My beef with piracy.

[EvilCheesecake]

Laws are simply social acceptability being enforced, so I've already covered that. The membership covering stealing makes sense, since that actually requires you to deprive someone else of the item. As for copying, well, everything I have to say regarding torrent sites=library also applies to checking out=copying more or less.

I'm sorry, but that basically says nothing is wrong, it's only seen as wrong because society dictates it so. Basically, when you get down to it. Pirating IS wrong, no if buts or maybes. Making excuses or comparisons for it doesn't make it any less criminal.

I'm sorry, but only thieves make excuses to keep stealing. And yes, copying is still taking, just like making counterfeit money is still considered bad, or making knock offs of brand products. Because while you may not be directly taking, they may not lose anything per say, but you gain without paying for it.

All morality is subjective. Find an action that is ipso facto always bad.

 

[Enigmers]

No amount of DRM or legislation is going to stop people from pirating. They're wasting their time.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

In every example used against piracy there is an analogy using a physical commodity, well downloads aren't physical commodities and no-one loses out.

Trying to hold on to an old way of pricing and distributing instead of embracing technology results in piracy

Yeah, that's just an excuse people who don't want to pay for them use to get away with it. No, they technically don't lose anything, but if the games weren't pirated and you had to buy them to play them then there's a good chance they would have more sales. Those people who say "Well, I was never going to buy it anyway." are usually full of crap and furthermore, if a game is good enough for you to pirate and play through the whole way, then it's good enough to buy. No one wastes hours on something they hate aside from work.

Oh, yes. How dare they try sell things in the general manner that has proved to work for hundreds of years./sarcasm. Not everyone wants to buy and get games through things like Steam, because like me, there are other people who have an amount of bandwidth a month, and I don't want to spend several gigs on getting games when they could be used for playing them online. A prefer to have a physical copy for that and other reasons.

Here is where your problem lies, I buy things that I know are great, Mario Galaxy 2, I knew it would be great so I paid for it!

Now i'm not a big RTS fan so I pirated starcraft to see if the sequel would be worth a look, starcraft was shit IN MY OPINION so now I won't waste my money. But in your Eden I would have spent my money on starcraft hated it and would not have been able to afford MG2.
I would have wasted hours on a game I hate just because I had wasted bucks so it had better entertain.


Why is it that you never hear poor people complain about piracy?

because only rich fucks care if other rich fucks lose bucks.

contrary to your sheltered opinion not everyone can buy things regularly, I can't afford a new piece of media every month, so I spend my money on media that is truly amazing and shit will get pirated to fill the gaps

I'll put it plainly, shit happens, sometimes you buy something and it sucks. I know this, I have had it happen.

Last I checked, working minimum wage at a comic book store didn't make me rich. I make sure to research a game or product before I buy it and I replay them and have plenty of fun, yo make it sound as though someone needs something new to stay entertained to "fill the gaps."

I don't defend piracy because I see it as wrong, I may end up playing less games because of it, but I appreciate what I do have that much more.

And for the record, my opinion isn't sheltered.

Laws are simply social acceptability being enforced, so I've already covered that. The membership covering stealing makes sense, since that actually requires you to deprive someone else of the item. As for copying, well, everything I have to say regarding torrent sites=library also applies to checking out=copying more or less.

I'm sorry, but that basically says nothing is wrong, it's only seen as wrong because society dictates it so. Basically, when you get down to it. Pirating IS wrong, no if buts or maybes. Making excuses or comparisons for it doesn't make it any less criminal.

I'm sorry, but only thieves make excuses to keep stealing. And yes, copying is still taking, just like making counterfeit money is still considered bad, or making knock offs of brand products. Because while you may not be directly taking, they may not lose anything per say, but you gain without paying for it.

All morality is subjective. Find an action that is ipso facto always bad.

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

I never said it wouldn't be wrong, I said I thought it was horrible. Two different things.

That's rather telling.


edit: regarding the edit in your last post: this was never about making you look like an ass. It was about an appeal to authority as a source of objective morality.

I had hoped that by pointing out the obvious fallacy in it, you might reconsider your assertion, as it turns out, you went the other way, and I'm kind of mortified by that fact.


-m

Sorry, guess I over reacted on that part. My apologies.

Mortified by what exactly? Basic human instinct is to look out for yourself, as much as I wouldn't want to do what I see as a bad thing, it's human nature to make sure you survive. Prison isn't something many would call living.

 

[crudus]

No, infinite copies is only a problem because it means infinite access. For most books in a library, you only need one copy because that's all anyone will every want at once. A book being out when someone wants it is one hell of a rarity, but that's probably because no one ever goes to the library anymore. Well, that and most of their books come from donations, which means they have plenty of the popular ones. Also, again, legality doesn't define right and wrong. It just... doesn't. Having to actually point that out makes me feel dirty.

Those extra copies are copies that people enjoy without actually paying for. Enjoying a good or service without permission from the owner(which you usually get by giving them money) is stealing/theft. Theft is one of those weird laws that is actually meant to protect people's self-interests. What you are saying is copying intellectual property without paying for it is ok. Am I understanding this correctly?

Piracy deprives creators and distributors remuneration for their work, which, last time I checked, was a "thing".

-m

I will admit good sir, that made me laugh hysterically. good show.

 

[Antari]

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

There is a difference there though: Torrents copy the information whereas with a library there is always the same amount(unless the libraries buys more). With a library you borrow a book and bring it back for the next person to read and you cannot read it anymore. With a torrent you just keep a copy and never return it and enjoy it forever.

With torrents you gather pieces from other people and assemble them, while they are grabbing pieces from you and others. Its by no means a take only process. And when I download something I like, I buy it, I want to see that developer make more. When its a useless piece of junk that the developer was lying about in its advertising, I don't keep it and enjoy it forever as you seem to think. I delete it and take note of the developers involved, and avoid them in the future. I also just saved myself from being a victim of theft. My pocket takes a hell of alot more damage from a $60 dollar impact than it does any game company's imaginary billions they are entitled to. Just because you make it doesn't mean everyone MUST love it, this isn't a baseball movie in a corn field. If someone comes over to paint your house, slaps on a single strip of paint and walks away, are you really going to pay them full price for the job? I'm sorry but I'm not going to loose any sleep over it if you think any less of me for protecting myself.

And no most demo's are not accurate representations of the final product you will recieve. There are more than a few demos that work and games that don't and visa versa out there to prove the point.

And Konrad Curze's 3rd point is dead on target.

 

[Matt_LRR]

*snip*

Potentially deprives creators and distributors remuneration for their work.
Without solid proof it is worthless. The alignment of Mars and Jupiter potentially lowers my chances of banging the hot waitress at work. Where the proof?
And still does not make it theft.

I'll grant that, since I've been arguing the same side of the argument, though I will add that the question is really not whether piracy deprives the industry of money. Clearly it does. The question is the extent to which it deprives the industry of money. And the bulk of evidence seems to suggest that that deprivation is rather small.

-m

 

[Vuljatar]

I'm sorry, but that is like somebody driving away from a petrol station without paying because they want to protest against high petrol prices.

Joe Biden called it "theft". It's not hyperbole - THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. You are taking a service without paying.

This is where you and Joe Biden are wrong.

In many cases, piracy isn't theft, because nobody is losing anything. You are simply acquiring a copy at no cost to anyone. If you weren't going to purchase the game anyway, there is no victim because there is no loss.

Now, if you pirated a game that you did intend to buy, simply because you didn't want to spend the money, then the company is the victim because they have lost the money that you would otherwise have spent on the game. In that case, and that case alone, piracy is bad.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

In every example used against piracy there is an analogy using a physical commodity, well downloads aren't physical commodities and no-one loses out.

Trying to hold on to an old way of pricing and distributing instead of embracing technology results in piracy

Yeah, that's just an excuse people who don't want to pay for them use to get away with it. No, they technically don't lose anything, but if the games weren't pirated and you had to buy them to play them then there's a good chance they would have more sales. Those people who say "Well, I was never going to buy it anyway." are usually full of crap and furthermore, if a game is good enough for you to pirate and play through the whole way, then it's good enough to buy. No one wastes hours on something they hate aside from work.

Oh, yes. How dare they try sell things in the general manner that has proved to work for hundreds of years./sarcasm. Not everyone wants to buy and get games through things like Steam, because like me, there are other people who have an amount of bandwidth a month, and I don't want to spend several gigs on getting games when they could be used for playing them online. A prefer to have a physical copy for that and other reasons.

Here is where your problem lies, I buy things that I know are great, Mario Galaxy 2, I knew it would be great so I paid for it!

Now i'm not a big RTS fan so I pirated starcraft to see if the sequel would be worth a look, starcraft was shit IN MY OPINION so now I won't waste my money. But in your Eden I would have spent my money on starcraft hated it and would not have been able to afford MG2.
I would have wasted hours on a game I hate just because I had wasted bucks so it had better entertain.


Why is it that you never hear poor people complain about piracy?

because only rich fucks care if other rich fucks lose bucks.

contrary to your sheltered opinion not everyone can buy things regularly, I can't afford a new piece of media every month, so I spend my money on media that is truly amazing and shit will get pirated to fill the gaps

I'll put it plainly, shit happens, sometimes you buy something and it sucks. I know this, I have had it happen.

Last I checked, working minimum wage at a comic book store didn't make me rich. I make sure to research a game or product before I buy it and I replay them and have plenty of fun, yo make it sound as though someone needs something new to stay entertained to "fill the gaps."

I don't defend piracy because I see it as wrong, I may end up playing less games because of it, but I appreciate what I do have that much more.

And for the record, my opinion isn't sheltered.

Laws are simply social acceptability being enforced, so I've already covered that. The membership covering stealing makes sense, since that actually requires you to deprive someone else of the item. As for copying, well, everything I have to say regarding torrent sites=library also applies to checking out=copying more or less.

I'm sorry, but that basically says nothing is wrong, it's only seen as wrong because society dictates it so. Basically, when you get down to it. Pirating IS wrong, no if buts or maybes. Making excuses or comparisons for it doesn't make it any less criminal.

I'm sorry, but only thieves make excuses to keep stealing. And yes, copying is still taking, just like making counterfeit money is still considered bad, or making knock offs of brand products. Because while you may not be directly taking, they may not lose anything per say, but you gain without paying for it.

All morality is subjective. Find an action that is ipso facto always bad.

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

OK so neither of us is paying for shitty games and neither of us ever plans to. And neither of us is taking an actual commodity.

these are all facts we can agree on, so what is with the holier than thou attitude about piracy when it affects the industry as much as you do!

 

[infinity_turtles]

1) It is not theft. I do not give half a flying fuck how many shitty analogies you people use. Theft is taking someone elses property and thus denying them the use of it. Piracy is copying something. The original is still there, still free for the owner to use. Piracy deprives no one of anything. End of argument.

Piracy deprives creators and distributors remuneration for their work, which, last time I checked, was a "thing".

-m

It possibly deprives them of potential remuneration(thanks for the new word), which is possibly potentially a thing. I don't find possible potentials a smart thing to be making actual clear laws out of.

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

No no and no. There are some much bigger differences. Firstly, one of the justifications behind a library is that our societies all accept books as an almost universally good thing. We WANT people to read, because it's good for them. We all like music, movies, and games, but it's hard to argue that they're as good for you as reading is. That is to say that a library is a social service that is provided to the public because it's good for them, while piracy doesn't benefit anyone in any real way.

Second, the cost of writing a book is dwarfed by the cost of recording music, which is dwarfed by the cost of shooting a film, which is dwarfed by the cost of making a game. If you wanted to put the time and effort into it, you could write a book yourself, a book with any plot you wanted, anything you wanted could happen, you're unlimited. When you're recording music, however, unlike with writing (where the only necessary resources are either a computer or an ample supply of pens and paper) making music takes a higher investment on the part of the artist. Still, music can still be made by an individual, but when we start to talk about film, any individual is severly limited, the cost of shooting the movies we go to see at the theatre today is rediculous. And the cost of creating a videogame is beyond rediculous.

And finally, the artist whose book is in a library actually is getting paid. Granted, it's only for one copy of the book (the copy purchased by the library), but one copy sold is certainly better than nothing. And while they may not be free, there are similar rental services for movies and games, so the creator is still getting some money. Also, with the library/rental system, you are not actually getting to keep the thing you purchased. The thing pirates never seem to get through their skulls, no matter how many times I explain it, is that when you are buying a book, musical work, film, or game, you do not actually buy that work. What you're buying is a lisence to ONE copy of that work. You are free to share that one lisence, but while you're sharing it you are unable to use it yourself. Just like if you lent someone a chair, a toaster, an item of jewelery, or any other physical item that could be stolen. Libraries and rental services share their lisence. And if you buy a game and lend it to your friend, you're sharing your lisence. But if you copy the game and distribute copies to others, then you are no longer sharing your lisence, because you still have the ability to play the game while those who never purchased, borrowed, or rented a lisence are able to play it as well.

I've addressed a lot of this in previous posts, so I'm only going to address what I haven't already. Please go back and read my previous posts, because I don't wanna have to keep typing out the same thing over and over, or looking for that one bit I could copy-paste. Anyway, onto the cost of production which, aside from the public service bit, is the only part I haven't addressed(You may disagree with how I addressed those things, but please say why). Intellectual Property Law is Intellectual Property Law. Also, have you ever heard of a library causing significant damage to the sales of a book?

As for the public service bit, most books checked out are fiction series and blah blah blah. You want this point to stand, please start telling me how reading twilight is better for people than watching Donnie Darko or Schindler's List

 

[Matt_LRR]

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

Killing a baby is an action. "for no reason" is a motivation.

There are arguments to be made that there are circumstances under which killing a baby would be the morally right thing to do. They're certainly morally grey, rather than black and white, but as stated, such an act could, potentially, be defended.

By inserting the motivation into the action, you simply dodged the question.

-m

 

[Pyode]

I try to avoid copy pasting my arguments, but this time it works perfectly for me. But I'll add that perhaps a public library should be compared to a low traffic torrent site. But that shouldn't matter if we're arguing the principle of the act itself. "No, infinite copies is only a problem because it means infinite access. For most books in a library, you only need one copy because that's all anyone will every want at once. A book being out when someone wants it is one hell of a rarity, but that's probably because no one ever goes to the library anymore. Well, that and most of their books come from donations, which means they have plenty of the popular ones."

No, infinite copies is a problem. With a library, whether or not someone donated the book, that specific copy of the book was purchased at one point. The author was compensated for that specific copy of the book. However, when you make a photocopy of the book, you are then creating something containing the authors hard work without compensating them for that work.

Let me do a little copy pasting of my own from a previous thread.

The actual production of disks is ridiculously cheap. I'm talking pennies per disk. When you buy a disk you're not paying $60 for a single burned disk and a shitty plastic case. In the case of digital distribution, it's even cheaper.

No, you are paying for the literally thousands of hours of work put into a game. You are paying for the computers, dev systems, and many other items that go into the development of the game.

If you think you are entitled to reap the benefit of all of that time, effort, and cost for free, then you are a spoiled little brat who needs to grow the fuck up.

 

[crazypsyko666]

Laws are simply social acceptability being enforced, so I've already covered that. The membership covering stealing makes sense, since that actually requires you to deprive someone else of the item. As for copying, well, everything I have to say regarding torrent sites=library also applies to checking out=copying more or less.

I'm sorry, but that basically says nothing is wrong, it's only seen as wrong because society dictates it so. Basically, when you get down to it. Pirating IS wrong, no if buts or maybes. Making excuses or comparisons for it doesn't make it any less criminal.

I'm sorry, but only thieves make excuses to keep stealing.

No, it's saying that something being illegal doesn't make it wrong. Harming someone else out of materialistic desire or sadism is what makes something wrong.(I actually believe in subjective morality, but that's how I define right and wrong) Laws aren't automatically right or just after all. The comparisons whole purpose is to point out that Libraries are more or less the same thing, only legal. If they were illegal, that wouldn't suddenly make libraries wrong, would it?

The law may not be right all the time, but ignoring them and going against them on that principle only proves you to be just as bad as they are. If they were illegal, then yes, what they are doing would be wrong as it is against the law.

Tomorrow you find out that a law was enacted stating that black people are to be rounded up and shot, and that any citizen who sees a black person and does not report him to the authorities for "processing" shall be subject to jail time.

Would you be wrong if you chose not to report black people to the state?

-m

That is completely different from the issue here, I understand that you would have picked that extreme example in a way to make me look like a fool in terms of my previous statement. I was generalizing yes, but I was referring more to the persons statement that I replied to.

So I'm not going to answer to what you said, because A. I think that's a disgusting comparison and B. Choosing either answer makes me a horrible person for either breaking the law, or getting someone killed.

People should be willing to break the law if they disagree with it. I'm not going to stop pirating just because they're initiating a new law. No one should. It's wrong. It's personal invasion. Much of what the U.S. does these days would be shat out of the original congress like the invasive bureaucratic despotism that it is.

The lawbreakers will always prevail, because despite lack of arms or discipline, they are not bound by the same moral boundaries that hold their prosecutors. No one can win this fight, and the only thing that the judicial officials will accomplish is creating a hell of fear for the masses and publishers. Once we get into 'thought crime' prosecution, it's a slippery slope to legislative abuse. If this form of 'crime' is recognized on a wide area, it may get to the point where people are prosecuted for looking at a police officer aggressively, or eyeing a product on a shelf in a store.

I don't have a problem with developers getting up in arms about a game they made being stolen, I have a problem with our legislation regarding the prosecution of involvement of these activities, especially when the supply is endless. The law is wrong. We shouldn't be afraid of it.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

OK so neither of us is paying for shitty games and neither of us ever plans to. And neither of us is taking an actual commodity.

these are all facts we can agree on, so what is with the holier than thou attitude about piracy when it affects the industry as much as you do!

It's not a holier then thou attitude, this thread was about a subject matter and I am stating my opinion on that.

Thing is, by buying game and not pirating I would have to guess that I have a better impact on the industry then someone who pirates, since I am actually giving money to the industry.

 

[Kanodin0]

The issue is not that it isn't theft. The issue is that technology has denmocratized consumption, and the companies at the heart of the issue have failed to react, adapt, and cater to these new consumption methods in an effective way.

Media companies are adamant about retaining their control over the consumtion habits of customers, and desire to direct the path of the industry themselves.

The fact of the matter is that piracy, theft or not, DOES serve a functional purpose for consumers aside from simply taking shit they want without paying.

The ability to try before you buy, as it were (which, as evidenced by the consumption patterns of pirates, is a pretty common pattern of behavior), allows customers to identify and expose themselves to more media, and to more knowledgably direct their money towards artists and content creators that they feel have earned it. The democratization of media allows consumers to identify products they don't like, preventing them from wasting money,a nd allowing them to spend that money on products they do.

Legal Consumption in this manner isn't inherently costing media companies money. More simply it's made consurmers much more avid, efficient consumers of media, and has granted us a much greater ability to direct industry trends.

Under the old model of content distribution, media finding and exploration present HUGE financial obstacles consumers. This is what generated the pop superstar back in the 50's and 60's. With those obstacles being torn down, the industry has seen a huge surge of indie artists, and unknowns getting significant exposure. The industry is seeing fewer big, easily bankable stars, but the tradeoff is thousands upon thousands of niche markets, scrambling for more.

The industry needs to work at monetizing and catering to this new breath of taste, and they need to bereak down the barries of media exploration. Understand that people want to know what they're spending their money on before that money is spent, and the industry needs to find ways of providing that access to information in a low-investment way.

It's not impossible to rebuild an industry model around consumer need. But the way to curb piracy, and wrap these people into the fold is decidedly not to call them all criminals and sue them into the dark ages.

It's also not to cling vehemently to a distribution model that was born there.


A person who pirates 1000 CDs, but buys 100 of their favorites is doing a great deal more to support the industry than a person who bought 5 or 6 nickelback records, and Big Shiny Tunes 3.

-m

edit: it's also worthy of note - in the old model it's up to the industry to find, identify, and build fanbases for artists. Under the new model we do that for them.

You make an excellent point about changing business models, but the problem as I see it is how are industries other then the music one supposed to adapt to these trends?


The music industry seems uniquely positioned to accommodate the trends piracy represents for several reasons:

First the ability to buy products piecemeal, or if you only like certain songs on an album you can just buy those, their is no way to sell movies and games (that aren't episodic) in this manner.

Second the repetitive nature of listening to music, no one wants to listen to a song once and never again but will listen to it many times. Thus the pirate has an easy determinant of whether or not to buy a song, that is whether or not he likes it enough to hear it regularly. Compare this to movies and games where even good ones might only be played once or only revisited many years after the original playthrough. By the time the pirate knows if the item has value they have already gotten all the value they wanted out of it, and thus would buy only out of some sense of charity or respect for the developer, which I doubt many possess.

Third the relatively low cost of music. To begin obviously albums used to be viewed as overpriced, which prompted much of the piracy to begin with, however the new abilities to sell songs individually and online have reduced costs to basically supporting the artists directly. Once again movies and games lack this advantage if for no other reason then the much higher amount of people required to make a movie or game.

The third point I believe is where the problem really emerges. While the Indie game and moviemakers will thrive with piracy bigger studios simply will not. You speak of niches in music and greater diversity brought by piracy, however with music you don't really have to spend money to make it. You must invest time perfecting your art in music of course, but their is no actual monetary investment required beyond the purchase of the instrument. Even less ambitious movies and games however will have large costs attached to making them. Thus bowing before these trends will not make their markets more diverse, but instead decrease diversity as only certain types of games and movies can work in this business model you propose.

Edit: Actually music would have the cost of renting a recording studio, still pales in comparision to the others but it's a small investment in making a song I forgot to mention.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

If it wasn't for copyright infringement I wouldn't have heard of the Flat Duo Jets, and I wouldn't subsoquently own every album of theirs that I could find at a price I don't consider extortionate(£30 for an album is pretty bad, although I'll probably buckle and cough it up eventually). That's true for many bands, and I also own many DVD's after seeing clips on youtube sent to me by friends...the advertisement argument holds genuine merit.

The internet is an incredibly useful shit-filter("shit" being both subjective and objective in this case). The vast majority of the albums I bought before I was tech savvy are collecting dust, because...I didn't know I was buying shit I would never use. The "try before you buy" argument holds merit too. It might mean less sales for the record companies, but...I don't care. I've been empowered, and I like it!

Are we spoilt? Or is the entertainment industry spoilt?

 

[crudus]

With torrents you gather pieces from other people and assemble them, while they are grabbing pieces from you and others. Its by no means a take only process. And when I download something I like, I buy it, I want to see that developer make more. When its a useless piece of junk that the developer was lying about in its advertising, I don't keep it and enjoy it forever as you seem to think. I delete it and take note of the developers involved, and avoid them in the future. I also just saved myself from being a victim of theft. My pocket takes a hell of alot more damage from a $60 dollar impact than it does any game company's imaginary billions they are entitled to. Just because you make it doesn't mean everyone MUST love it, this isn't a baseball movie in a corn field. If someone comes over to paint your house, slaps on a single strip of paint and walks away, are you really going to pay them full price for the job? I'm sorry but I'm not going to loose any sleep over it if you think any less of me for protecting myself.

Torrents distribute and copy things without author's consent. That is in violation of copyright law and is thus piracy. There is no gray area about that. That is my point.

Yes, demos can misrepresent games. Torrents are not an alternative to demos. You know what are alternatives to demos? reviews.

 

[crazypsyko666]

1) It is not theft. I do not give half a flying fuck how many shitty analogies you people use. Theft is taking someone elses property and thus denying them the use of it. Piracy is copying something. The original is still there, still free for the owner to use. Piracy deprives no one of anything. End of argument.

I agree. It's still illegal, but it's not the same as smashing a store window and taking something. It's making an exact copy of it. Very easy to do with computers these days.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Killing a baby for no reason. I can't think of anyway that would ever be conceived as a good thing.

Killing a baby is an action. "for no reason" is a motivation.

There are arguments to be made that there are circumstances under which killing a baby would be the morally right thing to do. They're certainly morally grey, rather than black and white, but as stated, such an act could, potentially, be defended.

By inserting the motivation into the action, you simply dodged the question.

-m

You're clever, I like that XD

Okay, my bad. I don't know why I added the "for no reason bit."

But how could someone justify killing a newborn baby then? Is there are moral good to it perhaps, or bad? Or neither?

 

[Bourne]

This is where you and Joe Biden are wrong.

In many cases, piracy isn't theft, because nobody is losing anything. You are simply acquiring a copy at no cost to anyone. If you weren't going to purchase the game anyway, there is no victim because there is no loss.

Now, if you pirated a game that you did intend to buy, simply because you didn't want to spend the money, then the company is the victim because they have lost the money that you would otherwise have spent on the game. In that case, and that case alone, piracy is bad.

Exactly. This is all a case of the government getting in WAY over its head. If you are going to make piracy a crime (the term "piracy" itself is a vulgar farce that I find offensive), then you need to start making it illegal to burn CD's, which will NEVER happen.

Honestly, how many men in this discussion ever burned a mix of music for a girl? She paid NOTHING for that music, and (assuming you aren't socially dysfunctional) she probably liked the music and went and purchased some to hear more of it. Piracy is the SAME EXACT THING. Of course there are those who simply do it and contribute nothing, but that happens everywhere; I knew people (before this whole peer sharing business popped up) who would borrow friends entire music collections just to burn them all.

Musicians and producers who whine about the low sales caused by piracy need to attribute the blame where it is needed: their own lack of talent. The consumers have finally forced the music industry to undo the machine it has become and actually start recruiting true musicians to produce genuinely good albums, or else suffer from low sales.