Poll: Piracy is legal

[Entitled]

Yes it is a fairly modern invention, but then again it is digital media that truly revolutionized the entertainment industry. Earlier than the 19th century and plagarism of theater was rampant and authors attempted to combat it, however there were no legal protections.

No, you misunderstand me. IP laws existed before the 19th century. Th Statute of Monopolies in 1624 was the first patent law, and the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 was the first copyright act. The Statute of Anne in 1710 was the first one that gave rights to the writers and not to the printers.

IP is old. It is the PHRASE "intellectual property", that is a very new invention.

As for the relation of property, in a free market if no one is willing to give someone money to do something than it is not a profitable venture, and lets face it, the entertainment industry is dedicated to profit first, art second.

What does this have to do with relation to property? My farts are not selling on the free market, that doesn't make them property.

 

[LetalisK]

The morality of piracy is not dependent on the legality of the act and vice versa.

In my opinion, piracy is immoral in general, though more often than not I have difficulty seeing it as wrong...which I know doesn't make sense.

 

[BrassButtons]

Well, if you know about a forum where you accidentally end up stealing from artists from day to day, and you consider that "stealing" such an abhorrent crime, I would expect that you wouldn't want to go there again.

I'm sorry, in what way am I stealing (or infringing copyright, or whatever term you'd prefer to use) by viewing this site? I don't hold myself responsible for what other people do with their avatars. You might as well say that because people shoplift at the mall, and I oppose shoplifting, I shouldn't go to the mall.

 

[Entitled]

I'm sorry, in what way am I stealing (or infringing copyright, or whatever term you'd prefer to use) by viewing this site? I don't hold myself responsible for what other people do with their avatars. You might as well say that because people shoplift at the mall, and I oppose shoplifting, I shouldn't go to the mall.

I'm talking about all those Ackbar heads and angry pandas and anime sequences that you just downloaded into your computer's RAM memory.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Why is it "Actively harming" the mechanic who has used his time and resources to do something for you and not "Actively harming" the developer (who has dedicated time and resources to create the piece of content you are using)? Why is it OK to *steal from content creators but not people in your community who have provided a service for you? Why are these situations not the same? In any of those cases, you are taking something (time and resources) without giving something in return.

*I classify it as theft because you are taking money away from the people who created the game. I couldn't care less the actual charge would be if the police started breaking down doors. If you'd rather pretty it up and say "copyright infringe upon" or "breaking contract" then go ahead; those sound much less bad than steal so that makes it OK.

Well, the person you're quoting will defend himself, pretty easily since you're misinterpreting what he was saying, but I take issue with your concept of "taking." In this instance, that term doesn't seem applicable, since it applies to data and does not involve actively or, hell, even passively "taking" the developer's "time and resources."

Technically, the publisher did that when they hired the developer and paid them for their time. They took their time and resources in exchange for payment. The devs earn royalties for copies, certainly, but you're not really making an accurate comparison.

It especially isn't THEFT. Look up the legal definitions for all of the terms that are being used in place of THEFT.

Physically taking someone's book from them then walking away with it is theft. Copying data is copyright infringement. Robbery is pointing a gun at someone and stealing their wallet.

Note the differences. >.>

 

[Entitled]

Why is it "Actively harming" the mechanic who has used his time and resources to do something for you and not "Actively harming" the developer (who has dedicated time and resources to create the piece of content you are using)? Why is it OK to *steal from content creators but not people in your community who have provided a service for you? Why are these situations not the same? In any of those cases, you are taking something (time and resources) without giving something in return.

Because intellectual property can also be a form of positive externality, if the alternative option is to NOT get the content at all.

Piracy isn't about "TAKING something (time and resources) without giving something in return".

It is RECIEVING BENEFITS from someone's time and resources without giving something in return, that is not always theft.

If I would download the Lord of the Rings novels right now, how would that harm J.R.R. Tolkien?

 

[barbzilla]

And for anyone who thinks to call me a moral vacuum or other such thoughtless remarks, I would be deeply surprised if my Steam account is worth more than any 3 of yours combined.

Snip, I wouldn't call you anything of the sort, but I would contend that my steam account can hold water to yours (not sure if it is equal, lesser, or greater, but most likely near it in value. I actually agree with you on most aspects of your argument, so perhaps we just think along a similar line.

 

[SoopaSte123]

No, something being legal does not automatically make it morally ok. There, poll answered without even having to dabble in the whole piracy debate.

 

[Mr F.]

Downloading films/games/music for your own use when normally you would need to pay is robbery, and robbery is illegal. I think they should crack down on this even harder than on actual robbery, as this is easier.

Uh...

rob·ber·y
/ˈräb(&#601rē/
Noun
The action of robbing a person or place.
The felonious taking of personal property from someone using force or the threat of force.

I didnt know that when I downloaded things in the past I was robbing a person or a place. Nor that I was taking personal property using force or the threat of force. In fact, I thought I was making a digital copy of some information, for whatever reason, such as my own moral justifications (Information should be free).

To make it clear, when I was a Pirate I mainly downloaded books. Textbooks in particular. Music came second, with some games as an afterthought. Most of the games I illegally obtained (Legality and Morality are not always linked) I have since legally obtained (And sometimes the other way around, pending on DRM). Your definition of Robbery is incorrect.

As for the police cracking down harder on piracy than robbery... Eh? The threat or actual use of force to remove property from someone can scar someone for life, physically or emotionally. Nobody is directly harmed by what is referred to as piracy with regards to digital medias anyway.

Fuck it, under the harm principle internet piracy should not be punished whatsoever.

 

[tippy2k2]

Because intellectual property can also be a form of positive externality, if the alternative option is to NOT get the content at all.

Piracy isn't about "TAKING something (time and resources) without giving something in return".

It is RECIEVING BENEFITS from someone's time and resources without giving something in return, that is not always theft.

If I would download the Lord of the Rings novels right now, how would that harm J.R.R. Tolkien?

Ah. Alright, that makes sense. I still disagree (I think you driving off without paying for the mechanic work is you receiving benefits without paying for them; just like if you yanked a game off the interweb) but I get what you're saying, even if I don't agree with it

The Tolkien thing is something that I think we can agree on. In my ever so humble opinion, copyright stuff should run out eventually and become public domain at some point (personally, I think about five years should be plenty but that's just me). Unfortunately, our legal system gives the rights to the person in charge regardless of who actually did the work to create the work (in this case, Tolkien).

When you're grabbing things that are that old (where the creator is no longer gaining from the work created), I think you are slipping out of the black & white morality and slipping into gray. I still wouldn't call it right but it's not exactly wrong either (if that's possible).

 

[chozo_hybrid]

http://www.theomag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/piracyflowchart.jpg

This image basically sums up my view on piracy. If you didn't like the game or you liked it and you bought it, it's ok, but if you liked the game and you decide not to buy it (i.e. you think it would be a worthy purchase, you just don't want to spend money) then there is a problem.

As for the legality of it, it doesn't really matter since legal or not people still do it since it's nearly untraceable. It's almost always a moral problem.

That happens to sum up my views on it, I don't do it myself because I research something enough before to know whether I want it or not. Has yet to fail me so far, so I'm careful with my money.

In this day and age when you can look up plenty of reviews, game footage etc, there really isn't much excuse for doing it on the grounds of "what if it's crap", but each to their own I guess.

 

[drummond13]

While these examples are good proof that "it's OK to take something just if it's not a physical product" is a fallacy, because there ARE ways to harm someone without taking away their physical property, they don't prove anything about piracy itself. They are only connected through the increasingly shaky analogy of "theft".

But though your examples are immoral acts, they are not "theft" any more than copyright infringement is, these all fall into the category of "breaches of contract", and they So yeah, theft is bad, and breach of contract is bad too. That in itself doesn't prove why a third, tangentially related act is also wrong.

It's like if you would say "if killing people would be murder, then killing kittens would also be murder, therefore killing the presence of modern sexism would also be a form of murder".

For beginners, copyright infringement doesn't automatically involve either taking anything, or even harming the worker, in the same way as a breach of contract would.

You say you have heard all debates about piracy. If that's the case, why are you starting with the most basic fallacy, and lining up a bunch of analogies where criminals actively harm others, to another where criminals refuse to actively support others?

Why is it "Actively harming" the mechanic who has used his time and resources to do something for you and not "Actively harming" the developer (who has dedicated time and resources to create the piece of content you are using)? Why is it OK to *steal from content creators but not people in your community who have provided a service for you? Why are these situations not the same? In any of those cases, you are taking something (time and resources) without giving something in return.

*I classify it as theft because you are taking money away from the people who created the game. I couldn't care less the actual charge would be if the police started breaking down doors. If you'd rather pretty it up and say "copyright infringe upon" or "breaking contract" then go ahead; those sound much less bad than steal so that makes it OK.

I'm just curious, do you also think borrowing a dvd from a friend, or playing a friend's copy of Gears of War with him at his house (a copy you did not pay for) or buying a game used is also theft?

 

[Heronblade]

No, it will never be ok.

Everyone involved with a company who's products are vulnerable to piracy suffers when a significant amount of piracy is involved in the market. The company gets less money from their investment, and as a result has less incentive to put good effort into future work, or even necessarily to continue working on such products at all. This in turn leads to less quality material in the market for the consumers, whether or not they are inclined to pay for it.

 

[Entitled]

Ah. Alright, that makes sense. I still disagree (I think you driving off without paying for the mechanic work is you receiving benefits without paying for them; just like if you yanked a game off the interweb) but I get what you're saying, even if I don't agree with it

Yeah, and high sea robbery is also a form of receiving benefits without paying, and so is raping a prostitute. And so is getting your crops pollinated thanks to a nearby bee farm, or getting your house's price slightly increased because your neighbors all keep their front yards clean, improving the neighborhood's reputation.

That's the same kind of mistake as earlier. Just because a vague definition CAN include immorality, it doesn't mean that anything in it IS immoral. Freeloading also includes positive externalities, where a stuff is already there anyways, made for other beneffits than you paying for it,so you end up benefiting from it anyways.

The Tolkien thing is something that I think we can agree on. In my ever so humble opinion, copyright stuff should run out eventually and become public domain at some point (personally, I think about five years should be plenty but that's just me). Unfortunately, our legal system gives the rights to the person in charge regardless of who actually did the work to create the work (in this case, Tolkien).

For the record, I don't think that the concept of IP is evil. In this thread, I'm just hunting for the kind of arguments where people would answer that Tolkien's heirs still have a moral right to owning the books, or stamping out fanfiction and unauthorised movies and game mods, but they don't have a moral right to stop Fair use quotes, or ebook second hand sales, in other words, their moral rights are surprisingly similar to whatever the letter of the law says at the moment.

 

[tippy2k2]

I'm just curious, do you also think borrowing a dvd from a friend, or playing a friend's copy of Gears of War with him at his house (a copy you did not pay for) or buying a game used is also theft?

No I do not. I've heard the same argument given against my view as someone attempts to put me in a box. I do see them as different though.

Borrowing means that I am losing access to my game while giving it to someone else (piracy is copying that game so there are now multiple access points and giving it to someone else. The important part is there is still only one existing copy). By borrowing, there is still one copy out there that is bought and paid for and it is a basic consumer right of ours to do what we want with out property.

 

[Entitled]

By borrowing, there is still one copy out there that is bought and paid for and it is a basic consumer right of ours to do what we want with out property.

It's not your property, the IP holder can always just choose to sell you a license that only guarantees a limited amount of access to their content.

Microsoft has already registered a patent through which Kinect stops you from watching movies with too many people in the room, because you don't have a right to do that.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

No. In my opinion, even if it were legal there is still something morally wrong with it.

It just doesn't make sense, especially here in the West. I always say this when the issue of piracy comes up: if you own a console or computer set-up for gaming, then you can clearly afford to buy the games you want. If you can't afford to do so, then you either shouldn't have bought the system or perhaps you're in a situation in which games should probably be taking up less priority over say maintaining a comfortable income. The same applies for movies and music. The excuse of "Oh, but this is to make sure that it is of quality material" is BS as well, since the flow should be like this: Does the game look interesting? If yes, definitely, then pick it up. If yes, but hesitant, then either wait a bit or see what friends/word of mouth says. If no, then you don't buy the game. Because if you aren't interested or you think it isn't worth your money, then you'e pretty much established that it's not worth playing. What you shouldn't do is then go and pirate the game that you just established isn't worth paying for, and therefore not worth playing.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Yes it is a fairly modern invention, but then again it is digital media that truly revolutionized the entertainment industry. Earlier than the 19th century and plagarism of theater was rampant and authors attempted to combat it, however there were no legal protections.

No, you misunderstand me. IP laws existed before the 19th century. Th Statute of Monopolies in 1624 was the first patent law, and the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 was the first copyright act. The Statute of Anne in 1710 was the first one that gave rights to the writers and not to the printers.

IP is old. It is the PHRASE "intellectual property", that is a very new invention.

As for the relation of property, in a free market if no one is willing to give someone money to do something than it is not a profitable venture, and lets face it, the entertainment industry is dedicated to profit first, art second.

What does this have to do with relation to property? My farts are not selling on the free market, that doesn't make them property.

Yet you do not make a effort to produce your farts, nor does anyone make a living by their farts. Simply put if someone creates somthing they have the right to it. And another important point is that pirates, by attempting to enjoy somthing, contribute to its destruction. If piracy is held as both morally and legally acceptable than those who would attempt to create these things for profit, the very things that the escapist is built around discussion of, would cease to do so. If someone labors to produce something, any form of art/entertainment media, then for one they should hold control over it until they willingly forfeit it, as surely as any physical property they labored to produce, and any who wish to enjoy their creation should be subject to their standards. If they wish to allow it to be freely spread than so be it, yet if they wish to be paid for it then either the people will view it as something worthy of monetary value or they will not, and as such choose whether or not to pay and view or not and not.