Need some piracy advice....

[Something Amyss]

And if everybody pirated all the time then there would be no more games industry. Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

his argument has little to do with morality. It has to do with the intellectual dishonesty of calling piracy "theft" or "stealing."

From what I know of Kant, I'm not sure he'd appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of conflating the two. Not to mention the further dishonesty of trying to indicate that a dismissal of an intellectual problem as advocacy of an ethical issue.

I'm also going to add the whole "if everybody pirated" thing is crap. Even without copy protection, not everybody pirates. It seems like there's a huge market for media.

 

[Thyunda]

And if everybody pirated all the time then there would be no more games industry. Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

his argument has little to do with morality. It has to do with the intellectual dishonesty of calling piracy "theft" or "stealing."

From what I know of Kant, I'm not sure he'd appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of conflating the two. Not to mention the further dishonesty of trying to indicate that a dismissal of an intellectual problem as advocacy of an ethical issue.

Different but equal. No more needs to be said.

 

[Something Amyss]

Different but equal. No more needs to be said.

As long as you're not trying to be honest or rational, yes. nothing more needs to be said.

 

[targren]

Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

I'll see your Immanuel Kant and raise you a Friedrich Nietzsche.

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Antichrist"

Since the content industry is endlessly [ab]using copyright law to exert power over its customers, it's good, according to Nietzsche, for those customers to push back in whatever ways they can.

See? You're not the only one who can name-drop German philosophers, so let's move on, shall we? "Morality" is a personal thing. It cannot be legislated, and, as I've said before, there is no mapping between the "right/wrong" and "legal/illegal" axes. The argument CAN be made for ignoring copyright law, based on the principle that a law that serves a select few at the expense of the public good is, by definition, unjust, and the corruption of the system at the hands of Disney et al is a perfect example of this.

You don't have to agree, but if you're claiming it's a black and white issue for everyone, you're dead wrong. It might seem simple and obvious to you, just as it seems obvious to me that you're on the wrong side. The difference, though, is that I recognize this, whereas you're speaking your opinion (and Kant's) as hard fact.

 

[Thyunda]

Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

I'll see your Immanuel Kant and raise you a Friedrich Nietzsche.

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Antichrist"

Since the content industry is endlessly [ab]using copyright law to exert power over its customers, it's good, according to Nietzsche, for those customers to push back in whatever ways they can.

See? You're not the only one who can name-drop German philosophers, so let's move on, shall we? "Morality" is a personal thing. It cannot be legislated, and, as I've said before, there is no mapping between the "right/wrong" and "legal/illegal" axes. The argument CAN be made for ignoring copyright law, based on the principle that a law that serves a select few at the expense of the public good is, by definition, unjust, and the corruption of the system at the hands of Disney et al is a perfect example of this.

You don't have to agree, but if you're claiming it's a black and white issue for everyone, you're dead wrong. It might seem simple and obvious to you, just as it seems obvious to me that you're on the wrong side. The difference, though, is that I recognize this, whereas you're speaking your opinion (and Kant's) as hard fact.

That's a valid point you raise. But...reacting to a police state by stealing more and then rubbing it in peoples' faces is not the way to fight back. All it does is tell these corporations that more copyright law abuse is necessary to prevent people pirating. They make far more out of the lawsuits than they lose to pirating, so all we're doing is shooting ourselves in the feet with their pistol.

And if everybody pirated all the time then there would be no more games industry.

Yep, thats true. Which is why I buy a lot of games, as do most gamers.

Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

Kant? That religiously blinded philosopher? Fat chance. I wouldnt put myself through his dribble again if you paid me.

I have some reading for you though: Schopenhauer. Maybe the old man can reduce the number of useless recommendations made on these forums.

Kant's universal maxims, while quite useless for neutral actions, are quite good for more morally clear-cut affairs like piracy. Piracy is bad. There is no justification for it. Well, with the exception of the region-locks and shit - no reason to miss out on a game just because you were born in the wrong place.
But as for not having enough money? Well tough shit. Do you know what it's called when you make a copy of money? That's counterfeiting. Sure, you're not stealing money off anybody, but you ARE spending money that isn't even real.

I can tell you just desperately want to argue with someone who advocates piracy, but I have to disappoint you. Its rather amusing you should spam me with the irrelevant and loony thoughts of a dead man, since that would require you to read, something you are obviously not to good at.

If you possessed the ability to read properly you would have realized I am not advocating piracy in any way. I was saying piracy is not theft, which we have established. Does that automatically mean I think piracy is a-ok and everyone should just download games illegally as much as they see fit? Of course not. Nothing in this thread even began to imply that.

But of course, really, you know this, you are just bored out of your mind, looking for an easy argument. Pirate Bay is that way, maybe you can find someone to annoy in the comments section of that site. Just hope you dont bump into someone who has even a passing interest in philosophy, since that person might blow your "I-read-a-textbook-about-Kant-in-high-school" mind.

(Wow, that was fun.)

So it's been a couple of years since college and I can't remember many specifics. Blame my bad memory, not my A-level. I reckon it was you that came into this just wanting to argue, because you're assuming I'm trying to say that piracy and stealing are completely the same...when they're obviously not. It's a new crime for a new age and it's still a goddamn crime. Sure, you can say "Nobody loses," but that's just a short-term excuse. If you don't advocate piracy, then why are you even in this thread arguing this point? Go argue the difference between grievous bodily harm and murderous intent with a bull. It'd be more productive.

Different but equal. No more needs to be said.

As long as you're not trying to be honest or rational, yes. nothing more needs to be said.

They have the same effect in the long run. Insurance 'duplicates' lost physical stock. Piracy causes lost sales through duplication. While the item is still present, somebody has the original, or the copy, without paying for it. That's just not cricket.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And if everybody pirated all the time then there would be no more games industry. Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

his argument has little to do with morality. It has to do with the intellectual dishonesty of calling piracy "theft" or "stealing."

From what I know of Kant, I'm not sure he'd appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of conflating the two. Not to mention the further dishonesty of trying to indicate that a dismissal of an intellectual problem as advocacy of an ethical issue.

Different but equal. No more needs to be said.

Actually it does, because they aren't even equal. Non-commercial piracy (i.e., the simple copyright infringement we're talking about here; if there's a profit being made things are different) is a civil offense, not a felony or a misdemeanor. That's why the companies enforce it instead of the government; it carries a penalty of having your britches sued off by the person you supposedly hurt, not of anything directly from the government. Theft is a misdemeanor; grand theft is a felony. Both classifications are much more serious than a civil offense.

And this is why conflating piracy with theft is a bad thing: doing so ties it with a much worse crime, which works as an emotional appeal to get people who don't know better on your side.

Then again, conflating copyright infringement with piracy was an attempt at the same thing; it's just that robbery on the high seas has become somewhat romanticized since the two were first conflated.

 

[Thyunda]

And if everybody pirated all the time then there would be no more games industry. Perhaps you should look up Immanuel Kant, become his best friend and learn a little bit of morality.

his argument has little to do with morality. It has to do with the intellectual dishonesty of calling piracy "theft" or "stealing."

From what I know of Kant, I'm not sure he'd appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of conflating the two. Not to mention the further dishonesty of trying to indicate that a dismissal of an intellectual problem as advocacy of an ethical issue.

Different but equal. No more needs to be said.

Actually it does, because they aren't even equal. Non-commercial piracy (i.e., the simple copyright infringement we're talking about here; if there's a profit being made things are different) is a civil offense, not a felony or a misdemeanor. That's why the companies enforce it instead of the government; it carries a penalty of having your britches sued off by the person you supposedly hurt, not of anything directly from the government. Theft is a misdemeanor; grand theft is a felony. Both classifications are much more serious than a civil offense.

And this is why conflating piracy with theft is a bad thing: doing so ties it with a much worse crime, which works as an emotional appeal to get people who don't know better on your side.

Then again, conflating copyright infringement with piracy was an attempt at the same thing; it's just that robbery on the high seas has become somewhat romanticized since the two were first conflated.

Y'know, I never bothered to ask why piracy is called piracy, when the two are so very different. But in terms of morality, theft and piracy are the same - well, 'pirating' a car through some voodoo magic would be equal to stealing an insured vehicle provided the insurance replaces the car with an identical make and model.

It's irritatingly convoluted to explain when you get into it, but the end result is that somebody is sitting on an immorally acquired possession.
Normally I wouldn't care so much - but the OP's friend is being a dick and getting all superior about his capacity to pirate. If anybody deserved to be sued it's that guy. Provided the OP has given the whole story.

 

[targren]

That's a valid point you raise. But...reacting to a police state by stealing more and then rubbing it in peoples' faces is not the way to fight back. All it does is tell these corporations that more copyright law abuse is necessary to prevent people pirating. They make far more out of the lawsuits than they lose to pirating, so all we're doing is shooting ourselves in the feet with their pistol.

That might be true if the content industry wasn't disingenuous to outright dishonest as a matter of course. If everyone played by your rules and simply didn't buy NOR download games because the publisher is a dick, the drop in sales would STILL be blamed on piracy and lead to more copyright law abuse and obnoxious DRM, because otherwise the scumbags in charge would have to cop to their shareholders that they're alienating their own market, which would get them drummed out of their jobs. The RIAA has already been busted pulling that crap, and game publishers are no different.

The law is for sale to the highest bidder, no matter what country you live in. Playing by the rules when you know the deck is stacked and the other guy is palming the aces is pointless. There's nothing "moral" about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Y'know, I never bothered to ask why piracy is called piracy, when the two are so very different.

For the same reason that the empty suits have graduated from "piracy" to "theft": in other words, to establish a moral equivalence that does not exist. Back when the term "piracy" was coined, actual pirates were an actual problem, and it was a way to villify those who did it. Now, that doesn't work anymore, since "piracy" has lost its bite.

It's rhetorical dishonesty and propaganda, to put it simply.

But in terms of morality, theft and piracy are the same - well, 'pirating' a car through some voodoo magic would be equal to stealing an insured vehicle provided the insurance replaces the car with an identical make and model.

No it wouldn't. In your example, the insurance company has to replace the car and pay money. In the "copying" example, the new car comes out of the ether at no cost to anyone. Obviously, that's impossible due to the laws of physics, but it demonstrates why trying to apply the laws and principles of scarcity-based economy to digital information is folly. They DON'T apply.

 

[Piorn]

It would be nice if you could report someone for piracy, unfortunately, the punishment would be far too high, propably costing him thousands.

 

[ExploreHer]

"theiving" "stealing"

lol you guys really do need to realize why the concept of "stealing" is viewed as bad and how it doesn't apply to software. the word you're looking for is copyright infringement.

 

[bz316]

It's lame that your friend is pirating games, but you shouldn't rat him out. That's not cool, people get huge fines and jail-time for piracy. Whatever you may think about what they're doing, if this person is really your friend, then pirating a copy of Skyrim is not something you want to send a person to jail for...

 

[Thyunda]

That's a valid point you raise. But...reacting to a police state by stealing more and then rubbing it in peoples' faces is not the way to fight back. All it does is tell these corporations that more copyright law abuse is necessary to prevent people pirating. They make far more out of the lawsuits than they lose to pirating, so all we're doing is shooting ourselves in the feet with their pistol.

That might be true if the content industry wasn't disingenuous to outright dishonest as a matter of course. If everyone played by your rules and simply didn't buy NOR download games because the publisher is a dick, the drop in sales would STILL be blamed on piracy and lead to more copyright law abuse and obnoxious DRM, because otherwise the scumbags in charge would have to cop to their shareholders that they're alienating their own market, which would get them drummed out of their jobs. The RIAA has already been busted pulling that crap, and game publishers are no different.

The law is for sale to the highest bidder, no matter what country you live in. Playing by the rules when you know the deck is stacked and the other guy is palming the aces is pointless. There's nothing "moral" about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Y'know, I never bothered to ask why piracy is called piracy, when the two are so very different.

For the same reason that the empty suits have graduated from "piracy" to "theft": in other words, to establish a moral equivalence that does not exist. Back when the term "piracy" was coined, actual pirates were an actual problem, and it was a way to villify those who did it. Now, that doesn't work anymore, since "piracy" has lost its bite.

It's rhetorical dishonesty and propaganda, to put it simply.

But in terms of morality, theft and piracy are the same - well, 'pirating' a car through some voodoo magic would be equal to stealing an insured vehicle provided the insurance replaces the car with an identical make and model.

No it wouldn't. In your example, the insurance company has to replace the car and pay money. In the "copying" example, the new car comes out of the ether at no cost to anyone. Obviously, that's impossible due to the laws of physics, but it demonstrates why trying to apply the laws and principles of scarcity-based economy to digital information is folly. They DON'T apply.

Except they run in the same scarcity-based economy. So unless you create a separate economy for the digital markets, then we have to apply the laws and principles of the relevant economy.

And...while yes, it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight, pirating to spite corporations is like responding to the presence of a gun by going nuclear. I mean literally. Like spontaneous atomic combustion. Pretty soon people start getting shot without warning just in case they risk going apocalypse. That's something we don't want to happen.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

I am just upset that people think I enjoy the thought, I really don't but I did'nt think the reaction would be so... Nasty, I used to think the Escapist was a place were fellow posters would understand your point of view. I guess not, thanks for the feedback anyway.

A very large chunk of the escapist forum posters are arguementative trollish assholes. If you feel that strongly about it, report him, tell him you did it and stop being friends with him. Pretty cut and paste in my books.

 

[targren]

Except they run in the same scarcity-based economy. So unless you create a separate economy for the digital markets, then we have to apply the laws and principles of the relevant economy.

"Relevant economy" being the key term. Just because our corporate overlords want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" because they don't want to hear that the laws they spent so much money on are bullshit, does not mean that it's in any way relevant to reality of the situation.

And...while yes, it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight, pirating to spite corporations is like responding to the presence of a gun by going nuclear. I mean literally. Like spontaneous atomic combustion. Pretty soon people start getting shot without warning just in case they risk going apocalypse. That's something we don't want to happen.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

This is really nothing but more hyper-emotive, metaphorical hand-waving that doesn't have anything to do with the real world. Their failed business models are not our responsibility.

 

[dobahci]

They have the same effect in the long run. Insurance 'duplicates' lost physical stock. Piracy causes lost sales through duplication. While the item is still present, somebody has the original, or the copy, without paying for it. That's just not cricket.

Here is where the "piracy equals theft" thing falls apart, as it inevitably does. Theft is the taking of money (or an object) that someone else owns, whereas piracy is at worst a lost sale -- the taking of money that hasn't been earned yet. Piracy is accused of taking from a company money which was never in that company's hands to begin with.

That is already shaky ground for equating it with theft and it only holds up (such as it is) by making the assumption that piracy is a lost sale. The assumption is that, were it not for piracy, the copies which were pirated would instead have been purchased. This cannot be supported by any kind of evidence or reasoning, and even if it could, you're just speculating about something which never happened, speculating about copies which were never purchased.

What piracy really is, is "unauthorized copying of data". That's all. Any attempt to label it as "theft" or whatever else is equivocation; it's attempting to manipulate the vocabulary of the debate to serve as propaganda for your own point.

 

[Thyunda]

Except they run in the same scarcity-based economy. So unless you create a separate economy for the digital markets, then we have to apply the laws and principles of the relevant economy.

"Relevant economy" being the key term. Just because our corporate overlords want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" because they don't want to hear that the laws they spent so much money on are bullshit, does not mean that it's in any way relevant to reality of the situation.

And...while yes, it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight, pirating to spite corporations is like responding to the presence of a gun by going nuclear. I mean literally. Like spontaneous atomic combustion. Pretty soon people start getting shot without warning just in case they risk going apocalypse. That's something we don't want to happen.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

This is really nothing but more hyper-emotive, metaphorical hand-waving that doesn't have anything to do with the real world. Their failed business models are not our responsibility.

No, I meant literally. Literally going nuclear. Not fetching nuclear weapons. Actually performing a nuclear explosion.

The word DOES mean what I think it means.

They have the same effect in the long run. Insurance 'duplicates' lost physical stock. Piracy causes lost sales through duplication. While the item is still present, somebody has the original, or the copy, without paying for it. That's just not cricket.

Here is where the "piracy equals theft" thing falls apart, as it inevitably does. Theft is the taking of money (or an object) that someone else owns, whereas piracy is at worst a lost sale -- the taking of money that hasn't been earned yet. Piracy is accused of taking from a company money which was never in that company's hands to begin with.

That is already shaky ground for equating it with theft and it only holds up (such as it is) by making the assumption that piracy is a lost sale. The assumption is that, were it not for piracy, the copies which were pirated would instead have been purchased. This cannot be supported by any kind of evidence or reasoning, and even if it could, you're just speculating about something which never happened, speculating about copies which were never purchased.

What piracy really is, is "unauthorized copying of data". That's all. Any attempt to label it as "theft" or whatever else is equivocation; it's attempting to manipulate the vocabulary of the debate to serve as propaganda for your own point.

I use it for simplicity's sake. Copyright infringement and downloading a game for your own use is...well, they're two different things. Maybe not legally, but that's how it should be seen. I...hope I'm making sense.

 

[targren]

No, I meant literally. Literally going nuclear. Not fetching nuclear weapons. Actually performing a nuclear explosion.

The word DOES mean what I think it means.

Then that's patently ridiculous. It's no more an overreaction (which is what I assume is the point you were trying to make) than any other civil disobedience, albeit with a profoundly unjust enforcement on the part of the government lackeys.

Here's a fun fact: DRM should be, by the strict reading of the current laws, illegal. After X amount of years, copyrighted material is supposed to revert into the public domain. If I cannot get around DRM by setting my computer clock to 2257, then they're ignoring the law and banking on the fact that they can buy another extension when whatever big old property (probably Steamboat Willie, again) comes up for expiration.

There's nothing wrong with ignoring an unjust law.