The Morality of Piracy

How do you or anyone else know that the people who pirate would actually pay for it if they couldnt pirate?

All these losses arising from piracy are pure estimates. What do you want? People pay for somethin they dont feel worth paying for cuz someone is going to lose their job? lol life's not fair dude, get used to it!

As much as I love digital entertainment, I donot move away from rationality and declare piracy as theft cuz it quite simply isnt.

Gambler_3

A lot of facets in life are estimates but the bottom line is taking without pay does cost money. Part of the reason for the increased purchase price actually. If you don't feel it's worth the money then you shouldn't have it. PERIOD!

[QUOTE="Travo_basic"]Music piracy is the illegal copying of copyrighted music......stealing.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="bigfootstew"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You call the fatcats greedy but isn't it greed to think one is entitled to music, movies, and games they didn't pay for?LJS9502_basic

I don't pay for songs I listen to on the radio. I don't pay for books I read in the library. I don't pay directly for movies I watch on TV. Intellectual property is a pretty intangible thing.

I'm just waiting for the day the artists realize they don't need the fatcats at all and just start distributing their stuff themselves directly through P2P/torrents. Smaller bands are already doing this.

Artists do need the business end of the equation if they are going to go anywhere with their music. Or they can just play local clubs all their life. Nonetheless, they sign the contract with the recording company and the recording company is entitled to their employees just as any other business. Or are going to volunteer your time since you don't want the fat cats in your profession getting richer? Because if you talk the talk you need to walk the walk with your own bank account and not someone else's.

I don't think we should have fatcats in any industry. I don't think it's fair that the wealthiest 1% control 44% of the total wealth by exploiting everyone below them on the socioeconomic ladder. And when the revolution comes, none will be spared.

[QUOTE="Travo_basic"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] Yes, it is copyright infringement, but it is not stealing someone elses' property (theft). _en1gma_

I don't think we should have fatcats in any industry. I don't think it's fair that the wealthiest 1% control 44% of the total wealth by exploiting everyone below them on the socioeconomic ladder. And when the revolution comes, none will be spared.

bigfootstew

[QUOTE="bigfootstew"]

I don't think we should have fatcats in any industry. I don't think it's fair that the wealthiest 1% control 44% of the total wealth by exploiting everyone below them on the socioeconomic ladder. And when the revolution comes, none will be spared.

LJS9502_basic

Reality check. CEOs take hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars for themselves and pay their employees next to nothing by comparison. They ride the backs of those below them and reap all the rewards for themselves.

So explain to me why anyone should feel bad about stealing from (even though it's not technically stealing) some of the biggest thieves around?

Not true at all. There is a percentage of people that would have purchased the item if that were the only way to get it. It's based on statistics, mathematical equations, and estimates.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_en1gma_"] I don't pay to get books from a public library, and that is not considered stealing. You can't attribute that property to piracy and then claim it equivalent to theft. For something to be theft, it is essential that the original copy of the object is removed from its owner. Piracy does not have this property. It then follows that piracy != theft.

_en1gma_

You are borrowing from the library which paid for the book. If you don't bring back said book you will be charged a replacement fee.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true at all. There is a percentage of people that would have purchased the item if that were the only way to get it. It's based on statistics, mathematical equations, and estimates.

foxhound_fox

What I said was they can estimate what percentage of sales are lost due to piracy. Two different things fox.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You are borrowing from the library which paid for the book. If you don't bring back said book you will be charged a replacement fee.foxhound_fox

What I said was they can estimate what percentage of sales are lost due to piracy.

LJS9502_basic

You are assuming things I haven't said for the second time.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You are borrowing from the library which paid for the book. If you don't bring back said book you will be charged a replacement fee.foxhound_fox

And I've done that to a ridiculous number of textbooks I didn't feel like paying for. Just copied the sections I needed and put it back on the shelf.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What I said was they can estimate what percentage of sales are lost due to piracy.

foxhound_fox

I think the fact that it it's an illegal copy would give you your answer.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You are borrowing from the library which paid for the book. If you don't bring back said book you will be charged a replacement fee.bigfootstew

And I've done that to a ridiculous number of textbooks I didn't feel like paying for. Just copied the sections I needed and put it back on the shelf.

I've done that as well, except in my case the library at my university had a copy of the text book I need, and I was able to extend my borrowing period since no one else requested it... not sure if that can be done now

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are assuming things I haven't said for the second time.

foxhound_fox

You are borrowing from the library which paid for the book. If you don't bring back said book you will be charged a replacement fee.LJS9502_basic

And I've done that to a ridiculous number of textbooks I didn't feel like paying for. Just copied the sections I needed and put it back on the shelf.

bigfootstew

Hence the word estimate which by it's very nature is nebulous. However, it is the best we have and it does use mathematical equations. As for your example...well even phsical items can become worthless. That does mean if you total your car that you are entitled to another car for free because you paid for it once so I don't see what that is a consideration. There are things in life that due to unforeseen circumstances we may have to repurchase or do without.

I think the fact that it it's an illegal copy would give you your answer.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Hence the word estimate which by it's very nature is nebulous. However, it is the best we have and it does use mathematical equations. As for your example...well even phsical items can become worthless. That does mean if you total your car that you are entitled to another car for free because you paid for it once so I don't see what that is a consideration. There are things in life that due to unforeseen circumstances we may have to repurchase or do without.

I think the fact that it it's an illegal copy would give you your answer.

foxhound_fox

Why is their debate? Because some people have no ethics and will take without compensating those that created said work. That is the only reason for the debate. In countries where the law is clear that it is illegal there should be no question that doing so is wrong. I find it quite hypocritical that people expect others to labor for their entertainment for free while they would not allow someone to not compensate them for their labor.

And we come back to my analogy. Sometimes we have to repurchase things if they are destroyed unless we are willing to do without. Whether physical or not it is a commodity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="bigfootstew"]

Blame the greedy fatcats who are resisting technological change rather than adapting to it.

bigfootstew

I don't pay for songs I listen to on the radio. I don't pay for books I read in the library. I don't pay directly for movies I watch on TV. Intellectual property is a pretty intangible thing.

I'm just waiting for the day the artists realize they don't need the fatcats at all and just start distributing their stuff themselves directly through P2P/torrents. Smaller bands are already doing this.

I've always been opposed to piracy. Music, software, and films are not "ideas," they are creations. It takes an ENORMOUS amount of effort and a great deal of money to produce a professional work in these reproducible mediums, and for that, the people who make it a success should be compensated. We live in a capitalism, and these people are providing a service to you. It would be impossible for most people in the world to pay for the creation of a single film, video game, or album for their own personal benefit, so instead, the cost of this service is spread out amongst many consumers.

The biggest problem for me is the arrogant sense of entitlement that people have when it comes to things they can consume for free against the wishes of the creators. Those who argue that they aren't hurting anyone are missing the point completely - they are ignoring the wishes of the REAL creators of the art (or software in the cases of that form of piracy). Those who invest the effort to create something you enjoy or find useful deserve your respect, and part of that respect means that you abide by whatever criteria they have set out for the distribution of their work. Would you be willing to provide your services to all the people from whom you have pirated for free?

On another topic, for the mathematically challenged, something > nothing. It doesn't matter if an artist receives only a little money from an album sale. That little bit of cash is better compensation than nothing at all. And as much as artists are generally pleased when people enjoy their work, that alone is not going to pay their bills, which is a real problem for most performing artists, excluding the few who become wildly popular. Also, some people here seem to think musicians are an enormous collective whole, and that if they spend quite a bit of their money on music, it justifies their piracy. But I would wager that most of these people only support a small fraction of the artists whose work they have obtained and consumed for free. If you pirate and enjoy work by Band X, Y and Z, it will not serve any benefit for Band X and Y if you go to a concert by Band Z.

Very few people in here seem to be on the right side of the fence. Kudos to those who pay more than lip service to the respect they have for those who provide them with entertainment.

I've always been opposed to piracy. Music, software, and films are not "ideas," they are creations. It takes an ENORMOUS amount of effort and a great deal of money to produce a professional work in these reproducible mediums, and for that, the people who make it a success should be compensated. We live in a capitalism, and these people are providing a service to you. It would be impossible for most people in the world to pay for the creation of a single film, video game, or album for their own personal benefit, so instead, the cost of this service is spread out amongst many consumers.

The biggest problem for me is the arrogant sense of entitlement that people have when it comes to things they can consume for free against the wishes of the creators. Those who argue that they aren't hurting anyone are missing the point completely - they are ignoring the wishes of the REAL creators of the art (or software in the cases of that form of piracy). Those who invest the effort to create something you enjoy or find useful deserve your respect, and part of that respect means that you abide by whatever criteria they have set out for the distribution of their work. Would you be willing to provide your services to all the people from whom you have pirated for free?

On another topic, for the mathematically challenged, something > nothing. It doesn't matter if an artist receives only a little money from an album sale. That little bit of cash is better compensation than nothing at all. And as much as artists are generally pleased when people enjoy their work, that alone is not going to pay their bills, which is a real problem for most performing artists, excluding the few who become wildly popular. Also, some people here seem to think musicians are an enormous collective whole, and that if they spend quite a bit of their money on music, it justifies their piracy. But I would wager that most of these people only support a small fraction of the artists whose work they have obtained and consumed for free. If you pirate and enjoy work by Band X, Y and Z, it will not serve any benefit for Band X and Y if you go to a concert by Band Z.

Very few people in here seem to be on the right side of the fence. Kudos to those who pay more than lip service to the respect they have for those who provide them with entertainment.

pianist

I was waiting for you to show up, and I agree with you on every single word.

I look at it like this...with me, it's photography. Realistically, I'll never be a professional and I'll never make a single penny off of my photographs. But...it's what I love. I'd love to be involved in photography all the time, and I'd love to make a living off of it. Granted, that's never going to happen. But if it were to happen, it's ONLY going to happen if I get PAID for photography. If I'm not getting paid, then I'll have to make a living by getting a job at Wal-Mart. Hell, times are tough these days, and a lot of people have trouble just earning a LIVING. Now throw in the added expenses of something like music/art/photography/movies, and that doesn't leave a whole lot of money or time left for actually doing art.

I don't think many people here realize just how much time and practice it actually takes to get good at this stuff. Everyone can "learn guitar" with a couple of spare hours a week, but it's not many people who have the time to actually do this kind of stuff often enough to hone their skills and become GREAT. This kind of practice often doesn't come unless you're making enough money off of the art to pay for the equipment, labor, and time involved. And that requires people paying for the art that you make.

I've known people in bands who worked in restaurants and bars and grocery stores. They did music in their spare time, with little chance to actually focus on their music since they've sometimes had to work LONG hours just to pay bills and accomodate meager expenses. Whenever those guys release an album, I've always bought it, because I knew that they'd appreciate the $10. But they're honestly probably NEVER going to be able to do this stuff for a living, because they don't make enough money to quit their day jobs. And when they do get hired to perform music, chances are that all they're gonna be doing is playing covers in a bar.

Contrary to popular belief, good music is not "just about the soul, man". Soul is great, but that doesn't help much if people don't have MONEY to go along with it. "Soul" doesn't allow people to quit their jobs and focus on their music, and "soul" doesn't pay the electric bills.

the flow of information cannot be stopped. the fact of the matter is that people will always want physical objects and that people will always be willing to contribute to things they love. music, movies, and video games are not soon going to stop being made; there will always be money. I think that piracy can even help the music business to an extent in that it better allows people to explore what they like for when they do eventually head into the record shop.quiglythegreat

But...that just ensures that they're only giving their money to the artists that they like.

Meanwhile, they listened to artsists that they DIDN'T like, and chose not to pay them for the real work that they did.

The only reason why people expect "try before buy" when it comes to movies is because they can get away with pirating first. "Try before buy" works with hardly anything else. When you go to the cinema to watch Avatar, can you sit through the whole movie and then get a refund "because the movie sucked"? When you go to a restaurant, can you eat a whole steak and then get a refund because it was overcooked? That's because it's hard to pirate a steak, and it's hard to pirate watching a movie in the cinema. People shell out money in all sorts of situations on a daily basis, and WITHOUT getting to try it out first. The ONLY reason why people expect more out of illegally downloaded media is because they CAN try it before they buy it.

And then, the very notion of "try before buy" implies that they ARE screwing over a band. It's like sneaking in through the back door of your local movie theater. No, you don't get to try out the movie before buying a ticket. No, you don't get a refund if you watch the movie and you think it just sucks. Sure, some people sneak in through the back door, but those people are trying to get out of paying, period. If the movie is good, they're not gonna anonymously go back and slip a $10 bill under the cash register to pay for the time that they snuck in through the back. And they're CERTAINLY not going to do that if they thought the movie sucked. They simply got what they wanted without compensating.

As pianist said, it doesn't matter if pirates pay on average more for music than people who only get music legally. Unless they are paying for EVERYTHING they pirated, then it's still morally equivalent to stealing. If at ANY point they illegally obtained media and then decided to NOT pay for it since they think it sucks, then they ARE wrongly screwing over the people who created the content and/or got it distributed.

On the topic of morality and IP, modern copyright laws are completely immoral IMO. In the United States it use to be that a copyright would last 28 years, with the option to renew once for another 28 years. But that wasn't good enough for the mouse. Back in the 70s Disney and others, afraid their major money makers would soon fall into public domain, heavily lobbied the US Congress. They successfully changed the laws so that now personal copyrights would last 50 years after the death of the holder, while corporate copyrights would last 75 years. Similar lobbying occurred and was usually successful in other countries. Then in the late nineties history would repeat itself. With expiration dates only a few years away, Disney once again lobbied Congress. The result was the Copyright Term Extension Act. This pushed personal copyrights to 70 years after death, and corporate ones to 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation!

Most things will not remain in publication for but a tiny fraction of their copyright period. And with no other legal way to acquire them, they often just fade away. Not that the major media corporations care. It's a said state we're in. And what makes this even more crazy is that even if Mickey fell into the public domain, the fact that he's trademarked means it would still be difficult for anyone to use him. Making Disney's power mad struggle to control the copyright rather redundant.

I'm a pirate and I do not see anything morally wrong with it. Just the way I feel about it. My only justification for it, as I am sure somebody will ask, is because I like free stuff. I do not care about the consequences of my actions. Alot of people here will hate me for it but the majority of you have partaken in piracy yourself at one time or another. No need to be on your high horses.

I'm a pirate and I do not see anything morally wrong with it. Just the way I feel about it. My only justification for it, as I am sure somebody will ask, is because I like free stuff. I do not care about the consequences of my actions. Alot of people here will hate me for it but the majority of you have partaken in piracy yourself at one time or another. No need to be on your high horsestester962

[QUOTE="tester962"]I'm a pirate and I do not see anything morally wrong with it. Just the way I feel about it. My only justification for it, as I am sure somebody will ask, is because I like free stuff. I do not care about the consequences of my actions. Alot of people here will hate me for it but the majority of you have partaken in piracy yourself at one time or another. No need to be on your high horsesSolidSnake35

theres nothing wrong with pirating just to try a game out imo. no one wants to drop 50 euro on something (which they cant resell), only to find that they hate it. i didnt pirate it, but i did play dragon age origins at a friends house, and i hated it, and just a week or so before, i was damn close to buying it. i hate to think how annoyed i would have been

Jailtime? Being sued by the companies? Your right I do not fear these consequences because I doubt I will be caught but I also could care less if I was caught. They could sue me I do not have enough money to make it worth their time. I do not fear jailtime either. Not trying to sound cool as what I just said isnt meant to be cool, it isnt. Most of the people who read the not afraid of going to jail as being the idiocy of a teenage boy thinking hes tough. That isnt how I mean it. I have been to jail in the past over something completely not related to piracy and it just doesnt scare me anymore. The idea of paying full price for everything I want to own scares me more =otester962

[QUOTE="tester962"]Jailtime? Being sued by the companies? Your right I do not fear these consequences because I doubt I will be caught but I also could care less if I was caught. They could sue me I do not have enough money to make it worth their time. I do not fear jailtime either. Not trying to sound cool as what I just said isnt meant to be cool, it isnt. Most of the people who read the not afraid of going to jail as being the idiocy of a teenage boy thinking hes tough. That isnt how I mean it. I have been to jail in the past over something completely not related to piracy and it just doesnt scare me anymore. The idea of paying full price for everything I want to own scares me more =oSolidSnake35

[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]Wow, you are the ignorant one among your friends, aren't you? You didn't even respond to anything he said, you just dismissed him totally. Nice going.CBR600-RR

No, not really. I will pay good money for my favourite artists which are "not so popular", they need the money.
I don't care what you think of me, I'm a nice person and will help a lady across the street, I just will not pay for someone who generally is being greedy. Don't give me that "what's morally right and wrong" crap.

Good going, I admire your responses.

On the topic of morality and IP, modern copyright laws are completely immoral IMO. In the United States it use to be that a copyright would last 28 years, with the option to renew once for another 28 years. But that wasn't good enough for the mouse. Back in the 70s Disney and others, afraid their major money makers would soon fall into public domain, heavily lobbied the US Congress. They successfully changed the laws so that now personal copyrights would last 50 years after the death of the holder, while corporate copyrights would last 75 years. Similar lobbying occurred and was usually successful in other countries. Then in the late nineties history would repeat itself. With expiration dates only a few years away, Disney once again lobbied Congress. The result was the Copyright Term Extension Act. This pushed personal copyrights to 70 years after death, and corporate ones to 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation!

Most things will not remain in publication for but a tiny fraction of their copyright period. And with no other legal way to acquire them, they often just fade away. Not that the major media corporations care. It's a said state we're in. And what makes this even more crazy is that even if Mickey fell into the public domain, the fact that he's trademarked means it would still be difficult for anyone to use him. Making Disney's power mad struggle to control the copyright rather redundant.

ThePlothole

You just made me want to pirate every single Disney movie ever made.

I do not pirate movies...

except anime on video streaming sites.

Really expecting us to pay $40-$50 for 12 episodes of a series we may like is complete **************.

I will watch a series the decide if it is worth $50. Not the other way around.

[QUOTE="-eddy-"]I don't see the big debate with it. It's stealing. markop2003

It's the same as far as peoples' motivations for doing it. They don't want to pay so they get it for free. And that's really all it boils down to in most cases.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="markop2003"] It's not stealing , there's a good reason why "Copyright Infringment" and "Theft" are classed as different crimes.markop2003

So if I go to university for four years and don't pay anything it's not considered theft? I mean I'm not taking anything physical away, which is what your argument is. What about if I go to the hairdresser today and walk out without paying? Again, nothing is physically taken, however the intangible benefits are taken away from their rightful holder.

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Eh. It's given a different term legally because intellectual property is different than physical property. But basically...taking something that isn't yours (generic you)....and not compensating the owner....is stealing. No matter what label we give it.daqua_99

So if I go to university for four years and don't pay anything it's not considered theft? I mean I'm not taking anything physical away, which is what your argument is. What about if I go to the hairdresser today and walk out without paying? Again, nothing is physically taken, however the intangible benefits are taken away from their rightful holder.