The Ethics of Piracy

sorry my post looks very unorganized, normally I edit two or three times and con't on front page. But I"m sure some of you are getting the gist of it.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
Click to expand...

That's great and all, if it ignored the fact that you can't copy the entirety of a car with little to no effort or cost.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
Click to expand...

There are two major flaws with that horrific analogy.

First off is the scarcity issue. To replace that car would cost the maker 25-30K. For someone to download a copy has NO direct cost to the developer or the publisher. In other words, the maker is deprived of something in order for the individual to recieve the item. That simply isn't the case here.

Second is the at fault issue. Crashing implies that it is you made a mistake or error and caused damage to the object. Which might apply if you break the DVD. However, fair use says you should be able to make back ups of DVDs. That isn't usally the issue however, it's the DRM. That is analogous to an automaker installing a black box in your car and the car doesn't start unless it gets a "heartbeat" from the automakers severs. If an automaker turned off my car remotely, I'd sure as hell expect to go jump in another one and take it home for free.
 
Omegas said:
Completely off-topic, but what if microsoft bought out steam and started doing movies/music on steam. If you buy a game on steam you can play it on your computer or your Xbox, watch it on your PC or XBox, save movies to your WHS like steam games on your PC.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what I'd like. Only trouble is how to acquire the ream and reams of movies and music from the industries still clinging to the old business models?
 
GlacierFreeze said:
If I buy a brand new $35,000 car and crash it without insurance, can I go jump in another and take it home for free? Of course feckin' not.
Click to expand...
If I buy a $3500 PC, and my hard drive crashes, can I get another and reinstall all my apps for free? chances are that I will encounter problems.
 
The only creed I adhere to when it comes to pirating is.

If it isn't worth buying, then it isn't worth pirating. That applies mostly to games, though.
 
let me double post, how about this, what about the ethics of them expecting you to buy multiple copies of the SAME product in different formats when new technology comes out or your old technology fails?

how about THAT for ethics?
 
This is fairly simply in my mind.

I simply make a decision on wether I would have bought something had piracy not been an option. Would the guy have bought an ebook had piracy not been an option, or would he rather just re-read his paperback?

If the answer is, "sod that I'll just re-read my paperback", then in what way does it matter if you pirate an ebook copy? I believe that as long as you're not harming others then pretty much any action is morally acceptable, there is no harm done in digitally copying something you had no intention of buying in the first place, what have the creators of the media lost?

Some people pirate just because they don't want to pay for soemthing, that's bad, and there is a clear distinction here.
 
Seeing as many companies in the Music, Movie, & Gaming industries conduct unethical business practices, I don't see any problem downloading a copy of anything you have spent money on. The whole paying for a license to use media/not actually owning something is complete bs.
 
The ethical situation is easy to resolve through a basic yes/no question:

Is it ethical to break the law?

If yes, then it is ethical to download the items. If not, then it is not ethical to download the items.


I think the actual question is "should it be illegal?"
 
PornoSatan said:
That's great and all, if it ignored the fact that you can't copy the entirety of a car with little to no effort or cost.
Click to expand...

What if the technology existed for me to scan a car with a beam of light and produce an exact copy of that car?

Would it then be fine to copy cars?
 
Omegas said:
Completely off-topic, but what if microsoft bought out steam and started doing movies/music on steam. If you buy a game on steam you can play it on your computer or your Xbox, watch it on your PC or XBox, save movies to your WHS like steam games on your PC.
Click to expand...

As a note, Microsoft already does allow digital downloading of their software. If you purchase it digitally, you can download it as many times as you like and make as many backup copies as you desire.

But that is Microsoft setting the rules on the use of the licenses you buy from them. I personally like it.
 
jiminator said:
If I check a book out from the library and read it, am I stealing it?
Click to expand...

similarly if i check out a dvd from the library and watch it, is that stealing?
if i borrow a dvd from a friend and watch it for free, is that stealing?
if i rent a movie and my buddies come over and we all watch it, they didn't pay a cent. are they stealing?
 
cybrsage said:
The ethical situation is easy to resolve through a basic yes/no question:

Is it ethical to break the law?

If yes, then it is ethical to download the items. If not, then it is not ethical to download the items.


I think the actual question is "should it be illegal?"
Click to expand...
Yes it is ethical to break the law. This can be proven with a simple test case. If a law is written that says you must first rape your neighbor, then pillage their house, and finally murder their children if and only if they have blond hair, are you going to say it is unethical not to follow that law? So then it is pretty clear that laws do not drive ethics.

cybrsage said:
What if the technology existed for me to scan a car with a beam of light and produce an exact copy of that car?

Would it then be fine to copy cars?
Click to expand...
Of course. Who are you depriving of something by doing so?
 
Unless you're atheist or agnostic or some panthiesm like buddhism, I can't see how you get past it that there is absolute/universal moral law. Having said that, it is ethical to disobey your government if they encourage you to break universal moral law.

I'd like to think there are other good reasons to disobey your government, but maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.
 
I think there need to be a distinction between "stealing" & "copyright infringement".
This is no different than making a copy of a cassette tape back in the 80's or making a copy of a VHS movie. No one raised a stink as long as you were not selling or making people pay to watch it. Why is it now a crime to do the same thing? As far as I see it, as long as there is no money exchanged...there was no crime committed. I can make a thousand copies of a cd I own & give it to everyone I see & I have committed no crime. But downloading a cd over the internet is different & a crime? Please explain that to me.
 
My view of things like the Jamie Thomas case is that the internet is like a huge radio station. People download tons of songs to listen to them. They still buy the albums. This worked for years when I was a child, recording songs from the radio to make an album, and later buying the actual albums. The whole "making available" argument leads to draconian punishment that is way past cruel and unusual. If the same song can be picked up via 5000 different sources via a simple search, is that really making anything available? This is really just an industry wedded to old outdated concepts that refuses to change. What they really need to figure out is how to use PTP media to promote their products instead of how to punish the PTP users.
 
Parmenides said:
Unless you're atheist or agnostic or some panthiesm like buddhism, I can't see how you get past it that there is absolute/universal moral law.
Click to expand...

Universal? Right, because religions are known throughout history to have gotten along because after-all, they all have the same universal morals.

lol
 
Spewn said:
Universal? Right, because religions are known throughout history to have gotten along because after-all, they all have the same universal morals.

lol
Click to expand...

Religions have plenty of disagreements. But there exists at least some absolute moral laws (ex: no murdering innocent people, no killing babies for fun, respect those who deserve it).

Some people might disagree on what "innocent" means or disagree on who is deserving of the respect. Nevertheless, the core moral principles are universal. Even Hitler would attempted to justify his atrocities by defining Jews as some sort of sub-human. His premises were incorrect, but at least he tried to justify his actions. Why justify if there is no binding moral law?

If we are going to say that piracy is ethical or that it is unethical, we will have to move on beyond someone's subjective feelings, and judge based upon real moral principles.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
The automakers who own the patents for the entirety of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, I can buy parts for a car from anyone and not just the OEM. It is also legal for me to buy exact OEM replacement parts for every part of the car and assemble them my self. So how is this any different?
 
vengence said:
Last time I checked, I can buy parts for a car from anyone and not just the OEM. It is also legal for me to buy exact OEM replacement parts for every part of the car and assemble them my self. So how is this any different?
Click to expand...

The automaker is still making money that way.
 
Spewn said:
Objectively speaking, why doesn't that apply to software as well?
Click to expand...

Probably because you don't re-create software in your garage or your office, you merely copy it. If you want to program your own Assassin's Creed 2 for your own personal use, go ahead. I don't think Ubisoft would care.
 
Parmenides said:
Probably because you don't re-create software in your garage or your office, you merely copy it. If you want to program your own Assassin's Creed 2 for your own personal use, go ahead. I don't think Ubisoft would care.
Click to expand...

So if I had a duplication ray, and not a machine shop, it wouldn't be ok to make my own car parts with it?
 
LOL, duplication ray. Dude man... LOL

If we had duplication rays, we would have a whole new set of laws, and a whole new different set of things to concern ourselves with.
 
Parmenides said:
LOL, duplication ray. Dude man... LOL.
Click to expand...

So when I go to wal-mart and have a key copied, why don't I morally owe Schlage for that?

Or if I input the parameters of the part I want to machine into my CNC device which can then make endless copies?

We're not talking about economic implications, we're talking about morals. Tell me why it's *morally* wrong to make copies of software, but not physical things.
 
Spewn said:
So when I go to wal-mart and have a key copied, why don't I morally owe Schlage for that?

Or if I input the parameters of the part I want to machine into my CNC device which can then make endless copies?

We're not talking about economic implications, we're talking about morals. Tell me why it's *morally* wrong to make copies of software, but not physical things.
Click to expand...

Laws are made to protect the innovator, the creator, the man who put in the hard work. The 'moral' is 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short'. How we implement that moral is another question. And I'm not saying that copying a fixed .exe for something you purchased is morally wrong. If anything it seems to help the producer.

We don't need laws that protect against physical things because such laws don't help protect principle: 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short.' If physical things could by copied by some goofey magic copy ray, then yes we would have to make new laws to protect that moral principle.

Law are not morals. Infact, probably 50% of the time, laws are just dumb.
 
cybrsage said:
The ethical situation is easy to resolve through a basic yes/no question:

Is it ethical to break the law?

I think the actual question is "should it be illegal?"
Click to expand...

the problem with this "simple" yes/no question, is that there is no simple answer to it. the only correct answer IMO is "sometimes". I think most here would probably agree that killing in self defense is ethical--even if they believe killing is essentially immoral. Ethical relativism is messy, but relates to reality much better than the absolutist alternative.

I agree 100% with changing the scope of the discussion to "should..."
 
Parmenides said:
Laws are made to protect the innovator, the creator, the man who put in the hard work. The 'moral' is 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short'. How we implement that moral is another question. And I'm not saying that copying a fixed .exe for something you purchased is morally wrong. If anything it seems to help the producer.

We don't need laws that protect against physical things because such laws don't help protect principle: 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short.' If physical things could by copied by some goofey magic copy ray, then yes we would have to make new laws to protect that moral principle.

Law are not morals. Infact, probably 50% of the time, laws are just dumb.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you that laws are not morals. What I'm confused about, though, is why you're bringing that up. I'm not concerned with whether or not it's *legal* to make copies of physical things, I'm concerned with whether or not you think it's wrong to do so. For some reason, you seem to be saying that it's wrong for me to give my friend a copy of Doom 3 because it's made of bits and not aluminum. That's the part I don't get. I'm not saying I think it's *right*, mind you, I'm just having a good time playing devil's advocate here and trying to make sure the important questions get asked ;)

The fact that it's legal to "copy" physical things for personal use but not digital things is not what I'm arguing. I want to know how you can think it's not morally wrong to make a copy of a physical thing, but it is morally wrong to make a copy of a digital thing. [NB: If that's not what you think, I apologize. In that case, take "you" to mean "generally, you people who do think this."]
 
Parmenides said:
Laws are made to protect the innovator, the creator, the man who put in the hard work. The 'moral' is 'give the person his due for his labor without cutting him short'.
Click to expand...

there are questions about exactly what does this mean. for about 99.99% of work it is just repetitive labor. you get paid, you do the same thing, again and again. You stop working, you stop getting paid. The concept of ideas and inventions though, get much hazier.

patents exist to encourage people to create things and to be able to profit from their creations. a lot of ideas however are used in a totally opposite fashion. there is virtually nothing in this world that was not built upon the work of other people in various ways. despite that we give monopolies to companies that do not really produce anything but are the first to patent something and have enough of a legal team to fight it.

ideas can be used an infinite number of times. should one party profit when they really did not do the work of creating something?

take another example. you have a great teacher that collects a basic salary for her work. She is able to inspire her students and make them much more than what they were when they started. Should she receive a portion of their income for the rest of her life? You would probably say no.

Everything in this world is built on the work of other people. Just a little strange how we have different standards for everything.
 
absolute_zero said:
the problem with this "simple" yes/no question, is that there is no simple answer to it. the only correct answer IMO is "sometimes". I think most here would probably agree that killing in self defense is ethical--even if they believe killing is essentially immoral. Ethical relativism is messy, but relates to reality much better than the absolutist alternative.

I agree 100% with changing the scope of the discussion to "should..."
Click to expand...

Not sure where the problem for the absolutist is. The constant moral principle stands behind situations of various colors. Murder in cold blood is plain wrong. Killing in self defense or in a war is not necessarily murder. How we apply a moral principle for a given society is relative. I can spit on you to show disrespect, but if we were tribal spitting on you would be an expression of great honoring. 'Respect' is the constant. How I apply respect is the relative variable depending upon the context of society.

Spewn said:
Totally agree with you that laws are not morals. What I'm confused about, though, is why you're bringing that up. I'm not concerned with whether or not it's *legal* to make copies of physical things, I'm concerned with whether or not you think it's wrong to do so. For some reason, you seem to be saying that it's wrong for me to give my friend a copy of Doom 3 because it's made of bits and not aluminum. That's the part I don't get. I'm not saying I think it's *right*, mind you, I'm just having a good time playing devil's advocate here and trying to make sure the important questions get asked ;)

The fact that it's legal to "copy" physical things for personal use but not digital things is not what I'm arguing. I want to know how you can think it's not morally wrong to make a copy of a physical thing, but it is morally wrong to make a copy of a digital thing. [NB: If that's not what you think, I apologize. In that case, take "you" to mean "generally, you people who do think this."]
Click to expand...

My point is that "copying" Doom 3 in and of itself has nothing to do with with morality. Depriving someone of a sale does have something to do with morality. and.... I really really really hate to say it but to some degree we also have a moral obligation to obey our government whenever morally possible (as long as gov doesn't command you to commit crimes). Hmm... maybe wishful thinking on my part but let me modify that ... I should study it more, but I'd like to say, instead of "whenever morally possible" to "whenever it's reasonable". :D But that's another can of worms.

Here's what gets me thinking about rationalizing piracy: what's the difference between buying used copies and pirating? The original producer doesn't reap either way. I struggle with that one.
 
jiminator said:
there are questions about exactly what does this mean. for about 99.99% of work it is just repetitive labor. you get paid, you do the same thing, again and again. You stop working, you stop getting paid. The concept of ideas and inventions though, get much hazier.

patents exist to encourage people to create things and to be able to profit from their creations. a lot of ideas however are used in a totally opposite fashion. there is virtually nothing in this world that was not built upon the work of other people in various ways. despite that we give monopolies to companies that do not really produce anything but are the first to patent something and have enough of a legal team to fight it.

ideas can be used an infinite number of times. should one party profit when they really did not do the work of creating something?

take another example. you have a great teacher that collects a basic salary for her work. She is able to inspire her students and make them much more than what they were when they started. Should she receive a portion of their income for the rest of her life? You would probably say no.

Everything in this world is built on the work of other people. Just a little strange how we have different standards for everything.
Click to expand...

Lawrence Lessig writes/speaks extensively on this subject.

a video primer

blog, etc.
 
jiminator said:
there are questions about exactly what does this mean. for about 99.99% of work it is just repetitive labor. you get paid, you do the same thing, again and again. You stop working, you stop getting paid. The concept of ideas and inventions though, get much hazier.

patents exist to encourage people to create things and to be able to profit from their creations. a lot of ideas however are used in a totally opposite fashion. there is virtually nothing in this world that was not built upon the work of other people in various ways. despite that we give monopolies to companies that do not really produce anything but are the first to patent something and have enough of a legal team to fight it.

ideas can be used an infinite number of times. should one party profit when they really did not do the work of creating something?

take another example. you have a great teacher that collects a basic salary for her work. She is able to inspire her students and make them much more than what they were when they started. Should she receive a portion of their income for the rest of her life? You would probably say no.

Everything in this world is built on the work of other people. Just a little strange how we have different standards for everything.
Click to expand...

You're right. Laws are intended to prevent abuse, but they often fail to preserve their intended principles. The moral is still the same, but you have good examples showing that implementing and enforcing these principles is easier said than done.

As for the teacher example. She doesn't deserve to reap it. Since the children's profits aren't due her. A thank-you might be due her though. What is due to that teacher? Again, we only ask questions of how we apply the morals. Not if the morals stand.
 
Parmenides said:
You're right. Laws are intended to prevent abuse, but they often fail to preserve their intended principles. The moral is still the same, but you have good examples showing that implementing and enforcing these principles is easier said than done.

As for the teacher example. She doesn't deserve to reap it. Since the children's profits aren't due her. A thank-you might be due her though. What is due to that teacher? Again, we only ask questions of how we apply the morals. Not if the morals stand.
Click to expand...

Edit... I'll just add that since our system isn't perfect people receive more than they deserve too.
 
Parmenides said:
Not sure where the problem for the absolutist is. The constant moral principle stands behind situations of various colors. Murder in cold blood is plain wrong. Killing in self defense or in a war is not necessarily murder. How we apply a moral principle for a given society is relative. I can spit on you to show disrespect, but if we were tribal spitting on you would be an expression of great honoring. 'Respect' is the constant. How I apply respect is the relative variable depending upon the context of society.
Click to expand...

this assumes we live in the same cultural/religious/social context. which is at the root of this issue. let's i'm the tribal guy, and i spit on you the modern american...you can't help but be a bit put off (perhaps more than that). what if the action is more extreme or permanent, and i kill your "possessed" dog/child/spouse to protect your home from evil spirits...you'll be more than a bit upset. intent is not the only thing that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top