Poll: Can piracy be justified?

[4RM3D]

In some cases yes. Pfft.

Hasn't this topic been handled to death and beyond already, albeit its ridiculously subjective nature... It never leads anywhere.

And I still commented. Fuck me, right?

Stirring up a hornet's nest, right.

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

You have a person trying to justify their deeds. Then a step further is the community (in this case) accepting that person's reasoning.

Of course everyone can justify anything, if they want too. But it is more interesting to discuss if this justification is accepted by the crowd.

 

[crazyrabbits]

if it's impossible for me to get it in other ways... If this game isn't made anymore, and no copy of it is available used. I've often wondered why for example Origin doesn't put all kinds of old games EA own IP's for on there. I can imagine loads of old titles from them and others that I'd love to be able to buy and play, titles that are not available on places like Steam, Origin, Gamers Gate og GoG...

Most of the Origin Systems games (Wing Commander, Ultima, etc.) are on GoG. I don't know about the rest, but it does take time to negotiate the rights to sell older games.

 

[GAunderrated]

I do pirate games from time to time to use as demos. Since morally is subjective, my own personal morals when it comes to pirated games is if I don't like it 1-5 hours in, i uninstall it. If I do like it I buy it. Of course if there is a rare case of a company disgusting me as a consumer with DRM (ubisoft) I will not purchase it, though that is a rare case.

 

[crazyrabbits]

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

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

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

 

[Twilight_guy]

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

You have a person trying to justify their deeds. Then a step further is the community (in this case) accepting that person's reasoning.

Of course everyone can justify anything, if they want too. But it is more interesting to discuss if this justification is accepted by the crowd.

I don't think so. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. If a million everyone believe that 1+1=3, it doesn't make it any more correct. I don't find arguing about what a group thinks on a moral issue to be particularly interesting since unless you stumble upon some sort of highly complex group dynamic with interesting implications, its often the same argument with that fallacy added.

 

[Playful Pony]

if it's impossible for me to get it in other ways... If this game isn't made anymore, and no copy of it is available used. I've often wondered why for example Origin doesn't put all kinds of old games EA own IP's for on there. I can imagine loads of old titles from them and others that I'd love to be able to buy and play, titles that are not available on places like Steam, Origin, Gamers Gate og GoG...

Most of the Origin Systems games (Wing Commander, Ultima, etc.) are on GoG. I don't know about the rest, but it does take time to negotiate the rights to sell older games.

Yes, I just miss so many of the games I used to play when I was but a little seedling, complete with dual ponytails and furry pink shirts... The discs are long lost/broken, and I can't seem to find some of the games anywhere I look! Some are still available, as you say, and all of those have been bought and enjoyed ^^.

 

[Entitled]

...
I mean, if I read lots of webcomics without donating to their creator, or watch all TV anime series without ever buying a blu-ray boxset, am I harming them by choosing the free option?
...

You are mostly right, but you picked a wrong example here. When you are watching TV series on TV, then the TV station still gets a revenue out of commercials which is also based on the amount of viewers and even more importantly the amount of viewers is an indication to renew or cancel the series.

No, actually I didn't. I took care to specifically mention TV anime series. In case you don't know, that industry is almost entirely based on disc sales and merchandise. With the exception a few mainstream children's cartoons, pretty much every show is aired in the late night, and viewed by so few, that the ads around them don't even pay for the programming slot. Publishers are basically paying to the networks for the privilege of airing their series, as if they would be advertisements, just so enough people can watch them from free, and then profit from the core fandom buying the ridiculously expensive discs.

It's actually a rather good example of how there are always alternatives to the "force everyone to pay" system, even in large industries with high production costs.

 

[lord.jeff]

I'm in the if you can't get it otherwise camp, how else would I get my date sims?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

This isn't a particularly hot topic for me. It simply doesn't bother me enough to get up in arms over it. If a game is abandonware, I take no issue with it being shared digitally for free to keep it alive. If you live in a country where the average wage is < $200/month and software companies still expect the same price their products sell for in the first world, then the outcome is inevitable and I've no sympathy.

For myself, I'm glad Steam came about. It did one thing that no other company or service could, which is to be better than piracy. That's right, the service is better and enough so to suck out many hundreds of pounds from my wallet. Piracy is free, fast, DRM free, 24/7, has tons of choice and doesn't require leaving the house. Until Steam, it was a superior service in all ways, not even including the "free" part. Now however Steam offers all of the above, with "legal" in lieu of free, and offers further ease of use, faster speeds, communications and community features and a consistent platform and one-stop shop for everything.

Someone mentioned TV and I'd like to revisit that point because this is a big issue where I do wander over the line. As an example, I'm a big fan of Dexter, Big Bang Theory and other US shows that eventually air here, none more so than Futurama. When new episodes were airing on the CC channel recently Stateside, I would get them online the next day with little more than a google search. They are not aired here at the same time as the US, in fact to my knowledge, Futurama (new episodes at least) has already finished for the year there, but hasn't even started here. There is no way for me to buy them, stream them or in any way watch them legally, with or without renumerating the channel. But that doesn't and will not stop me. If they think that I'm going to wait patiently for an official air/release date when I can watch it mere hours later, they are very, very much mistaken.

In the day and age of Youtube, iPlayer, Netflix, Hulu and other VoD services, there's frankly no excuse for failing to provide a legal, digital service, and stupid international restrictions have been extinct for a decade now, except no one apparently told the industry this. If there were a method of watching new Futurama episodes legally, without ads, as soon as they've aired and in high quality, I would gladly pay for such a service. I will clamor for them to take my money and give me their content. But they don't and no force on Earth is going to stop me watching the first available version I can find.

 

[Entitled]

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

You have a person trying to justify their deeds. Then a step further is the community (in this case) accepting that person's reasoning.

Of course everyone can justify anything, if they want too. But it is more interesting to discuss if this justification is accepted by the crowd.

I don't think so. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. If a million everyone believe that 1+1=3, it doesn't make it any more correct. I don't find arguing about what a group thinks on a moral issue to be particularly interesting since unless you stumble upon some sort of highly complex group dynamic with interesting implications, its often the same argument with that fallacy added.

The most constant center of every morality, the Golden Rule itself, "treat others like you would like to be treated", makes it necessery that we have some sort of consensus about what we, as a society would like to be treated.

Otherwise, we really couldn't condemn anything, a masochist could go around torturing people on the account that he wants to be tortured, or a politician could steal from the government budget on the account that he also expects others to steal from it.

Ultimately, unlike an exact science, morality does have to have an element of social consensus in it. It doesn't necessarily mean that "the majority is automatically right", but at least "common sense" has to be somewhat common.

 

[4RM3D]

I don't think so. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. If a million everyone believe that 1+1=3, it doesn't make it any more correct. I don't find arguing about what a group thinks on a moral issue to be particularly interesting since unless you stumble upon some sort of highly complex group dynamic with interesting implications, its often the same argument with that fallacy added.

I guess that is true, but piracy consist of two parts: a moral part and the law part. The law is based on fact, but there are still many interpretations (and ways to dodge it). But morality is something else entirely and is not factual, like math. Thus I do not believe you can use the '1+1=3' example here.

This is getting interesting. Please discuss further, if you want.

No, actually I didn't. *snip*

It's actually a rather good example of how there are always alternatives to the "force everyone to pay" system, even in large industries with high production costs.

Fair enough. I didn't look at it that way. That certainly explains why anime DVD's are more expensive than 'regular' TV shows on DVD.

 

[mirage202]

Personally I find there are 4 reasons I could accept if someone gave one of them to me as a reason they downloaded a cracked copy of a game.

1/ Unavailable. As in, completely. In say those markets where publishers don't even bother to try sell the game, due to the piracy rate. Awful catch-22 going on there, but hey, if they didn't pirate it, they'd never be able to play it.

2/ Detrimental DRM. Not "Oh it has always online and that's BS" but DRM that seriously breaks the game making it unplayable.

3/ Legitimate copy. You bought and paid for the game once, and you broke your disc. All those "I take perfect care of my CD/DVD's" can bugger off, accidents can, and will happen. This one is perhaps the most arguably moral of them all. Publishers after all do insist you purchase the right to the license, not the physical copy. By that it does not matter how the files were obtained, you still have a legally purchased license that was not automatically withdrawn at the breaking of said disc.

4/ Loss of digital service. Ties in a bit with #3, but slightly different as digital product. Say you end up with a banned Steam, or Origin account (excluding infractions like hacking, credit card fraud, serious stuff) then I feel someone would be justified in reacquiring their entire collection through third party means. A banned provider account does not terminate your license to those games, merely your access to them through that particular portal. Valve/EA games respectively are the exceptions, as they do have the right to pull your license according to their EULA's.

I'm not sure any of these are really justified, they are just personally what I would consider an acceptable excuse should a pirate use them honestly.

 

[DugMachine]

If certain programs were released at reasonable prices maybe people wouldn't pirate... some stuff I want costs anywhere from 600-1000 dollars like come on really?

disclaimerI don't pirate nor am I endorsing it so plz don't hurt me mods :3

 

[Kikosemmek]

Piracy is just the obviation of the distributor who acts as a middle-man and demands payment for providing you a copy of the product. From a purely economic perspective, it's providing a better service to the user- free proliferation rather than proliferation at a cost. That's all the justification you need.

And to be honest, in an age where 80% (my honest opinion) of games are pretty shitty, yet demand a $60 payment before you get to play them for even the first time, it's easy to see why piracy can be useful at mitigating regretful purchases. I myself pirated a few games before eventually buying them at full price: Bioshock, Skyrim, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood; I probably spent more than $60 on League of Legends, and that game is _free_, and I so far bought most of the Humble Bundles on Steam for over 2-3 times the average price, just because most of those games were very good and I wanted to encourage good ideas. I never had a problem paying for games I enjoyed. I had a problem paying the hefty $60 bucks for hyped up garbage that gets a bribed 95 review score on IGN, Gamespot, etc.

If piracy were to be completely eliminated, the result would essentially be me buying and playing less games, because I'd be wary of trying them out. I'd just stick to developers and IP's I trust and move on. However, in light of once-beloved developers recently betraying my trust, such as Blizzard's Diablo 3 and Bioware's everything-after-DA:O, I've become more cynical, and I'd say that in a world without piracy, I'd enjoy video games much less than usual. One thing that keeps me hopeful is that more and more companies are trying out the free-to-play model, relying on in-game micro transactions to cash in. That's one way for publishers to counter piracy's main competitive edge over them- free proliferation.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Heronblade]

short answer: no
long answer: nnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooo

Seriously, there are situations in which one can justify breaking the law, mostly cases where the action must be committed, rules be damned. Stealing a luxury item however boils down to simple greed, or impatience, or even a false sense of personal entitlement, none of which qualify as justifiable.

And don't give me that line about people just wanting to try the game, with the intent of buying it later on. We all know better.

 

[charge52]

DRM. I think that's the only reason why most people pirate games, and it's good reason.

That isn't really a reason, more an excuse. Unless they buy the game but play a pirated version, than it's fine.

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

Well said. I have the same issues with TV series.

I had a problem paying the hefty $60 bucks for hyped up garbage that gets a bribed 95 review score on IGN, Gamespot, etc.

*nods* I have stopped relying on reviews ages ago. 95% of all game reviews are like corporate spoon-fed propaganda. But that's another matter entirely.

One thing that keeps me hopeful is that more and more companies are trying out the free-to-play model, relying on in-game micro transactions to cash in. That's one way for publishers to counter piracy's main competitive edge over them- free proliferation.

Be careful what you wish for. League of Legends might be working out pretty well, but I can see the system getting abused fairly easily. Heck, it might already be happening with all those social games. Corporations looking for easier cash grabs and are destroying the game formula and fun in the process. To make matters worse, there are social games specifically aimed for kids, which have the option to buy stuff with real cash WITHOUT A LIMIT. There is even an option to buy $100 worth of gems in 1 go. I mean W.T.F.

Ahem, anyhow, if games use (not abuse) the model of LoL then I have hope.

 

[NotALiberal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Entitled]

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

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

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

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

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

Then what *is* a proper justification for morality?

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