Can you argue it's morally wrong?
I can borrow books and movies from the library legally.
The morality of piracy
The only thing I can think of is like a dude spending a lot of time effort, money into making something really good that literally everyone just pirates and the guy who made it ends up dying of hunger. That wouldn't be right.
The books and movies in the library are funded by your membership, or whatever tax is used to fund it. If you think you're getting it for free, you're either not looking hard enough, or you're the product being sold.
I don't pay tax anyway so yes. Or I could borrow it from someone.
I can borrow books and movies from the library legally.
Then you hand them back - you don't keep them
Yes, we know. What's your point?
I don't think anything intangible can have value. Material goods have monetary worth because they represent limited resources and their creation requires energy, but a video can be replicated infinitely without real resource investment, so videos can't have worth.
Then is it not worth your time?
So a winning lottery number or voucher et cetera is worth anything?
I can empathize. The guy who invented the tv make one of the most impressive contributions to humanity. He fought tooth and nail to profit from it. In the end he died a poor nobody because a rich guy screwed him over.
However what we have now clearly is not right for more than a few reasons. After 12 years I think media produced with intent to profit should be public domain. Waiting an entire lifetime for public domain to come into effect is ludicrous. Given the extremely destructive and censorious traits of modern internet I strongly hesitate to support anything that prevents the archiving and distribution of media. Especially when opposing piracy in any capacity is to prioritize money over free speech.
You're right, I don't think the system we have is moral. It's just a bunch of greed that's in addition ruining production of good media.
no, in fact it is good. when you buy bread at a store you know in theory what you are buying. carbs, sustenance, calories, legally required to not be rotten. But with movies and games you don't know. That is the whole point. In fact companies explicitly attempt to deceive customers by displaying only the best parts via trailers, like making your dick look bigger via good angles. So when you buy a game in theory you do not know if it is actually going to be a good or if it will be shit. So really what you are doing is buying a game on the mere hope that you are not deceived and that the game will in fact be enjoyable. And lately game studios have proven that they cannot be trusted. So the morally correct thing to do for games and really any art is to pirate it and then pay money to the creator based on your enjoyment of the product. That is more fair than paying for a product you are deceived into buying and encourages better products.
No, because the creators are already paid. And if a streaming service can arbitrarily revoke your access to media you've paid for, you don't actually own it. Piracy gives you a file they can't take away or change, and you actually own it.
this doesnt happen, and if i cant watch it for free, i aint buying it anyways. most of commercial art is trash anyways.
x.com
also, for an artist to be good, its essential that they be exposed for lots of art. and artists are the most likely people to be poor and not be able to afford such expensive luxuries.
morally
I think you mean ethically. Piracy isn't the same as stealing, but it isn't victimless.
i would fucking download a car if it were possible....
replicated infinitely without real resource investment,
Are you retarded? It takes energy to make these things. Even more so, if it's physical media. Electricity costs money. Human labor costs money. Distribution and server space costs money. Just because you don't see it in physical form, does not make it "without investment". You would be like the person who argues air doesn't exist because you can't see it.
No. I mean morally. Ethics is more like societal norms. I just care about what's right and wrong.
That's another good point, you should be able to get your money back if it was shit.
So another piece of evidence that it's the system that's immoral rather than piracy.
And yeah, paying based on how good something is makes a lot more sense.
There is no right and wrong. Its all subjective. If a company makes a game, then lays off all its staff, but continues to profit off that game (something like what is happening to ksp2), then pirate away. But if a staff works on a game for half a decade, but they don't see enough sales and forced to lay off people because piracy, thats a bit fucked up. Ultimately, you as an individual have very little to do with the final of a company or its product. You as an individual won't tip the scale when it comes to piracy. My thoughts are, pirate it to see how it is. But if you like it and want to support the devs, buy it anyway.
I can borrow books and movies from the library legally.
Deep Thoughts from a Shallow Mind©
There is no right and wrong.
Bullshit.
can you argue that morality objectively exists ?
i would fucking download a car if it were possible....
but not a Tesla
Yes, but that's a red herring, so fuck off. Maybe if you create another thread I'll argue for it.
then the OP has no basis for discussion, twat
/thread
KYS, shit for brains.
you must a priori accept morality exists to debate what is morally good and morally bad. as the other guy said, you can create another thread to discuss that.
youre doing the essential of going to a transformers movie and getting upset that robots can transform into cars. like duh, its the fucking premise of the movie, fucktard.
in 2025 this is actually a good analogy because you do not, in fact, own the games in your steam library or any service where you digitally download the game. you will eventually have to return them and never have access to them again. Buying is not owning anymore.
What you consider right, others might consider wrong and vice versa. Its a human construct. There are things which you might think are objectively wrong, but the complexity of the world can't be broken down into black and white, and that objectivity can be argued against.
trump will dismantle the library system and end uncompensated inspiration
Nothing objectively exists if it needs our approval to do so, thats ehy i love it when dumb faggots say "its an objective fact" about something that would never have existed outside of humanity. Gravity is objective, not your opinions.
dismantle the library system
Nigger do you even dewey decimal?
I disagree. I think arguing what is right and wrong should also contain a subjective analysis of why one thinks that way. Or whether they think any of it matters to begin. There is no objectivity when it comes to human constructs.
You don't own the physical media either. A disc just contains a license and a portion of the product. You are still relying on the benevolence of the publishers to allow you to obtain the rest. One could argue you don't actually own anything these days.
There is no objectivity when it comes to human constructs.
welcome to the topic of the thread
Or whether they think any of it matters to begin
this is the a priori belief required to participate in the topic of the thread. otherwise, you can make a new topic.
Why must I agree in objective morality to discuss morality? Do you just not like hearing other opinions?
Can mods please ban this faggot thread derailer.
to discuss morality, you must a priori believe that morality is not objective. you must believe that morality exists a priori.
morality objectively exists
there is a difference between objective morality existing, and morality objectively existing. you must accept that all thing fall on a moral spectrum to discuss the spectrum.
I believe morality exists in the human mind.
But if you were to copy the entire thing without damaging it and then give the book back, no harm done
you wouldnt download a car
you sweet summer child
dewey decimal
Dewey is for children
LoC is for adults
It takes energy to make these things
Yeah, but then infinite copies can be created, diluting the energy expended in the original creation to 0, so they are worthless.
Moral nihilism is true. There is no right or wrong at all.
No one's losing money or being harmed if someone who didn't ever plan on buying or accessing the content consumes it privately. In fact it might even increase profits long term for the creator if the consumer likes it and ends up paying as a form of gratitude or to get access to even more.
Those who do it on a massive scale for ideological reasons or to make a profit by hosting it is something else.
im a nihilist, i agree, but the conversation is about what is or isnt morally wrong, which required believing that morality exists on a good/evil spectrum. yours is a different topic of conversation.
you can be a nihilist without being a fucking retard.
Creating copies also requires energy. Electrons don't move across wires without energy... hosting the server space to provide those copies costs energy, and they take up physical space. Nothing happens for free.
the question isnt "would you steal from the power grid"
Right and wrong != good and evil
Developers and publishers are the ones paying for that infrastructure, not you. If they are spending money to host a product and you take that product without payment, you're stealing.
Do you think the labor costs just evaporate after a product is created? Recouping investments in labor or the cost of the product as a whole is what the consumer pays for.
okay, what i said is still valid. idc for your red herring.
LOL no. i pay for my power and internet. well, actually, my landlord pays for both. landlords are the real heroes confirmed?
what does this have to do with the power grid?
IIRC American copyright law is 70 years after the death of the author. It used to be 28 years from time of writing. Often the copyright is not held by the author and not part of his estate. Michael Jackson owned the Beatles' music copyright at the time that everyone was switching from vinyl to CD and refused to relinquish the rights. His last phone call on the day he died was recorded. He said "The Jews are going to kill me!"
I wouldn't say it's morally correct, but it's what I do. Pirate and read a book. If I like it I buy a copy from the author or any Not Amazon platform such as Lulu or Smashwords. Because fuck Bezos and his tranny 'girlfriend'.
You will own nothing and be happy.
im gonna simplify this shit for all of you to relate to.
>be me at 5.
find a hot wheels toy car that is absolute awesome.
dad says "when your older, your gonna have to drive a car to get around."
decide then and there, ima drive that fire car in mah toy box.
*1 DECADE LATER*
acquire license to drive
cars are separated by manufacturer and type and class.
1.small quick and cheap transport
2.midsize average general transport with some utility
3. midsize sports car
4. large sized luxury transport
5. large utility transport
6. massive sized pure utility shipping
all but #1 of this list, has been priced in such a way, it takes 10 years + to purchase it.
no reason my hot wheels should be any higher then #2 on said list.
said hot wheels car is a #3.5 super car priced at 200X higher and is slower then a car in #2
parents said when im older i can have anything i want and be anything i want.
fuck it, ima download a car
*note said hot wheels car is a concept car that never went into production. FML
Its a human construct
Then why do other animals follow it too?
Let me tell you why, because morality isn't a human construct, it's a property of the universe.
What you consider right, others might consider wrong and vice versa.
Because humans are still dumb animals evolving and getting closer to what the objective morality of the universe is.
Can you argue it's morally wrong?
no, because it has nothing to do with morals
copying digital bits isn't theft, no one else is deprived of any property
at best you can argue it's maybe unethical, or illegal
Developers and publishers are the ones paying for that infrastructure, not you.
People trade stuff peer-to-peer and torrent all the time, so that's not really true.
Then why do other animals follow it too?
Irrelevant. Animals have behavioral constants for evolutionary reasons.
it's a property of the universe.
Wrong. It's a property of animal psychology that came into being because it had some evolutionary benefit.
the objective morality of the universe
Doesn't exist. There is no logical, scientific, empirical, or rational reason to not rape and murder people for fun.
Irrelevant. Animals have behavioral constants for evolutionary reasons.
That was exactly the relevance. Ha-ha-ha. You fucking idiot.
Wrong. It's a property of animal psychology that came into being because it had some evolutionary benefit.
You're agreeing with me while disagreeing because you're only partly understanding what I'm saying. It's an evolutionary benefit because it a property of the universe.
Doesn't exist. There is no logical, scientific, empirical, or rational reason to not rape and murder people for fun.
You are truly dumb.
I can argue it was a mistake. It accelerated the monopolization of entertainment. Entertainment used to be an escape, now it is owned by the parties interested in enslaving/culling you because investment is the only meaningful income in entertainment now.
It accelerated the monopolization of entertainment.
How?
Yes, but nobody here has claimed it's theft. They'd be dumb to. The question is whether it's unjust in some way.
Is there actually a reason for it to be unethical or illegal? Or is it just stupidity, greed et cetera.
does anyone have the edit i made of ops image from like a decade ago. i made it say "you wouldnt suck your best friends dick"
Not only is digital piracy OK, but copy right laws are immoral and restricts human progress. If Copy right laws existed during caveman times, we would owe the family of Crunk money for fire. Crunk didn't invent fire, Crunk threaten to murder the person how did for the rights.
The wheel is dead technology locked behind a patent that will not get used.
After this thread that's that it seems like to me too.
In which case people should be aware of the actual immoralities.
I do think people who invent stuff deserve something for it though.
lmao. neither is downloading a movie for free, because technically your paying a fractional amount of a penny downloading it, guess. get real lel. the sort of people who legitimately use libraries on a regular basis are not a net positive when it comes to taxes
when internet is not free for us
we make an own internet just for us