulty seeing it as wrong...which I know doesn't make sense.

 

[BrassButtons]

Well, if you know about a forum where you accidentally end up stealing from artists from day to day, and you consider that "stealing" such an abhorrent crime, I would expect that you wouldn't want to go there again.

I'm sorry, in what way am I stealing (or infringing copyright, or whatever term you'd prefer to use) by viewing this site? I don't hold myself responsible for what other people do with their avatars. You might as well say that because people shoplift at the mall, and I oppose shoplifting, I shouldn't go to the mall.

 

[Entitled]

I'm sorry, in what way am I stealing (or infringing copyright, or whatever term you'd prefer to use) by viewing this site? I don't hold myself responsible for what other people do with their avatars. You might as well say that because people shoplift at the mall, and I oppose shoplifting, I shouldn't go to the mall.

I'm talking about all those Ackbar heads and angry pandas and anime sequences that you just downloaded into your computer's RAM memory.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Why is it "Actively harming" the mechanic who has used his time and resources to do something for you and not "Actively harming" the developer (who has dedicated time and resources to create the piece of content you are using)? Why is it OK to *steal from content creators but not people in your community who have provided a service for you? Why are these situations not the same? In any of those cases, you are taking something (time and resources) without giving something in return.

*I classify it as theft because you are taking money away from the people who created the game. I couldn't care less the actual charge would be if the police started breaking down doors. If you'd rather pretty it up and say "copyright infringe upon" or "breaking contract" then go ahead; those sound much less bad than steal so that makes it OK.

Well, the person you're quoting will defend himself, pretty easily since you're misinterpreting what he was saying, but I take issue with your concept of "taking." In this instance, that term doesn't seem applicable, since it applies to data and does not involve actively or, hell, even passively "taking" the developer's "time and resources."

Technically, the publisher did that when they hired the developer and paid them for their time. They took their time and resources in exchange for payment. The devs earn royalties for copies, certainly, but you're not really making an accurate comparison.

It especially isn't THEFT. Look up the legal definitions for all of the terms that are being used in place of THEFT.

Physically taking someone's book from them then walking away with it is theft. Copying data is copyright infringement. Robbery is pointing a gun at someone and stealing their wallet.

Note the differences. >.>