When is pirating ok? (discussion)

[Rydian]

Pushing it a bit some of the racing games and other driving games are rather potent simulations of real world places these days.

Euro Truck Simulator 2 seems to be one of these.

 

[Prophet]

Yes. The two are separate acts. The first is theft, the second is a gift. Gifting does not mean that the act of theft never happened. The two loaves of bread are two separate objects.

If I never noticed, you still stole, but I wouldn't press charges ('cause I wouldn't even know).

If you're trying to equate this to downloading files online... the original files being read for the download are never modified or removed.

No I don't mean to say the two are equal, only to point out that an act of theft may occur without costing the victim anything or incurring any tangible loss. Which simply underlines the error of the definition you linked: "Piracy is not theft because it does not cause any direct damage or loss to the other party." But as you just agreed, in the case of the bread swap (where there was no direct damage or loss), an act of theft has still occurred; as you stated, one has "still stole."

By the law no. By morals, depends on the situation and who you ask.

That’s absurd. If the owner of the magic oven doesn't have a legal claim to the product of his oven; then whomever owns a factory, wouldn't have a legal claim to the products produced by said factory. Why would anyone own a factory under such conditions?

Of course factories are often contracted to produce goods for other companies. Nonetheless, under simple circumstances, in the absence of any such arrangements; whomsoever owns the means of production, owns the product produced. Simple facet of property ownership. How else would dog breeders have the right to sell the offspring of their dogs?

Commonly defined...."enjoyment/entertainment"... there is a very serious issue defining what exactly makes a game and is the subject of intense debate. To that end attempting to casually dismiss things gets to be tricky and "enjoyment/entertainment" is both rather narrow and open to a wide range of interpretations to say nothing of the potential minefield of "what is a "grave" need?”

I refuse to reiterate what is meant by grave need -- my first post clearly describes the circumstances in which I am proposing piracy would be permissible and in turn outlines the conditions necessary for a “need” to pass this permissibility test.

Definitions are tricky in general. After all who should get to decide the limits and precise meaning of any term? So to avoid the quagmire of “meaning,” let’s just focus on a specific example. Crysis 2 was heavily pirated and makes for a good example of what I have in mind as “video games” designed specifically for “enjoyment/entertainment.” Would you like to provide a practical example in which one needs to pirate Crysis 2? If you can, congratulations, you will have successfully addressed an insignificant aside I made in saying, “I can't imagine any practical case in which it would be.”

I know the majority of us are pirates, myself included. But in order to ease our consciences we shouldn't embrace the sophistry commonly found in “pro-pirate” arguments. Better to be admittedly amoral on a petty scale than to delude oneself with shoddy logic.

 

[Rydian]

No I don't mean to say the two are equal, only to point out that an act of theft may occur without costing the victim anything or incurring any tangible loss. Which simply underlines the error of the definition you linked: "Piracy is not theft because it does not cause any direct damage or loss to the other party." But as you just agreed, in the case of the bread swap (where there was no direct damage or loss), an act of theft has still occurred; as you stated, one has "still stole."

There is a loss. With your act of taking my loaf of bread, I have lost that loaf of bread. You gave me another loaf of bread, but you still took MY loaf of bread.

The whole replacement thing only works if you count possessions as being equal and numerical, which is not how life works. People value certain individual possessions more than others. For example, I have this fuzzy blanket that was a gift from my first real girlfriend. I almost never use it because it's way smaller than a normal blanket, but I keep it with me because it's special. If somebody took that blanket, I'd want it back, even if they wanted to replace it with two.

The second act of giving does not erase the act of theft. Not getting caught does not mean you didn't do anything wrong, we're not 12 or something.

 

[Jan1tor]

I want a matter converter to be hacked! That way I could pirate a brand new car, free meals, clothes, just about anything. When they can do that, Then it will be ok to pirate! Silly people. Silly me!

 

[Thomas83Lin]

Second post nailed it, so why is there 700+ post

 

[Prophet]

There is a loss. With your act of taking my loaf of bread, I have lost that loaf of bread. You gave me another loaf of bread, but you still took MY loaf of bread.

The whole replacement thing only works if you count possessions as being equal and numerical, which is not how life works. People value certain individual possessions more than others. For example, I have this fuzzy blanket that was a gift from my first real girlfriend. I almost never use it because it's way smaller than a normal blanket, but I keep it with me because it's special. If somebody took that blanket, I'd want it back, even if they wanted to replace it with two.

The second act of giving does not erase the act of theft. Not getting caught does not mean you didn't do anything wrong, we're not 12 or something.

So just to get this straight… you are willing to to broaden the definition of “loss” to include instances in which an object is taken and replaced with an identical object. You reason that due to some abstract sentimental attachment you had to the original-object, the replacement-object is not equivalent, even if it is indistinguishable. That’s a very nuanced view and it requires some justification for why the quirks of your emotional attachment should be considered when trying to measure if a tangible loss occurred.

But even in lieu of this nuanced understanding of “loss” you are endorsing, you still want to deny that copyright infringement is a loss in so far as a copyright holder upon infringement loses their exclusive right to produce and distribute an object.

Arbitrary and inconsistent sophistry, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[whinis]

So just to get this straight… you are willing to to broaden the definition of “loss” to include instances in which an object is taken and replaced with an identical object. You reason that due to some abstract sentimental attachment you had to the original-object, the replacement-object is not equivalent, even if it is indistinguishable. That’s a very nuanced view and it requires some justification for why the quirks of your emotional attachment should be considered when trying to measure if a tangible loss occurred.

But even in lieu of this nuanced understanding of “loss” you are endorsing, you still want to deny that copyright infringement is a loss in so far as a copyright holder upon infringement loses their exclusive right to produce and distribute an object.

Arbitrary and inconsistent sophistry, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You are comparing an act of copying an item in which the original item is not changed with stealing an item from someone and replacing it and yet you don't see any problem with your logic ? Should I now also believe my body has been stolen when people take pictures of me ?

 

[Rydian]

So just to get this straight… you are willing to to broaden the definition of “loss” to include instances in which an object is taken and replaced with an identical object. You reason that due to some abstract sentimental attachment you had to the original-object, the replacement-object is not equivalent, even if it is indistinguishable. That’s a very nuanced view and it requires some justification for why the quirks of your emotional attachment should be considered when trying to measure if a tangible loss occurred.

Seriously, 12 year old logic still? Replacing something does not mean you never took it.

You could take a loaf of bread from my house, replace it with a different loaf of bread and a bag of 10,000 canadian dollars, and you would still be guilty of theft.

But even in lieu of this nuanced understanding of “loss” you are endorsing, you still want to deny that copyright infringement is a loss in so far as a copyright holder upon infringement loses their exclusive right to produce and distribute an object.

Rights to reproduce an object are not the same as the object itself. Read the thread I linked more closely, and check some of the sources too.

Arbitrary and inconsistent sophistry, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Inconsistent how? Tangible goods are clearly distinct from intangible rights, and the laws and regulations about the two differ.

 

[TheCasketMan]

What ever happened with that new law with ISP like Roadrunner and Comcast? I mean the one where they slow down your Internet if they find out you are downloading pirated media, and eventually sue you.

 

[Filipe C Bello dos Santos]

After so many pages with so great point of view from you guys, i think i found an answer to satisfy all:

When piracy is ok ? never! do at your own risc.
Why is piracy bad ? so many games, so little time.

 

[Rydian]

What ever happened with that new law with ISP like Roadrunner and Comcast? I mean the one where they slow down your Internet if they find out you are downloading pirated media, and eventually sue you.

Well they'd have to catch you first. Very few people even get notices.

 

[Prophet]

Seriously, 12 year old logic still?

It’s the wonky definition of theft that you are endorsing that’s leading to the weird logic here. I agree that the replacement example is an instance of theft. But for it to be theft as YOU define, it would require some loss or damage. If no loss or damage occurred and we still agree that it was a theft, then your definition is wrong which would open the door for an interpretation of copyright infringement as another possible form of non-loss/damage theft. My own point ended there.

However you thought it wise to press on and suggest that there is in fact a loss/damage that occurs in the replacement example. Citing a “special” sentimental value assigned to the original, which renders it irreplaceable even with an indistinguishable copy. Your folly here is in proposing “specialness” as a relevant thing when identifying loss. My response was simply, if you are willing to rest your argument on an intangible assigned value (“specialness”), then I can’t see how you can deny an argument which regards a copyright holder as incurring a loss of their exclusive right (intangible) to produce and distribute an object, when their copyright is infringed upon. This appears no more or less dependent upon an intangible concept, yet you reel against it. That’s strange – arbitrary and inconsistent even.

I’m essentially letting you pick your poison and entertaining the discrepancies in your position. I personally don’t think private property is grounded in any intrinsic logic or morality, which is precisely why so many discrepancies arise – the whole concept is unsound to begin with. I would argue that private property is just a strange and problematic social construct. I just enjoy watching folks who I presume normally cling to the comforts found in the illusion of private property, suddenly switch gears when they want to erect an argument to defend their tendency to pirate goods. I'm an adorable douche, in that way.

 

[JoostinOnline]

You could take a loaf of bread from my house, replace it with a different loaf of bread and a bag of 10,000 canadian dollars, and you would still be guilty of theft.

That's because nothing from Canada is worth anything.

 

[Rydian]

It’s the wonky definition of theft that you are endorsing that’s leading to the weird logic here. I agree that the replacement example is an instance of theft. But for it to be theft as YOU define, it would require some loss or damage. If no loss or damage occurred and we still agree that it was a theft, then your definition is wrong which would open the door for an interpretation of copyright infringement as another possible form of non-loss/damage theft. My own point ended there.

The problem is that you assume that replacing the bread you took from me with another loaf magically makes the first act go away. It does not.

However you thought it wise to press on and suggest that there is in fact a loss/damage that occurs in the replacement example. Citing a “special” sentimental value assigned to the original, which renders it irreplaceable even with an indistinguishable copy.

That was just an example to point out that objects in real life are not part of some numerical order like a video game. A swap of one object for another may be the same in a video game (where inventories are often just collections of quantifier numbers), but in real life it is not the same as leaving the original alone.

 

[the_randomizer]

What ever happened with that new law with ISP like Roadrunner and Comcast? I mean the one where they slow down your Internet if they find out you are downloading pirated media, and eventually sue you.

Why do you think nerds created usenet and VPNs?

 

[FAST6191]

I refuse to reiterate what is meant by grave need -- my first post clearly describes the circumstances in which I am proposing piracy would be permissible and in turn outlines the conditions necessary for a “need” to pass this permissibility test.

Definitions are tricky in general. After all who should get to decide the limits and precise meaning of any term? So to avoid the quagmire of “meaning,” let’s just focus on a specific example. Crysis 2 was heavily pirated and makes for a good example of what I have in mind as “video games” designed specifically for “enjoyment/entertainment.” Would you like to provide a practical example in which one needs to pirate Crysis 2? If you can, congratulations, you will have successfully addressed an insignificant aside I made in saying, “I can't imagine any practical case in which it would be.”

Though I would argue simple enjoyment/entertainment are but a fraction what computer games can encompass I sense there is little to be gained going too much further there. Those "grave" circumstances are somewhat nebulous though- starving runs a wide range of concepts from prolonged malnutrition to just having not eaten for a few days despite the body being able to survive serious amounts of time without food. Grave need for the knowledge could vary as well as morality is not a clear cut thing. My insurance company holds there are worse things than death (I get paid more if I become a quadriplegic or seriously brain damaged for instance) and would effectively also assign a value to a life. Beyond that we have the one vs many debate- if I took out a pension fund tomorrow I would probably not kill anybody (free health care and all that) but I would still have a massive impact upon a lot of people with the net impact probably being greater than the impact of the life of a single person. As pension funds are investors at points would I be justified in pirating either a professional book (my ASM materials books cost several hundred dollars each and there about 20 odd of them, those are somewhat cheap in the realms of professional literature as well) or a scientific paper (subs to journals or journals themselves are not always cheap either) should I have to play advisor on an investment*. Beyond that professional indemnity insurance and professional requirements are in hundreds of fields, assuming we are pushing it more towards medic then where do probabilities, recovery times, percentage recovery, resulting impact (do I have to take immunosuppressants, insulin, get dialysis, appear for labs every day....), infection potential.... all of which are very much considered by those that play medic in the same line of thought that "will the patient/service user die" is considered factor in?

I am not so sure about the second one but the first crysis was actually used somewhat as a benchmarking/system test tool and in many instances there not for the game at all. Especially for the first and doubly so for far cry but it might argued such a game was also designed somewhat more as a demo of the tech (engine sales count for a lot for many companies and a real world proof of it being able to sustain a game is a great bit of marketing). Also I still hold that I enjoy my stock market game which definitely doubles as a test and training platform, though my entertainment is an option that is catered for by the devs, despite having no concerns in one beyond that of "I live in a society that assigns great value to financial markets" which applies to everybody else.

As for the loaf of bread stuff if I am the baker in this example and I can carry the logic of magic replica (your loaf of bread may not be up to my standards in real life after all) I am still left without the loaf of bread to sell or eat on the day which may impact my liquidity, granted I would hope my margins cover such a thing but that is somewhat besides the point. Given loans are made to cover a lack of such a thing, the lack of such a thing has impacted many a company at points in time and said loans form a huge part of the financial industry well....

*much like the loaf of bread stuff in the last paragraph I would hope divesting and margins would be enough but if we are allowed logical leaps....

 

[Sop]

Never. Well, for some retro consoles I buy the game first den emulate it on my PC for that mint condition resell.

 

[Chocolina]

i nvr look at like that i am now informed #YOLO

 

[Gahars]

i nvr look at like that i am now informed #YOLO

You Only Learn Once?

 

[1234turtles]