/Southern Hick accent: C'mon Skeeter! Mak'em Squeal!!!Mikeyfell said:
That aside there are some very valid arguements on both sides of the issue and I'm going to continue reading.
Poll: Piracy is legal
- Thread starter Entitled
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That aside there are some very valid arguements on both sides of the issue and I'm going to continue reading.
The physical work isn't stolen; the image is (and yes, I realize calling it "stealing" is playing fast and loose with the language, but I think you can understand what I mean). Thing is, you can't really separate the image from the piece in the image--that picture would not exist had the piece not been made, which means that the effort that went into making that piece is also part of what went into making the picture. Additionally, often when people do that (copy an image of someone else's chainmail and put it on their own site without attribution) the effect is to make it seem as though the copycat actually made the piece. When someone puts hours of effort into making something, and then puts additional effort into taking a good photograph of it (my avatar picture is actually a bad example of that part--but really good chainmail photography involves a lot more than just pointing and shooting) it's more than a little aggravating to see other people just copy the image onto their own site without bothering to even say "please". Which, in most cases, is all that would be required.Spitfire said:
This specific instance doesn't bother me, for a few reasons. First, you deliberately got my attention so that I would know you were doing it--which isn't quite the same as asking permission beforehand, but it's close enough. Second, anyone looking at your post can tell that the image is mine and that you copied it.Dr. Cakey said:BrassButtons said:
Thoughts?
Now, if I were just browsing the Escapist one day and saw that you had my image as your avatar, and you had never attempted to talk to me about it, and you didn't have anything anywhere showing that I had created the image, then I would probably be PMing a mod right now.
It's not the "people using other people's work" thing that bothers me. It's the sense of entitlement. Asking permission to use something is not a Herculean task, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset when people refuse to put forth even that amount of effort. Especially when you consider the amount of effort I had to put forth to get the same picture.
If movie producers had a deal with critics where critics would get copies of the movie, BUT they had to give good reviews, then the situation would be more analogous because "give a good review" would be part of the criteria for getting access to the movie--just as "pay our asking price" might be part of the criteria for getting a game from a developer. I say "part of" because they may have other criteria as well, such as agreeing not to resell the game, or not to lend it to people.
This also hilites the problem with using lazy language to discuss piracy (and I am 100% in a glass house here, as pretty much all of my posts in this thread will show). If you think the issue is solely one of money lost or opportunity lost, then it's hard to see a problem with a lot of piracy. But that's not really the issue--copyright is. Who should be allowed to make decisions regarding how works are copied? From my (admittedly biased) perspective it seems like the two main views are "the content creator, because they made it" and "me, because I want it."
Anyone who decides the morality of something based on the law, whether they agree with it or not, needs to become more of an independent thinker.
Piracy can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. It's legality makes no difference to me.
Piracy can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. It's legality makes no difference to me.
Depends on the reason why you pirate, I guess. I buy games because I want to, not because I'm afraid of getting arrested. And of course, the vast majority of my library is on steam. Why? Because Steam has become more user-friendly and convenient than piracy.
Funny, huh? They made me want to give them money so I give them money. Isn't it amazing how far a bit of customer service can get you?
That does not mean I would pirate games if it weren't for steam but Steam (and GOG as well) is pretty much the reason why I'm happy with my decision not to do so.
As for the moral standpoint... I'm not sure I want to engage in debates on morality again, they require too much thinking and I'm way too lazy for that right now. Though there's this episode of extra credits on piracy which sort of outlines in which cases they consider piracy to be morally acceptable. Like games that are not and will most likely never be obtainable in your country, games you already own but can't access at the moment... I do agree with that at least, it seems like a reasonable middle ground in this particular debate.
Funny, huh? They made me want to give them money so I give them money. Isn't it amazing how far a bit of customer service can get you?
That does not mean I would pirate games if it weren't for steam but Steam (and GOG as well) is pretty much the reason why I'm happy with my decision not to do so.
As for the moral standpoint... I'm not sure I want to engage in debates on morality again, they require too much thinking and I'm way too lazy for that right now. Though there's this episode of extra credits on piracy which sort of outlines in which cases they consider piracy to be morally acceptable. Like games that are not and will most likely never be obtainable in your country, games you already own but can't access at the moment... I do agree with that at least, it seems like a reasonable middle ground in this particular debate.
The way I see it, having a video game isn't some inalienable right, so if you have the ability to purchase a game but lack the funds, or just don't feel like giving money to EA or some other disreputable company, tough titty, save some money or just don't play the game. If you physically cannot get your hands on the game and there is no possible way to purchase it via the internet because you live in China or something, than in that instance and similar instances pirating is ok, I suppose.
The problem is exactly that both of these two views are exaggerated craziness, that wouldn't work at all if it would be applied ad absurdum.BrassButtons said:
If artists would truly have TOTAL control over content that they make, they would have an absurd dominance over free speech, by being able to censor any line that was quoted from a copyrighted book. The heirs of artists, and the publisher companies would control all media that was ever released since 1710. They wouldn't have to tolerate parodies, or critical analyses using their copyrighted characters and settings that belong to them. Thus, established copyright holders they would be able to dictate every element of modern culture. The publisher's control over individual usage would extend to limiting used sales, deciding how many people are allowed to read/view/play a single copy, even if that number is "one", and for how long can that person keep it.
There is no copyright on Earth that would give that much powers to publishers, and not many copyright apologists who would want them to. They are content with artists getting a certain set of monopolies. a Public Domain right after a given number of years, consumer rights to keep their once bought copies, Fair Use rights to make normal discourse about culture possible, etc.
Because IP laws aren't really about giving publishers TOTAL CONTROL, but about giving them reasonable amounts of control in an area where individual freedoms are involved as well.
On the other hand, what most "piracy apologists" say, is also just another method of giving publishers reasonable amounts of control, even they have a separate definition of "reasonable".
You would be hard-pressed to find any pirate in this thread, who would want to legalize outright intentionally misleading plagiarism, or commercial sale of another publisher's content. They are all about "artists being in control" in these areas.
The way I see it, the only difference between the two groups is exactly HOW MUCH artist control, and how much individual control they want, with the most important matter of difference would be the individual's right to download digital copies non-commercially, with some other petty sideline issues, such as how long the copyright length should be, or how liberal Fair Use should be (e.g: should single movie scenes be taken down from youtube or not).
Well that's an interesting one, because it's applied very inconsistently. Music, for example, is the loosest. It's so deeply expected that people copy music that even Windows Media Player has a 'Rip' button. I can also record anything played on TV. The Supreme Court said so. But I can't copy movies - or, rather, I can't copy a movie I got on DVD, but I can copy a movie if it's playing on TV. Wait...what?BrassButtons said:
This is why you can't buy software anymore. No, really. Most of the time, you can only purchase a license granting limited use of software. Because it's so easy to copy, corporations outright state that you do not own what you purchase. Ditto with Steam and other digital distribution services, by the way.
My concept of ownership is simple - excessively simple. You give something to someone else, they can do whatever they want with it. Even if it's digital. And that includes uploading that something and letting people download it for free. And now all those people own it (because it was given to them) and can do the same.
Is that a broken system? Er...maybe, but I really don't care. At all.
If the fact that piracy is illegal doesn't matter to most people on the internet, who constantly argue about it purely on moral grounds with complete disregard to legality, then why would making it legal suddenly matter? If it was immoral before it's immoral now.
For the record, while I believe that morality and legality are separate things, if you believe in your countries legal system as a whole then you should obey all it's laws, not just the ones you morally agree with. Picking and choosing which laws you'll follow renders the entire system obsolete.
Perhaps you could go into more detail.
For the record, while I believe that morality and legality are separate things, if you believe in your countries legal system as a whole then you should obey all it's laws, not just the ones you morally agree with. Picking and choosing which laws you'll follow renders the entire system obsolete.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.AnarchistFish said:
Perhaps you could go into more detail.
only when there is no other way to get the product in question.
For example when it's not licensed in you region or out of print.
For example when it's not licensed in you region or out of print.
Depends entirely on the context. Seeing how no-one suffers a loss of property due to pirating, as the file is still there no matter how many people download it, the only real argument against it is the loss of money by the proprietor and creator. If said creator is Hollywood, and you're pirating the latest blockbuster, then I really doubt they're going to miss the £10 or so you would have paid for a DVD. If you're pirating music made by some guy in his bedroom who gets a few downloads a month and is asking under £1 for tracks he's put weeks of work into, then you're an arsehole.
I just learned in which countries I will not publish the orchestra's original composments/arragments or music recordings.
Very few people are able to put them self's in to a place of a creative artist who try's to live off he's/her's works. They think it is O.K to get it without paying for it. Because it is culture and culture belongs to all, insert piracy justification here*.
Very few people are able to put them self's in to a place of a creative artist who try's to live off he's/her's works. They think it is O.K to get it without paying for it. Because it is culture and culture belongs to all, insert piracy justification here*.
Being a virtue ethicist, I can't say whether or not the act of Piracy is immoral, nor can I say what the end moral result is, but I can say that the vast majority of reasons for and ways of doing so are highly indicative of bad moral character. The defense of it even more so.
Not quite.Sonic Doctor said:
'Taking' indicates that you are removing something of value from the person you are stealing from. Say I downloaded the movie 'The Wild Blue Yonder'. Now, I rented that film a while ago, and it was shit, so i have no urge or need to purchase it. However, me having downloaded it doesn't deprive the IP owner or any resellers of any monetary gain, does it? Therefore, it is not stealing.
On the other hand, if I took a DVD copy of that movie from a store, then it would be stealing, as that copy was bought by the store with the expectation of selling it. Since I would be preventing them from selling it, it would be stealing.
So, Piracy nq Theft.
There are a few things going around this thread that I feel need to be addressed.
Piracy is not equivalent to any of the following: Theft, Robbery, Fraud, Burglary, Embezzlement, Shoplifting, Larceny, and so forth. Piracy is one thing, and one thing only (under U.S. law) and that is copy right infringement.
It is an error to equate the act of downloading and using a piece of intellectual property as an act of theft or fraud as I've seen so often in this thread. This is not an argument about semantics, but a clarification that they are fundamentally different acts. That piracy is immoral is not dependent on it being equivalent to those acts.
That said I agree that piracy, as it is commonly used as a method to obtain free entertainment, is an immoral act. I also agree that it would remain immoral regardless of its legality. Ethics and legality have some mutual causal relationships, but are relatively independent in my mind.
Piracy is not equivalent to any of the following: Theft, Robbery, Fraud, Burglary, Embezzlement, Shoplifting, Larceny, and so forth. Piracy is one thing, and one thing only (under U.S. law) and that is copy right infringement.
It is an error to equate the act of downloading and using a piece of intellectual property as an act of theft or fraud as I've seen so often in this thread. This is not an argument about semantics, but a clarification that they are fundamentally different acts. That piracy is immoral is not dependent on it being equivalent to those acts.
That said I agree that piracy, as it is commonly used as a method to obtain free entertainment, is an immoral act. I also agree that it would remain immoral regardless of its legality. Ethics and legality have some mutual causal relationships, but are relatively independent in my mind.
I think there is a grey area to piracy. If the content creators put it out there to buy then a user has a moral as well as legal obligation to pay for that content. They do the work, they should have some kind of reward.
At the same time, if the copyright holder is for any reason not issuing legal copies of the work, then they shouldn't quibble if people are distributing bootleg copies. After all, they chose not to distribute legal copies, so it's their own fault that they aren't getting paid.
I also think that copyright holders who hold too tightly onto their copyright are silly. I've discovered at least three bands, countless individual songs and multiple anime series simply from watching AMV's on Youtube. That's free publicity for the copyright holders, and money they did get because I went out and bought the song/CD/DVD/Bluray.
At the same time, if the copyright holder is for any reason not issuing legal copies of the work, then they shouldn't quibble if people are distributing bootleg copies. After all, they chose not to distribute legal copies, so it's their own fault that they aren't getting paid.
I also think that copyright holders who hold too tightly onto their copyright are silly. I've discovered at least three bands, countless individual songs and multiple anime series simply from watching AMV's on Youtube. That's free publicity for the copyright holders, and money they did get because I went out and bought the song/CD/DVD/Bluray.
Agreed.Da Orky Man said:
To look at it another way:
"Potential Loss" is not the same as "Actual Loss".
We know the two 'can' overlap, but that doesn't mean we can assume that they always will.
Not every pirate was a sure-sell, for a variety of possible reasons.
(Not every pirate can feasibly afford the information in question. This is not automatic justification for those who can afford the risk. It is simply stating conditions.)
Claiming that "Piracy is Theft", or "Piracy = Theft" only works if they completely overlap.
Which they don't because we cannot (nor should we) logically assume that.
This isn't a moral argument (morals are subjective). This isn't a legal argument (the law isn't necessarily based on morals, and it isn't the same for every country either). It is just stating that the oft-repeated misconception that "Piracy is Theft" is very ignorant and wrong.
As for the consequences of Piracy, depending on the circumstance, Piracy could be either better or worse than actual theft.