The Morality of Piracy

Is it wrong to record TV shows onto your computer from the television? since you didn't purchase the rights for the show?_rock_

Isn't that what a TV licence is for?

[QUOTE="_rock_"]Is it wrong to record TV shows onto your computer from the television? since you didn't purchase the rights for the show?CBR600-RR

Isn't that what a TV licence is for?

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="_rock_"]Is it wrong to record TV shows onto your computer from the television? since you didn't purchase the rights for the show?_rock_

Isn't that what a TV licence is for?

As far as I know, a TV licence would cover watching TV online, I think it's legal.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]]

the issue with piracy, however, is that people see it as traditional theft. Its not. We would not call it piracy if it was...we would simply call it theft or stealing. Piracy is simply a term used by the power players to demonize a relatively minor crime so we see it as evil, as harmful to society.

The people that pirate software are not more likely to legitmately buy software, just like the people that go 5-10 miles per hour over the speed limit are no more likely toactually harm someone.

That is why I thought the analogy is relevant. Piracy is the "white lie" of theft, just like moderate speeding is the "white lie" of automobile infractions. That does not make it right, but it does not make it the big deal everyone claims it is. And it certainly does not give publishers the right to sue people for 400k dollars when they downloaded a dozen albums or so.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: piracy has not really hurt a soul

chrisPperson

Do you have any eyes, at all? I think it two of my posts I very specifically said that it isn't that big of a deal, but it is wrong nevertheless. If you are going to tell me I'm wrong about something, make sure you actually know my opinion about it before you go off on a huge post that states exactly what I said. Here:

"That does not make it right, but it does not make it the big deal everyone claims it is"

"It is very, very easy to pirate. You will probably never get caught, and will have the music all to yourself for the rest of your life without paying a dime. That does NOT, however, take away from the fact that it is wrong. No matter how easy it is to steal, it is still wrong."

Very similar opinions, huh.

dude, you gotta realize that I (and many others, I feel) come onto OT because A.) its anonymous, and B.) it allows us to debate, preferably in a civil fashion, about certain situations. Hypothetical or not.

Some of us (myself) like to play Devil's Advocate. Some of us are closet anarchists/anti-establishment/socialist; while we cannot indulge in our innermost desires in the real world, Gamespot allows us to express our ideal views. We know theyre crazy, we know theyre dreams, but...dammit...we like to present them anyway.

So, crankiness be damned! Thats no excuse why we cannot be civil. Rationality and the abilility to type in a calm manner should not be effected by fatigue or anything. Hopefully we at least think about what we post for a split second before we hit that fateful orange "submit" button as to not offend anyone.

As for why I keep quoting othersand expressing my views, it is because I feel theyre relevant.

I do not think that you're misinterpreting another's views, and if I did, I would certainly not speak for another poster in his or her defense (in this case CBR600). I also read what you said and know you think it a minor crime but, frankly, your "crankiness" is making you come off as a corporate lawyer.

So...lets chillout. Its 2AM, I am fairly drunk, and I gotta be up in six hours...if I can keep my cool, so should you. And if something so terrible has happened that you cant, well, maybe you should be doing somethign else.

So, here man...have an e-beer, an e-shot of rum, or an e-glass of ice tea and lets keep this civil and educational. I hate being driven off of a new thought or intepretation of something because someone cant keep their cool

cheers.

]

dude, you gotta realize that I (and many others, I feel) come onto OT because A.) its anonymous, and B.) it allows us to debate, preferably in a civil fashion, about certain situations. Hypothetical or not.

Some of us (myself) like to play Devil's Advocate. Some of us are closet anarchists/anti-establishment/socialist; while we cannot indulge in our innermost desires in the real world, Gamespot allows us to express our ideal views. We know theyre crazy, we know theyre dreams, but...dammit...we like to present them anyway.

So, crankiness be damned! Thats no excuse why we cannot be civil. Rationality and the abilility to type in a calm manner should not be effected by fatigue or anything. Hopefully we at least think about what we post for a split second before we hit that fateful orange "submit" button as to not offend anyone.

As for why I keep quoting othersand expressing my views, it is because I feel theyre relevant.

I do not think that you're misinterpreting another's views, and if I did, I would certainly not speak for another poster in his or her defense (in this case CBR600). I also read what you said and know you think it a minor crime but, frankly, your "crankiness" is making you come off as a corporate lawyer.

So...lets chillout. Its 2AM, I am fairly drunk, and I gotta be up in six hours...if I can keep my cool, so should you. And if something so terrible has happened that you cant, well, maybe you should be doing somethign else.

So, here man...have an e-beer, an e-shot of rum, or an e-glass of ice tea and lets keep this civil and educational. I hate being driven off of a new thought or intepretation of something because someone cant keep their cool

cheers.

mrbojangles25

I'm not being serious, by the way. The real thing that is pissing me off is this stupid GameSpot post editor. Grr, I hate it.

Okay man, good night.

Piracy is not wrong. If something is good enough, people will always buy it. If I want to check out a band, I can _______ , and if I dislike it, I delete it and that is the end of it. End scenario: I don't have their IP product, and they don't deserve my money. If I do like it, then I will buy it, and the band deserves my money. What's that you say? Their are people that download, greatly like the product, but never pay the artist? I think that is bullcrap personally. I have known so many who pirate music, and they will ALWAYS at least buy a few things from their favourite bands. At the end of the day, the band gains a fan and revenue from a person who would not have previously been interesting in the band. Sure that evidence is anecdotal, but have recently read a study which concluded "music pirates" buy more music on average that a normal music fan. Mainly due to the circumstance where they can explore and find a great deal of stuff that they like. In the grand scheme of things, It is not wrong for that reason. The end justifies the means. I will personally guarantee you; no genuinely great band, game or movie will fail because of piracy.

For those that only buy legally, I have nothing against you. But you are not morally superior to me. Maybe in your own mind, but I feel no guilt. I have probably bought several thousands of dollars worth of music. Can't you see the big picture? How the hell DO the artists suffer from my acts?

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="_rock_"]Is it wrong to record TV shows onto your computer from the television? since you didn't purchase the rights for the show?_rock_

Isn't that what a TV licence is for?

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I'd like to add this as food for thought in case it hasn't been said.

If you record a TV show and watch it again later, what is the difference between doing that and downloading it off the internet? You skip the ads and don't pay for it, the only difference is recording it is legal whilst downloading it is not. Also, what about shows that aired in the US but haven't been broadcast locally? I mean, there is no legal way to obtain them, so th only way to watch it is to download it off the internet.

I read through most of the thread and a lot of good points were made, but I'd like to add something about the illegal downloading of music. While it is certainly a huge problem in the industry, I discovered a record label for lesser known punk/alternative artists where they put their entire CDs up to download for free in low quality (192 kbps) with the option for people to donate money if they like what they hear or better yet they can purchase the actual physical copy of the CD on the site. I think this is a great idea that more labels should implement for several reasons. One is that it is a way for the artists to get their music out to a wider audience since it's free for anyone to download so there's really no money for the consumer/listener to lose by downloading the CD, listening through all the songs, and if they like it enough they have the option of donating like 5 bucks to support the bands or buy the CD and get the music in better quality (something that is VERY important to me).

Once I discovered this site I downloaded a bunch of CDs that seemed interesting, slapped them on my Zune, and listened to them over the course of a week and found quite a few that I really enjoyed so I ended up ordering their CDs. This is one of the best approaches towards the illegal downloading issue I've seen since there are a surprising amount of honest people out there who do donate money towards them and their cause such as myself. I hope that in the future more labels implement this kind of service.

Another thing I would like to see from music download sites such as Zune and iTunes is the ability to download the songs in FLAC quality (for those not aware of this format it's music files but in CD quality, which sounds a LOT better than mp3s). A lot of people who pirate music are audiophiles who listen to a lot of obscure bands where the CDs are hard to come by and either iTunes doesn't have the CD for download or if they do it's in a low quality that the people won't tolerate, so they go to a torrent site, find it in FLAC, and download that. By showing more support for FLAC format, I believe that there will be a bump in sales for CDs on those music sites.

It could be the lack of sleep (I pulled an all nighter) but all of the above seem like good ideas to help cut down on music piracy. I mean in a world where anyone can download all the music they want to for free, there isn't anything to lose by trying these ideas out.

Edit: Here's that site I mentioned above that puts up their CDs for free: http://quoteunquoterecords.com/news.htm

The first, I'll start with a non-game DVD situation. I recently had the chance to view season 1 of the show 24. I enjoyed it immensely, and coincidentally seasons 1-5 were on sale for 20$. I picked them all up.

Over a month later, I got to 24. Disk 2 of it did not work, at all. As it was 30 days after purchase, and the case was open. I could not get a refund. Do you think it would be right or wrong for me to download those 4 episodes (Note, the point is mute as I borrowed it from a friend, but assume for a moment I could not do that and the choice was to either purchase it again, or download illegally)? If you assume it's right even if technically illegal, would you also think it was okay if I downloaded high definition versions of the show, even though I did not purchase it in HD?

PiNwOrM

In my opinion your not doing anything wrong there. If you were to pay for something and own a physical copy that is defective from the manufacturing process I think it's well within your right to download those four episodes so you can enjoy them. I've got some music that falls into this category, namely a Bjork CD that refuses to read the last few tracks. The disc isn't damaged, just defective so I had to find the tracks online so I could enjoy them on my PC. I've also got a few CDs that were bought during the whole "copy protection" fad where record companies would release albums that wouldn't read on computers. Considering I don't even own a "normal" cd player I had to find them online so I could enjoy them. If I didn't own a physical copy of the album I'd say it was wrong but since I do and I cannot enjoy it as was intended I don't think it's piracy to acquire an mp3 or video file for my enjoyment.

Now, another example. Say I purchased a video game, and it was released online early. Would it be okay for me to download the game and play it - when I legally bought it - early? Does it not seem fair that someone who paid should be able to play as soon as possible, especially considering that people who DON'T pay are the ones who get to play early? If you think it's wrong, what would you think about downloading the files but not playing until release, so you could avoid a lengthy download / visit to the store in the future?
PiNwOrM

Paying money means you should get to play it on release date. It does not entitle one to downloading a pirate version just so you can play the game a few weeks or days early. Also if your playing a leaked version of a game you might not be playing a finished version of said game which might contain bugs and have an experience that represents the finished product you've paid money for.

How about the music genre. When you buy a game like Guitar Hero, part of the money is going to the licensing to listen to the songs in the game. You are paying for the songs. Does that make it okay or wrong, in your eyes, to download them to your computer?

PiNwOrM

I don't agree here because when you buy a game like guitar hero your not just paying for the music your paying for the Guitar Hero experience of playing that music. When you buy Guitar Hero most of the money goes to the retailer, a good chunk to the game publisher, some to the game developer, a bit to the record company that licenced the music for use in the game, and maybe a bit to the artist(s) that actually made the music. When you buy a CD most of the money goes to the retailer, a good chunk to the record company, and the rest goes to the artist(s). If you really like the music enough to listen to it on it's own more then once the right thing to do would be to buy the album. That way your supporting the artist and the music industry.

This whole discussion really goes back to the issue of copyright. The question is, can you own information? For example, even the song "happy birthday" is owned by some corporation, and if you make a product with that song in it, you have to pay up. Never mind warner bros. never having made or thought of the song, they just bought the rights some day and they are now cashing in on it.

Another story is that of a radiohead remix. As you all probably know, the album "In Rainbows" was released for free on the internet. A fan decided to make a remix of one or two of the songs in that album. Still, the remix was pulled because radiohead's publisher owned the rights for the song, and the remix was seen as a violation of that right by the publisher. Radiohead was never involved in any way, even though they made the song.

Anyways, the site of a anti-copyright documentary is here.

I find the connection between "copyright infringment" and "theft" quite abhorrent. They are two entirely different things. Copyright infringment (CI) is the making of an illegal copy of something. Theft is the removal of something from someone. CI doesn't "remove" anything from anyone. You can make copies of your own data that you have purchased legally, and still can be violating the copyright law.

My biggest issue with anti-piracy movements is the fact that with most software "owning," you actually just own the license the publisher/developer has given you to use their software. The data itself is not what is "owned," but the ability to use it. I personally think that if this data is "lost" (either through the crashing of a hard drive, the loss or damage of a disc (through the fault of the licensee or the licensee's hardware) or anything that causes the licensee to lose the data) it should be fully replaceable, either by means of contacting the developer/publisher and proving you are a legal licensee (proof of purchase, cd-key, etc.) or through other methods, legally.

Connoting CI with theft is wrong. Utterly and completely. No one can prove that a pirate who downloads a copy of a piece of software is doing so with or without a legally aqcuired license. No one can even prove if the pirate is going to or not going to buy that software in the future... so it is also impossible to prove a "loss" in any sense, for the developer/publisher.

I personally think that illegal CI (i.e. downloading something you don't legally own) isn't right... but find replacing software you own a license for, to be something that a licensee is entitled to. Given that they have already given their money to the developer... and in many cases, most developers (i.e. Adobe for Photoshop) will always be willing to recognize your license for as long as you hold it, and replace your software free of charge.

Would you steal a cop car?

Would you rob an elderly person?

Would you rob a bank?

then dont pirate movies!

...that is such bull quaf, so if i were to pirate a movie/song/whatever (not saying i do) then thats comparable to robbing a bank or commiting a horible crime?

while i do think that piracy does take money away from the peole who enarned it, its neccsiary somtimes.

example, what about people who live in countries that have heavy censorship, i think they have the right to watch what they want, and if pirating is the only way they can get what they want. well then so be it i guess.

another example, look at the movie [.REC] it was impossible to find it in america, and some people just wanted to see it and the only way was piracy. if anything god bless piracy for getting little known films and bands know...

We'll do fine with piracy. I don't feel remorse for companies, and the industries have always survived piracy or the like.
All this talk about limiting Your rights is just that, a way to ensure more money for the rich and more control over You.
Even if piracy is unethical i believe anti-piracy methods are worse, unless they entice people to buy things legally, by offering
something extra.

[...] if anything god bless piracy for getting little known films and bands know...

legend26

Ow and by the way, what about all our information that they are pirating?
Of course they have legal immunity, so we wouldn't be able to sue them.
Should we take down facebook for having absurd privacy policy that nobody is going to read, or disrupt google maps for letting streetview drive through private property?
Also their marketing is full of corrupted information. We already pay for their products partially by letting them legally manipulate us.
I would first like to see companies take our information seriously, before they point their fingers at us.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

If you downloaded one of Lady Gaga's albums, then I'm not really bothered who downloads it, 'cause she already has enough bloody money anyway.
If you download an album of someone who depends entirely on selling their records, like Boards of Canada, then I have a problem. They need the money, so I'll happily pay for it.

I'm not paying for something if they already got enough money.

MrGeezer

"Already got enough money"?!

Funny, that's EXACTLY what a homeless dude said to me last month, after smashing me over the head with a brick and then stealing my wallet off of my nearly-unconscious body.

EVERYONE thinks that someone else doesn't "deserve" what they have. Everyone thinks that someone else "already has enough". Exactly HOW BIG of a discrepancy between the thief and the victim has to exist in order to justify forcibly taking someone else's ****?

Is it okay to rob a millionaire if I only have 30 thousand dollars in my bank account? Is it okay to rob someone with $50 in his bank account if I don't evn have a bank account and only have five dollars in my pocket? At which point does it become morally justified to take what isn't yours simply because the person who you're taking it from has more than you?

Really, it makes me sad and depressed that we're even discussing this. It worries me incredibly that I'm sitting here casually talking to people who think that it's okay to steal from people as long as that person has more than you.

I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.

Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.

It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.

This topic reminded me of this song by Weird Al. :P

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

If you downloaded one of Lady Gaga's albums, then I'm not really bothered who downloads it, 'cause she already has enough bloody money anyway.
If you download an album of someone who depends entirely on selling their records, like Boards of Canada, then I have a problem. They need the money, so I'll happily pay for it.

I'm not paying for something if they already got enough money.

STAR_Admiral

"Already got enough money"?!

Funny, that's EXACTLY what a homeless dude said to me last month, after smashing me over the head with a brick and then stealing my wallet off of my nearly-unconscious body.

EVERYONE thinks that someone else doesn't "deserve" what they have. Everyone thinks that someone else "already has enough". Exactly HOW BIG of a discrepancy between the thief and the victim has to exist in order to justify forcibly taking someone else's ****?

Is it okay to rob a millionaire if I only have 30 thousand dollars in my bank account? Is it okay to rob someone with $50 in his bank account if I don't evn have a bank account and only have five dollars in my pocket? At which point does it become morally justified to take what isn't yours simply because the person who you're taking it from has more than you?

Really, it makes me sad and depressed that we're even discussing this. It worries me incredibly that I'm sitting here casually talking to people who think that it's okay to steal from people as long as that person has more than you.

I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.

Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.

It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.

People who point out the technical differences between theft and piracy miss the point completely. With regards to intent, there is no difference: both thieves and pirates are in effect "taking" (whether by copy or otherwise) something they want that is not theres without paying a set price for it, whether because they think they're entitled to it or because they simply can't afford it but really want it right now. The intent and the result are the exact same between theft and piracy: one person receives something to which he has no right whatsoever while the other loses whatever profit he could and should have made had it been a legal transaction. This is why piracy is often compared to theft, and it is a valid comparison.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]all "intellectual" material should be free same goes for all beneficial technologies.LJS9502_basic

People who point out the technical differences between theft and piracy miss the point completely. With regards to intent, there is no difference: both thieves and pirates are in effect "taking" (whether by copy or otherwise) something without paying a set price for it, whether because they think they're entitled to it or because they simply can't afford it but really want it right now. The intent and the result are the exact same between theft and piracy: one person receives something to which he has no right whatsoever while the other loses whatever profit he could and should have made had it been a legal transaction. This is why piracy is often compared to theft, and it is a valid comparison.

Theokhoth

I am confused what is being lost in piracy. Oh wait nothing because it isn't theft.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

People who point out the technical differences between theft and piracy miss the point completely. With regards to intent, there is no difference: both thieves and pirates are in effect "taking" (whether by copy or otherwise) something without paying a set price for it, whether because they think they're entitled to it or because they simply can't afford it but really want it right now. The intent and the result are the exact same between theft and piracy: one person receives something to which he has no right whatsoever while the other loses whatever profit he could and should have made had it been a legal transaction. This is why piracy is often compared to theft, and it is a valid comparison.

htekemerald

I am confused what is being lost in piracy. Oh wait nothing because it isn't theft.

Wow, I can tell you read that whole thing. :roll:

I find it quite silly to even talk about morality of this when it involves capitalism in general which is seen by moral standards as wrong.. Afterall capitalism is all about using people for your gains and their services, it dehumanizes them.. Just saying, its pretty silly to be argueing this.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]all "intellectual" material should be free same goes for all beneficial technologies.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

People who point out the technical differences between theft and piracy miss the point completely. With regards to intent, there is no difference: both thieves and pirates are in effect "taking" (whether by copy or otherwise) something without paying a set price for it, whether because they think they're entitled to it or because they simply can't afford it but really want it right now. The intent and the result are the exact same between theft and piracy: one person receives something to which he has no right whatsoever while the other loses whatever profit he could and should have made had it been a legal transaction. This is why piracy is often compared to theft, and it is a valid comparison.

htekemerald

I am confused what is being lost in piracy. Oh wait nothing because it isn't theft.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

People who point out the technical differences between theft and piracy miss the point completely. With regards to intent, there is no difference: both thieves and pirates are in effect "taking" (whether by copy or otherwise) something without paying a set price for it, whether because they think they're entitled to it or because they simply can't afford it but really want it right now. The intent and the result are the exact same between theft and piracy: one person receives something to which he has no right whatsoever while the other loses whatever profit he could and should have made had it been a legal transaction. This is why piracy is often compared to theft, and it is a valid comparison.

Theokhoth

I am confused what is being lost in piracy. Oh wait nothing because it isn't theft.

Wow, I can tell you read that whole thing. :roll:

the idea that piracy equates to a large loss of sales is laughable. Most evidence point to piracy increasing sales.

Theft is the loss of some tangible physical object

People's rights to others IPs vary massively by country. I don't know how it is in america but I can make copies of entire books legally were I live. According to your logic that is legalized theft. Hell I can a lot more, and "worse" (if we are regaurding copying as theft) than that.

Ow great the antipirate police has arrived. :roll:

Then give us a solution.

While I agree we must be cautious with the means we use to stop piracy, I see no way to justify piracy. It's bogus. People just want to feel ok about stealing other's property. Most things pirated are not life and death items. Their luxury items. DVDs, movies, music, games, clothes, etc. There seems to be this common theme that it's ok to steal because the prices are too high. I've known people that steal clothes because they feel that designer clothes are too expensive so they can justify it. Same goes with games and music. Some people believe that stealing those items isnt really a crime since "nobody gets hurt". Well somebody does - the person you steal it from. Stealing is wrong.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I am confused what is being lost in piracy. Oh wait nothing because it isn't theft.

htekemerald

Wow, I can tell you read that whole thing. :roll:

the idea that piracy equates to a large loss of sales is laughable. Most evidence point to piracy increasing sales.

Theft is the loss of some tangible physical object

People's rights to others IPs vary massively by country. I don't know how it is in america but I can make copies of entire books legally were I live. According to your logic that is legalized theft. Hell I can a lot more, and "worse" (if we are regaurding copying as theft) than that.

Second since this is a morality question the legal ramifications aren't the discussion.

Stealing is stealing. Whether you shoplift a pair of jeans from a department store or illegally download 20 games to your iphone. I have plenty of friends that have stolen games and movies. I just dont agree with that. They try to pass it off as nothing major, but they're stealing. And they know it. And they know that's it not right since they're always trying to justify it to me.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Wow, I can tell you read that whole thing. :roll:

LJS9502_basic

the idea that piracy equates to a large loss of sales is laughable. Most evidence point to piracy increasing sales.

Theft is the loss of some tangible physical object

People's rights to others IPs vary massively by country. I don't know how it is in america but I can make copies of entire books legally were I live. According to your logic that is legalized theft. Hell I can a lot more, and "worse" (if we are regaurding copying as theft) than that.

Second since this is a morality question the legal ramifications aren't the discussion.

Evidence 1

Baseless assumptions 0

Ow great the antipirate police has arrived. :roll:

Then give us a solution.

KungfuKitten

Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.

Perhaps you can first provide some evidence to support your claims? Piracy decreases sales? Really? I have yet to seen anyone but the music industy claim this. People who pirate and the buy things are in the minotiry? Any evidence to support that claim because this seems to disagree with that baseless assumption.

Evidence 1

Baseless assumptions 0

htekemerald

And that is besides the fact; I still do not understand why you people are so loyal to publishers. You think the artists care? Record sales make 10% or less (on average) of their income. Why on earth do you think bands tour so much?

mrbojangles25

They care enough to make a deal with the publishers.

If the publishers aren't doing anything deserving of getting paid, then why don't those bands self-publish their own music and keep the 90% that they're giving to the publishers?

You're acting like the publishers don't actually do anything, and therefore don't deserve any money.

Half the points in this thread are moot as piracy is not stealing a car.KungfuKitten

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Ow great the antipirate police has arrived. :roll:

Then give us a solution.

Theokhoth

Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

"Already got enough money"?!

Funny, that's EXACTLY what a homeless dude said to me last month, after smashing me over the head with a brick and then stealing my wallet off of my nearly-unconscious body.

EVERYONE thinks that someone else doesn't "deserve" what they have. Everyone thinks that someone else "already has enough". Exactly HOW BIG of a discrepancy between the thief and the victim has to exist in order to justify forcibly taking someone else's ****?

Is it okay to rob a millionaire if I only have 30 thousand dollars in my bank account? Is it okay to rob someone with $50 in his bank account if I don't evn have a bank account and only have five dollars in my pocket? At which point does it become morally justified to take what isn't yours simply because the person who you're taking it from has more than you?

Really, it makes me sad and depressed that we're even discussing this. It worries me incredibly that I'm sitting here casually talking to people who think that it's okay to steal from people as long as that person has more than you.

I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.

Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.

It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Ow great the antipirate police has arrived. :roll:

Then give us a solution.

KungfuKitten

Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.

And do you think that money goes solely to producing things to which you have absolutely zero rights to? Wages are paid, buildings are built, equipment is bought, etc, etc. You're not entitled to whatever you want--period.

I highly doubt this claim anyway.