Is Piracy Ethical?

[Kes]

 piracy is blatantly not the same thing as stealing and in no way does it have the same consequences.

Literally every argument about this is filled with hideously flawed logic.

Two unsubstantiated assertions.

Would you care to list precisely and exactly why piracy is not the same as stealing and never (which is the strict meaning of "in no way") has the same consequences?

Would you then provide specific and detailed examples of the failure of logic, indicating exactly what the flaw is so that this point can be discussed.  Otherwise it becomes nothing more than "yes it is." "No it isn't".  As, in your view, no unflawed argument exists (you do say "literally every argument") this should not be hard.

 

[Cyreides]

Would you care to list precisely and exactly why piracy is not the same as stealing

As for the consequences of piracy vs stealing, this should be obvious if you can follow the picture. One causes a loss of something and now it has to replaced or reproduced and that costs money. The other does not, and honestly, would have the potential to make the world a better place if it were possible IRL.

 

[Kes]

But what you have stolen, in addition to the physical object in the first illustration, is the income that rightly accrues to the creator of the item.  You have simply ignored one of the key features of RL.  This does not make your illustration a valid description of the act, it makes it an incomplete one.  As such, it fails to substantiate your assertion.  Logic 101

As for the consequences of piracy vs stealing, this should be obvious if you can follow the picture. One causes a loss of something and now it has to replaced or reproduced and that costs money. The other does not, and honestly, would have the potential to make the world a better place if it were possible IRL.

Your second point also fails basic logic.  You say that "The other does not [cause the loss of something]".  The something that has been lost is the income accruing to the creator of the item.

You assert the world would potentially be a better place if this were to happen.  Better for whom?  For the person unjustly deprived of the reward of their labour?  The person who perhaps will now not go on to create something else, so depriving others of future products?  Or only better for the one committing the piracy?  You need to be more precise in allocating costs and benefits.

 

[??????]

As for the consequences of piracy vs stealing, this should be obvious if you can follow the picture. One causes a loss of something and now it has to replaced or reproduced and that costs money. The other does not, and honestly, would have the potential to make the world a better place if it were possible IRL.

According to this..

If I somehow managed to obtain a free copy/version/exact replica of something it is not stealing...

So for talking sake, if I somehow managed to create an exact replica of YOU, decided to control this replica's actions and made it walk around pretending It was you. Even though you would 'still be there' I have not stolen your life?

And to finish... Some quotes from Einstein...

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[Indinera]

You don't have the right to make a copy available, so if you make one, it is unethical. There, done with the stupid pic.

 

[Andar]

As for the consequences of piracy vs stealing, this should be obvious if you can follow the picture. One causes a loss of something and now it has to replaced or reproduced and that costs money. The other does not, and honestly, would have the potential to make the world a better place if it were possible IRL.

That logic is also flawed, because you neglect the value of the item.
Without copying, that item has a value based on it's rarity and exclusivity. If it's copied, then that rarity is reduced - if it's copied a thousand times, it's become worthless. You can see that any time you look for something on ebay - items that are rare will get higher prices than items that are common. So you might not have stolen the item physically, but you have destroyed its value - and the owner of the original had paid money for it.


And another example: Let's talk about an item like a 1-dollar-note. Let's say that you didn't steal it, you just copied it. According to your logic there is no problem with it - why does the government calls that counterfeiting and puts people in jail for doing that?

 

[Indinera]

The only thing that this picture proves is that piracy is not the exact same thing as "stealing a physical item", it doesn't disprove by any stretch of the imagination that it is bad, see my post above.

 

[Cyreides]

You're still thinking in terms of physical items with tangible value lol.

No matter though, I see I've stumbled into an argument that's going to revolve entirely around assumptions and false equivalencies, so I think I'll just stop and let you all have your moment. Clearly there's not going to be any sort of actual "debate" about this.

 

[??????]

Clearly there's not going to be any sort of actual "debate" about this.

If there is no opposition, there is no debate. It would seem you where the only one promoting the argument that piracy is ethical; therefore, as you also state 'I think I'll just stop', your quoted comment immediately becomes UN-necessary.

 

[Kes]

Please state what those false equivalences are so that they can be debated, otherwise it looks like a way of sliding out of actually answering the points made (or maybe as a way of concealing that you don't have a way of answering them).

 

[cabfe]

There is the absolute and there is the particular.

If someone gave you the ability to go back in time and kill a really evil person (not falling for the Godwin point!) would it still be murder and punishable when you return?

It's a little extreme and I don't think piracy ever offered the same kind of moral implication.

It's just born almost at the same time as computing technology and therefore became a second nature for some people.

The success of buying platforms like Steam or GoG still implies that a lot of people do care to buy even if a simple Google search could get them the desired item for free.

People seem to be ethical, after all, and choose to buy. There is still hope for this world

 

[Tsukihime]

You're still thinking in terms of physical items with tangible value lol.

As for the consequences of piracy vs stealing, this should be obvious if you can follow the picture. One causes a loss of something and now it has to replaced or reproduced and that costs money. The other does not, and honestly, would have the potential to make the world a better place if it were possible IRL.

Yes, in an ideal world where no one needs money, then free software is a wonderful thing.


Businesses create things to advance society, consumers download tools that allow them to do their work and enjoy themselves.


But that's not how the world works.


If someone steals software or digital art, the owner has also lost a means to make revenue in that I can easily get it off the pirate bay for free without having to go through them.


Why would I spend money on something that I can get for free and sometimes potentially must faster?

 

[Aceri]

You're still thinking in terms of physical items with tangible value lol.

No matter though, I see I've stumbled into an argument that's going to revolve entirely around assumptions and false equivalencies, so I think I'll just stop and let you all have your moment. Clearly there's not going to be any sort of actual "debate" about this.

Getting a free copy of something that should be bought is illegal unless specifically given by the creator and/or publisher.

Going just by the views your expressing in this topic, then stealing digital items is fine and it's not stealing. So, if I were to hack your Steam account, change all the info and keep your account for myself, because it's over the internet and you can re-acquire steam and it's games, then it's really not stealing and you should have no right to report me for taking your account.

I'm not a hacker, I'm not that code savvy, but the example fits.

Pirating something that somebody is trying to sell is taking and/or reducing that person/s ability to create future content, and feed him/herself and pay the bills. Saying, "There's people out there who will buy the product so it's not like I'm hurting anything by downloading it." is just ignorant and an excuse people tell themselves to not feel like a criminal.

In the same right though, game developers who charge like 40-60 bucks for a crap game, in my opinion is also theft, just legal. And I'm not talking about games that I personally don't like, but games that really do, agreed by everyone, suck. Like, "The Walking Dead: Survival Instincts" should not of been released at the price it was. It's such a crap game. Same goes for The War Z(the DayZ cash-grab knockoff) and various other games released by triple A companies and indies alike.

 

[Cyreides]

but the example fits.

Except that it does not. 

This kind of stuff is exactly what I meant by false equivalencies lol.

 

[Kes]

Okay, in that case, let's stick with your example and say that it is you stealing/pirating a copy of my game.

Your left hand picture.  the end result of stealing a physical copy of a game is that you have a game you did not pay for, and I have lost the income from that game.

Your right hand picture.  The end result of pirating a copy of a game is that you have a game you did not pay for, and I have lost the income from that game.

Yup,they  seem pretty similar to me.

 

[Cyreides]

Yup,they  seem pretty similar to me.

Only because you're not looking at why.

 

[echo]

I would never say piracy is ethical, but there are cases when the owners of the material aren't exactly playing fair either.  For instance, a lot of The Beatles music should've come into public domain a few years ago.  'PS I Love You' and 'Love Me Do' did, but then the owners (whoever they are - but not McCartney and Starkey) twigged that they'd miss out on a lot of money, and extended the licence.  There's a time limit on that stuff for a reason, it's supposed to be the public's after the 'agreed upon' time, and they're twisting that for their own gain.  Quite a specific example I know, but it shows that it can be a bit of an ethical minefield.

 

[Aceri]

Except that it does not. 

This kind of stuff is exactly what I meant by false equivalencies lol.

Well if you ever decided to try and commercialize a game you've made with this program, then you wouldn't mind if we all just downloaded it instead of buying it from you.

 

[Cyreides]

Well if you ever decided to try and commercialize a game you've made with this program, then you wouldn't mind if we all just downloaded it instead of buying it from you.

If you can't afford it or you never would have have purchased it anyways because you think it's not worth the money or because you're just trying to spite me or you're trying to save money, then there's no money to gain from you in the first place. Therefore, there is none in the equation for me to lose by you just downloading it for free instead.

So go ahead. It doesn't effect me.

And besides, when I make something like a game, or music, or art of some form, I mean for it to be enjoyed. So I'd wish for as many people to play it as possible regardless of how.

 

[Aceri]

Well it's good to create something for enjoyment, that's what makes a product good, when it's not made for the top dollar.

I'm not talking about just me though, imagine if everybody stole it instead of buying it. Yeah it would be nice knowing people are playing your product, but it would also be irritating that you're not getting what you feel you deserve for it.

Imagine if you were at work, and your boss didn't pay you for the work you did. BS, right?