Poll: Can piracy be justified?

[In Search of Username]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

 

[Phlakes]

It's all a bunch of shades of grey (don't), but if you have relatively easy access to the game, then the answer is pretty much no. The only times it moves over the a lighter part of the spectrum is something like when the game isn't available in your region, or it's an old one that you can't find without spending $500 on eBay.

But people who pirate in protest or because they "can't afford" it, that's bullshit, and they're criminals.

 

[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.

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.

You do realize that your argument that I'm making a straw-man argument relies on you accepting that my initial argument, anything can be rationalized, is true. Thus you've invalidated the whole exchange by accepting the reasoning I initially started with. i don't care about arguing what thing is more morally wrong I was only stating that anything can be rationalized, thus pointing out the flaw in the logic of this thread's whole question. Talking about whether piracy can be rationalized is pointless. Arguing about copyright law or the goals of laws that prevent piracy would be interesting.

Also,about your first statement. Your essentially saying that if the owner does not wish to make copies of his work available, for whatever reason and giving whatever resulting context, then you should still be able to get a copy. Thus the owner has no right to control distribution of his work. Thus he has no control over his work and idea. To this statement I can only make one response: "Go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars." I believe in people having the right to control their creations and ideas and I consider it theft to steal intangible possessions as much as stealing tangible ones. Copyright law may suck ass but the core idea is still one worth defending.

 

[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.

Then what *is* a proper justification for morality?

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

There is no proper justification for morality, it's subjective. However when it comes to this issue, the law lets a person do that. You can argue that the law should change and state opinion and such but its still the law and my opinion is that the core idea of that law is good. If the previous poster had been more explicit on the idea that he opposed said laws and thinks his idea are correct, I probably wouldn't have bother to respond, but his brazen disregard for the law and issues and simply stating his idea as if it was undeniable irked me.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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.

Yes, it is a strawman, and your follow-up justification is incorrect. Murders, by and large, are much more publicized than piracy, which (most of the time) is small-scale in nature. I don't know of anyone who would rationalize an argument that someone who takes a life/multiple lives is on the same level as someone sharing or copying existing data, which is not deleted in the latter case. It's a fallacy and strawman, so you need to stop bringing it up, because you're wrong. Plain and simple.

As far as your second point goes, if the copyright owner deliberately doesn't make their product available, and there's a demand from the public for it, it's their loss if people download it. The copyright owner is simply not capitalizing on potential profit. I'm not justifying it. I'm just pointing out that people will gravitate towards the method of distribution (legal/illegal) which is the easiest to access. If the owner doesn't make/doesn't want to have their product available, it's their problem when people download it.

Wait, what? I said murder was worse then piracy and you agreed but disagreed... or are you saying that they're incomparable? Are you saying that one being worse means it can be justified but something else bad can't? I don't know what just happened.

Yeah, it is their problem. They want to, for whatever reason, not distribute their idea/product/whatever, which is legally theirs and people are doing what they like anyways. It's also the problem of the victim when their house is burglarized. That's why laws exist to combat such situations.

 

[4RM3D]

Talking about whether piracy can be rationalized is pointless. Arguing about copyright law or the goals of laws that prevent piracy would be interesting.

Feel free to give your insight/opinion on copyright laws or the goals of laws that prevent piracy.

I believe in people having the right to control their creations and ideas and I consider it theft to steal intangible possessions as much as stealing tangible ones. Copyright law may suck ass but the core idea is still one worth defending.

Yes, people have the right to control their own creations (not withstanding contracts with companies/publishers). But if people don't care about releasing their product in certain parts of the world, then by extend, they also don't care about profit in those parts. That might not justify piracy, but it would come a long way to rationalize it. To throw it in an even more gray area, those people usually have a contract with a publisher and thus it is the publisher's choice not to release the product in certain countries. I am willing to respect a person's individual choice not to release a product in certain countries. But screw the publisher; they only care about money.

 

[Aaron Foltz]

I use to pirate PC games when I lost my job. Was on foodstamps and had little money for entertainment. So I pirated BUT now since I got a well paying job I have since bought every game I pirated, for real.

 

[afroebob]

I think that it is justifiable if the software you are pirating is not being made anymore (old games, computer programs, etc.), if it is unattainable in your country (China is a big example), and if the product is ridiculously overpriced. DRM is a tough one, I mean if you really have a problem with the DRM just download a crack.

 

[Olas]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

But doesn't it defeat the entire point of a law if the only ones we follow are the ones we already agree anyway and therefore would obey anyway? A law, in order to be effective has to restrict people from doing things they'd normally choose to do on our own. If we pick and choose which laws to follow we've essentially removed their purpose in the first place and yes that does make you an anarchist, even if you don't realize it.

For example, take the Joker from TDK. He obeys many many laws in that movie, it's illegal to rape people and he never rapes anyone. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated and we never see him do that. It doesn't make him any less of an anarchist. It's because he doesn't have any intention of doing these things in the first place, regardless of their legality.
So that fact that there are some rules you choose to obey doesn't really mean anything.

Believing that laws should exist but then choosing to disregard whichever ones you don't like just makes you a hypocritical anarchist.

 

[In Search of Username]

Can piracy be justified? Yes. People justify it all the time. Does that make it right? Probably not. Does that make it any less illegal? Definitely not. And it should matter that it's illegal. Thinking that you are above the law and therefore that legality shouldn't apply to you sets a dangerous precedent. There are plenty of rules I disagree with, but I put up with them because I value law and order in society in general. If you think you should be able to just break any law you don't personally agree with you're essentially an anarchist.


Yet again the poll results are giving me the finger. Fuck you poll. t(-_-t)

There's a difference between believing you have a right to break laws you disagree with and thinking there should be no laws at all. The latter is anarchism, the former is simply a minor act of rebellion from someone who's probably got no problem whatsoever with the majority of laws, but doesn't see the point of the particular one they're breaking. So I don't think you can just label people as anarchists unless they reject ALL laws.

But doesn't it defeat the entire point of a law if the only ones we follow are the ones we already agree anyway and therefore would obey anyway? A law, in order to be effective has to restrict people from doing things they'd normally choose to do on our own. If we pick and choose which laws to follow we've essentially removed their purpose in the first place and yes that does make you an anarchist, even if you don't realize it.

For example, take the Joker from TDK. He obeys many many laws in that movie, it's illegal to rape people and he never rapes anyone. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated and we never see him do that. It doesn't make him any less of an anarchist. It's because he doesn't have any intention of doing these things in the first place, regardless of their legality.
So that fact that there are some rules you choose to obey doesn't really mean anything.

Believing that laws should exist but then choosing to disregard whichever ones you don't like just makes you a hypocritical anarchist.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it does. I believe that laws should exist because most of them are vital to keep society working, but some of them I disagree with and would prefer not to exist. In an ideal world, I'd hope they'd be changed and thus I could be entirely lawful as well as true to my own moral code. But in the absence of that, I don't see what's wrong with breaking the occasional rule that I disagree with. It's like, I dunno, provisional anarchy. There's little hope of all the laws I disagree with being changed any time soon, so it's either that or blindly follow all laws whether or not they conflict with my views - and if everyone did that, laws would never change in the first place.

For example by your logic, anyone who lives under some kind of totalitarian regime has the option of either being considered an anarchist (regardless of how they'd feel towards living in a more democratic state) or being entirely subservient. So I think calling someone an anarchist for disagreeing with certain laws is too simplistic a view. I'd concede that disobeying laws is partially anarchistic but by your definition there is no difference between someone who rejects all forms of authority and someone who rejects only those they consider unjust.

 

[Warachia]

Yes, I think it can be justified for your media reasons 1 and 4, I remember some games that had such bad DRM pirating them was really the only way to play them.

Extra note, in the case of 4 usually you only found out about the terrible DRM after you bought it, and if you pirated it you should still have a legitimate copy of it, as for me, that's like getting extra copies of something you already own (that you will not redistribute) in case one of them doesn't work, which I think in some cases isn't illegal.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

I own Age of Empires III... destroyed my disc, pirated an ISO with a crack to allow the game to launch the ISO.


Is it really Piracy? I owned the game technically.

 

[Warachia]

But doesn't it defeat the entire point of a law if the only ones we follow are the ones we already agree anyway and therefore would obey anyway? A law, in order to be effective has to restrict people from doing things they'd normally choose to do on our own. If we pick and choose which laws to follow we've essentially removed their purpose in the first place and yes that does make you an anarchist, even if you don't realize it.

For example, take the Joker from TDK. He obeys many many laws in that movie, it's illegal to rape people and he never rapes anyone. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated and we never see him do that. It doesn't make him any less of an anarchist. It's because he doesn't have any intention of doing these things in the first place, regardless of their legality.
So that fact that there are some rules you choose to obey doesn't really mean anything.

Believing that laws should exist but then choosing to disregard whichever ones you don't like just makes you a hypocritical anarchist.

No it doesn't, I thought people who break the laws were called criminals, believing that some laws should exist and others doesn't does not make you an anarchist, it makes you a person with opinions, you don't need to choose "all or none" with laws, and an anarchist is just somebody who believes there shouldn't be any laws. If a law is ineffective or unnecessary it gets changed or removed, and one of things the government does is pick and choose which laws should be enforced (in a broad sense). That does not make government officials anarchists.

Captcha: end of story

 

[mrdude2010]

There are certainly some cases in which I can see justifications for piracy. Related to the ridiculously high prices one is a game from a now-defunct developer from 12 years ago that they're trying to hawk for like $30

To add to the list, if you previously owned the game but your disk got scratched, it's just your personal use digital backup copy, that might even be completely legal. Happened to me with WC3. Bought the game way back when, CD doesn't work anymore, downloaded a version, and used my original CD key.

 

[Olas]

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it does. I believe that laws should exist because most of them are vital to keep society working, but some of them I disagree with and would prefer not to exist. In an ideal world, I'd hope they'd be changed and thus I could be entirely lawful as well as true to my own moral code. But in the absence of that, I don't see what's wrong with breaking the occasional rule that I disagree with. It's like, I dunno, provisional anarchy. There's little hope of all the laws I disagree with being changed any time soon, so it's either that or blindly follow all laws whether or not they conflict with my views - and if everyone did that, laws would never change in the first place.

For example by your logic, anyone who lives under some kind of totalitarian regime has the option of either being considered an anarchist (regardless of how they'd feel towards living in a more democratic state) or being entirely subservient. So I think calling someone an anarchist for disagreeing with certain laws is too simplistic a view. I'd concede that disobeying laws is partially anarchistic but by your definition there is no difference between someone who rejects all forms of authority and someone who rejects only those they consider unjust.

Okay, anarchist isn't the right term, you're right. Just because you choose to defy the laws of a certain society doesn't inherently mean you don't believe in laws period. It might just be that you reject that particular authority as a whole.
Still, I hold firm that if you stand by your societies laws as a whole you should obey ALL of them, even the ones you don't agree with. Nobody agrees with every single law or rule that authorities create, but we obey them because we respect those authorities enough to put our minor differences aside.
Relying on a countries legal system to keep you safe and secure but then violating that same system the moment you disagree with one of it's policies that inconveniences you is spineless and hypocritical. Just suck it up and pay for your damn music. If you really have a problem with it either try to change public policy, or move to somewhere where it is legal.

 

[vun]

I own Age of Empires III... destroyed my disc, pirated an ISO with a crack to allow the game to launch the ISO.


Is it really Piracy? I owned the game technically.

See, this is sort of a tricky area. Downloading the game you own from an illegal source is still not legal, but I'd say there's nothing morally wrong about that.

Another part is when whatever you're pirating is no longer in the hands of their original creators.
Say you pirate a Jimi Hendrix album; he's not even alive anymore so you wouldn't be supporting him if you did buy the album.

Of course this might have been said already, I just didn't feel like reading through 4 pages on legal discussion. My apologies if my laziness has rendered this post superfluous.

Oh, and no matter how morally justified piracy might be; it's still illegal and I'm inclined to say it should be; while in some of the cases in this thread that are morally justified makes it seem like a good idea to loosen up on the laws surroundind piracy this would just make it easier to exploit as it's already sort of a grey area.

 

[Olas]

snip

No it doesn't, I thought people who break the laws were called criminals, believing that some laws should exist and others doesn't does not make you an anarchist, it makes you a person with opinions, you don't need to choose "all or none" with laws, and an anarchist is just somebody who believes there shouldn't be any laws. If a law is ineffective or unnecessary it gets changed or removed, and one of things the government does is pick and choose which laws should be enforced (in a broad sense). That does not make government officials anarchists.

Captcha: end of story

Your missing my point.
I'm not saying that disagreeing with a law makes you an anarchist, I'm saying that thinking it's okay to break a law simply because you disagree with it does. Everybody disagrees with some laws, I disagree with many US laws, but they're still laws, so I still obey them. Government officials disagree with laws, but they obey them, then they try to change them. If they fail to change them they continue to obey them. It's just that simple. If a congressman was caught breaking a law he didn't agree with, he wouldn't just try to justify what he did morally to the public, he'd resign.

It doesn't matter if you think pirating music is morally justified, it's illegal.

If the fact that something is illegal doesn't override your own personal opinion on whether it should be okay to do it, then you are disregarding the laws of your country in favor of your own. As In Search of Username pointed out that technically isn't anarchism, perhaps it's more akin to nihilism. Regardless it makes you a hypocrite if you think other rules of that authority should be followed.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Generally I agree that if the product isn't available to you in any other form, piracy can be justified. Still not necessarily the right thing, but you don't really have any other option if you want to enjoy the work.

 

[Vegosiux]

This can o' worms again.

Well, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over, so I shall say thusly:

There is a plethora of reasons for people copying things outside the extent of any license they may (or may not) have, some of those reasons less scrupulous than others. Not all piracies are created equal and therefore there's no blanket generalization to cover them all.

But there is most definitely a difference between someone who regularly pirates because they're simply too cheap and someone who rips a couple of their favorite songs from different albums onto one compilation to use in their car on a long drive.