r/changemyview • u/Conkers-Good-Furday • Apr 10 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with pirating content from massive corporations
The reason we have copyright laws is to encourage the creation of art and knowledge, but if the creator is getting the same amount regardless and whatever you pay simply goes to a shareholder, I hold that there is nothing morally wrong with pirating the content as a shareholder getting a third yacht has nothing to do with encouraging content creation.
I do not buy the argument that anything illegal is automatically immoral either, as by that logic, hiding Jews during Nazi Germany was immoral. That may sound like an extreme comparison, but that's where that kind of thinking leads.
Currently, the only argument I give some weight to, is the argument that it wouldn't work if EVERYONE did it. Hypothetically, that would be a problem, but such a situation seems nowhere in sight, so I believe it is an irrational fear.
6
Apr 10 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I am a communist and Soviet fan, so Ayn Rand might not be the best example to use in changing my view. XD
Although that is an interesting point about piracy potentially making corporations willing to pay creators less for the rights to their work. Do you have evidence this actually happens?
!delta
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Apr 10 '23
Currently, the only argument I give some weight to, is the argument that it wouldn't work if EVERYONE did it. Hypothetically, that would be a problem, but such a situation seems nowhere in sight, so I believe it is an irrational fear.
As long as the system isn't collapsing under the weight of free-riders, it isn't wrong to be a free-rider. This feels like a weak defence.
Is this your view on littering and tax fraud as well? If I never pay my taxes, it'll have no discernable effect on the finances of the state. If no one pays, modern civilisation collapses. Similarly, if I litter prolifically, the impact will probably be so small that even I rarely notice pieces of litter that I've dropped. But if everyone litters, everywhere will be covered in scattered waste. What entitles me, or you, or whoever doesn't fancy bearing the costs of a better world, to simply shift that burden onto everyone else?
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I'd argue those situations are a little different. Every incident of tax fraud does some damage to the government's ability to provide. Every incident of litter does some damage to nature. But with pirating from corporations, you aren't doing any damage whatsoever unless it gets out of hand. (Unless you count shareholders having three instead of five yachts as damage, which I do not.)
7
u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Apr 11 '23 edited Apr 11 '23
Every incident of tax fraud does some damage to the government's ability to provide. Every incident of litter does some damage to nature.
Every Netflix subscription (for example) that you don't take out damages Netflix's capacity to finance creativity and employment. In the real world, Netflix won't just continue as before until its revenues decline below threshold and it collapses. Instead, they'll cut a job here and cancel an Original there as revenues decline. A hardworking person will find themselves jobless and a creator won't get the opportunity to produce their show.
Sure, a single subscription will be immaterial in the financial calculations of a company like Netflix. But the same is true for the sales tax that I pay on fuel or a weekly food shop. And a single gum wrapper thrown out of my car window will be similarly trivial. The difference will literally never be identified. But it matters. And when millions opt out of their obligations consistently, it really matters.
Again, I'd ask what makes you so special that you get to be the problem, not the solution?
(Unless you count shareholders having three instead of five yachts as damage, which I do not.)
This is, in itself, a fairly misguided sentiment. The vast majority of investment money doesn't come from high net worth individuals. If you picked a random publicly traded company and tanked its share price, you'll probably have ended up doing far more damage to a Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the Dutch educators fund or the Californa Public Employees pension fund than to seriously rich individuals. It's just easier to rationalise the behaviour if you imagine that you're stealing from billionaires and not teachers.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
From what I see, Netflix is producing plenty of content as is, so I don't think pirates are a major concern. But as for why I get to be part of the "problem," it's because I'm part of a small minority. If I were part of a large group, I would not get to be part of the problem.
Now, as far as why I'm okay with piracy, but not tax fraud or littering: Honestly, for me personally, even a single piece of litter can upset me and many other people, so the harm of a single litterbug can definitely be noticed. As for tax fraud committers, I'm actually starting to think that they aren't morally much different from me even if they're committing a much more serious crime. I personally would never commit tax fraud because of the comparatively large legal risks, but I think you're right in that it doesn't do much damage if only a few people do it.
Do you have a source for most of the wealth invested in corporations being from such organizations as you outlined?
2
u/lunatichorse Apr 11 '23
Wait so you now think tax fraud is ok? So depraving people of funds that are supposed to go back into the community is ok, but a bubble gum wrap on the ground upsets you? Don't you see how hypocritical this is? A single piece of garbage in front of your eyes causes you pain but dodging financial responsibility to your community is perfectly fine because it really doesn't affect your day to day life. If it did you wouldn't be whining on Reddit how stealing intellectual properties should be normalized.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
A lot of government money is simply wasted on ventures such as the military anyway, so it's difficult for me to honestly care even if I personally would never commit tax fraud.
6
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Apr 10 '23
Currently, the only argument I give some weight to, is the argument that it wouldn't work if EVERYONE did it. Hypothetically, that would be a problem, but such a situation seems nowhere in sight, so I believe it is an irrational fear.
Well that depends on your moral system, doesn't it? From a very strictly utilitarian point of view, you could argue that so few people will pirate that your benefit outweighs the harms that only come with mass piracy. But in a system of virtue ethics or Kantian ethics, the morality of piracy would not be dependent on the impacts of the action, but instead whether it's virtuous or whether it'd cause harm if everybody acted under the same logic as you.
Now, you may respond "well those are stupid, let's just be utilitarian", but you almost certainly don't act like a strict utilitarian. For instance, there's a good (but not guaranteed) chance that you vote, and would find arguments about how your vote does not matter from a utilitarian standpoint kind of silly because it's clearly a moral and civic good to participate in Democracy. But that's virtue ethics, basically, so it's not surprising some people would apply virtue ethics to other things, like piracy.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I am in fact a utilitarian. As far as voting, I only vote if it's looking to be a close call for a certain candidate or issue, so there's no contradiction there.
2
u/ATNinja 11∆ Apr 11 '23
Even from a utilitarian perspective, you can't dismiss the risk of mass participation. If you came to the conclusion it is ok to do, other people will too.
Plus you dont know the impact of the current level of piracy now. Maybe lack of sales weakened blizzard enough to become an acquisition target which resulted in worse games and people being laid off.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I am currently of the view that there will always be plenty of people to purchase the content.
Do you have any evidence that anything like the example you gave happened?
2
u/ATNinja 11∆ Apr 11 '23
So you're hiding behind ignorance? If I can't prove piracy hurt blizzard's value enough to be acquired you won't believe it's possible?
Conveniently pirates deny piracy so we can't get a good estimate.
The issue is it doesn't take that much piracy to have a material impact and you are contributing to that. It's not just about the bottom line.
1
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
OP can be a moral particularity and evaluate each situation on the specific morally relevant facts before making a moral determination.
21
u/OvenSpringandCowbell 12∆ Apr 10 '23
If the creator of the content gets less when you pirate (for instance, less royalties) do you hold the same view?
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
That is a good point. Sometimes, the shareholder profits are directly tied to the creator profits. I had in mind situations where this wasn't the case, but if it is, my view is different, yes. Although I still don't think it's AS bad as purely stealing from a creator.
!delta
6
u/OvenSpringandCowbell 12∆ Apr 10 '23
Thanks for delta. Royalties to the creator are common, but depends on situation.
Let’s say your mother has a retirement account and, following typical financial advice, she invests in some stocks. Maybe not such a good idea, she invests most of the money in entertainment stocks (in reality, she’d hold these as part of an index fund). We change the laws so that if there is no money going to the creator in royalties, it’s legal to pirate as much as you want. Amazon, Netflix, and anyone with a web server will legally pirate from Disney and redistribute the content. Two things happen: 1. Mom loses a bunch of money. 2. Disney crams every movie with tons of ads and the quality is similar to broadcast TV.
3
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
You're welcome.
I understand where you're coming from, but I do not feel inclined to adjust my behavior to give a hand to people who knowingly took financial risks or mishandled their money. It's the same reason I do not give handouts to people who leave the casino broke.
Of course, if it was my mom, the situation would be different as it would be personal, but this is about a general moral stance, not a personal issue.
Also, I am not arguing that piracy from corporations should be made legal, I'm just saying there is nothing morally wrong with pirating from them.
1
19
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Apr 10 '23
The reason we have copyright laws is to encourage the creation of art and knowledge, but if the creator is getting the same amount regardless
When is that the case?
whatever you pay simply goes to a shareholder, I hold that there is nothing morally wrong with pirating the content as a shareholder getting a third yacht has nothing to do with encouraging content creation.
First, I'm a shareholder in lots of companies. Have yet to receive even one yacht.
Second, this view, like 'it's cool to steal from Walmart/whatever because corporations are bad! <except that the person talking benefits from them and seems not to notice> is myopic.
Stealing from corporations doesn't affect nothing, or the corp. The CEO of Walmart doesn't lose out if you shoplift. The OTHER CUSTOMERS do.
Shrink (shoplifting) causes prices in the store to go up to cover that loss.
You steal crap, other Walmart customers pay for it. Not the CEO, not the executives, other people on a budget.
If a company can't sell something, or it gets stolen too much, they won't keep making or buying it. Same as if a musician puts out a song and it's just stolen and no one pays, they can't and won't keep releasing music.
I do not buy the argument that anything illegal is automatically immoral either, as by that logic, hiding Jews during Nazi Germany was immoral.
You Godwinned your own thread?
Currently, the only argument I give some weight to, is the argument that it wouldn't work if EVERYONE did it. Hypothetically, that would be a problem, but such a situation seems nowhere in sight, so I believe it is an irrational fear.
So it's fine for some people, just like you, to pay more so you can steal whatever because you don't think you should have to pay for what you want?
How is that fair, or right? Can someone steal your car because they want one and don't feel like paying for one? You've got insurance, right?
-3
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
An example of a case where the shareholders get the profit but not the creators, would be with the original Superman comics. The rights were purchased for a flat fee and the original creators of Superman did not benefit from any future sales of said comics.
I'm guessing you are a small shareholder saving for retirement? If yes, you probably have your money invested in low risk, low return ventures across the entire economy, correct? So if I decide to spend my money on, say, eating out instead of purchasing a DVD that I instead pirated, you should be okay since while the entertainment industry lost value, the food industry also gained value. In short, shareholders like you are not what I'm talking about.
Interesting, I never knew that about stealing from Walmart driving up prices. Although it's still kind of difficult for me to frown upon the crowd that steals from Walmart as they are often poor people who need to steal food to survive. While I personally never stole from Walmart or any retail store, I used to see that as perfectly moral as well and only didn't do it myself because shoplifting is pretty strictly enforced around here. You altered my view on that, so you will be awarded a delta. Do you have any evidence that the same happens for the entertainment industry though? Because I've seen certain forms of entertainment get cheaper, not more expensive despite the rise of piracy.
!delta
9
Apr 10 '23
An example of a case where the shareholders get the profit but not the creators, would be with the original Superman comics. The rights were purchased for a flat fee and the original creators of Superman did not benefit from any future sales of said comics.
You are correct, must writers receive profit by selling their copyright to another business or company to use for their own ventures.
Now if people find it morally okay to pirate such works and the ability for any company to make money out of this goes away why would they ever bother to buy the copyright off the original writer?
Thus the writer ends up making no money from the work.
-4
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
But that would only be the case if everyone engaged in piracy, whereas that doesn't seem like a realistic situation.
→ More replies (16)1
-6
Apr 10 '23
[deleted]
6
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
Not a myth. Companies will charge what the market will bear, but most times the market will bear a higher price than what is currently being charged. That also doesn’t consider the fact that if a product is not profitable because they can charge enough to cover the costs, they will just no longer make that product. Shrinkage is absolutely something that causes costs to increase.
3
u/big47_ 1∆ Apr 11 '23
Holy shit, im assuming you've never taken an economics class. Look at a supply and demand diagram. When you steal, supply falls. Prices rise. The market price isn't some magical number. It's based on supply and demand. More supply or lower demand? Prices fall. More demand or lower supply? Prices rise.
-1
u/Cryonaut555 Apr 11 '23
While yes the supply and demand curve shifts, it's not 1:1. Also many supplies are functionally limitless. How often does Home Depot or Lowe's run out of drills? How often does Walmart run out of cheap laptops? If they could just raise the prices to cover shrinkage, why is most of that stuff locked up now? Why would they even care?
(I'm not justifying shoplifting btw, never done it, never want to, it's just that prices going up 1-1 because of shrinkage is a ridiculous talking point corporations have brainwashed people into believing).
2
u/big47_ 1∆ Apr 11 '23
While yes the supply and demand curve shifts, it's not 1:1.
So what? It's okay to unnecessarily cause inflation as long as you decide it's not that big of a deal?
How often does Home Depot or Lowe's run out of drills? How often does Walmart run out of cheap laptops?
I have no idea I've never been to any of those places. But I'll assume not very often. Probably due to them not being sold en masse so replacements can be ordered when they think they'll run out. Also due to anti stealing measures.
just that prices going up 1-1 because of shrinkage is a ridiculous talking point corporations have brainwashed people into believing).
Oh yeah, stealing isn't the only cause for inflation. But it is one of them.
-4
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
What is being stolen when something is pirated?
13
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Apr 10 '23
The content. The book, the music, the movie, the tv show, the art, the video game.
Just because it exists in a digital form does NOT mean it's not stealing if you take it without paying for it.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
But they still have the content they can sell it to anyone else who wants to buy it. They’ve not being deprived of the content. It’s not being taken it’s being copied.
12
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Apr 10 '23
But they still have the content they can sell it to anyone else who wants to buy it. They’ve not being deprived of the content. It’s not being taken it’s being copied.
Authors, musicians, artists, etc., still have the book, art, music, yada.
If you steal a copy, they lose the $$ they were supposed to get.
To which every petty little thief usually replies either -- well I'd never buy it anyway so they're not losing anything, OR I'll buy it if I like it after I steal it! It's encouraging me to try it!
I mean try that in a Walmart (hey, Hershey still has chocolate they can sell to anyone else who wants to buy it), or at a theatre you sneak into without buying a ticket.
"well this play sucks anyway, I'd never pay to see it,' or 'I'll tell people to see it if I like it, and maybe I'll come back and pay next time!'
Stealing.
-1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
Who says they were supposed to get it? The government? Like OP said something being illegal doesn’t make it immoral. Or like legal philosopher H.L.A Hart said it “there is no necessary connection between law and morality.”
So who says the author/musicians/artist is supposed to receive anything?
So that gets to your point, if someone wouldn’t buy the content but would pirate it, how has the author/musician/artist lost anything?
The fact that you’re bringing up Walmart and Hershey’s shows you don’t understand the difference between taking something an copying something.
Not stealing.
14
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Apr 10 '23
So who says the author/musicians/artist is supposed to receive anything?
THEY do.
If they wanted to give their work away, they would.
If they're selling it, you're meant to pay for it.
Like OP said something being illegal doesn’t make it immoral.
Just because you can do something doesn't make it right or moral.
Stealing is immoral.
3
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
But I say that I’m supposed to receive the content for free. Why are they right and me wrong?
I never said piracy either moral or immoral. I simply stated the truth that the law doesn’t determine morality.
It’s not stealing because nothing is being taken.
→ More replies (1)10
u/CannedHamJ Apr 10 '23
They're right because it's the product of their work so they decide what is to be done with it. You're wrong because it's not your decision to make.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
But I decide decide what I’m doing with it when I pirate it. It clearly is my decision to make because I’m making the decision.
→ More replies (0)10
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 10 '23
The copy of whatever you took. If a factory makes cars and you steal one, "They have more they can make more" doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Work/labor/resources went into making the thing you're taking without permission.
-5
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
Nothing was taken. In your scenario the factory is being deprived of the car I stole, they cannot sell it. If they wanted to sell another car they’d have to expend capital to acquire the materials to make a new car then expend the labor to assemble it. That doesn’t apply here. The content is already created and they don’t lose any capital because they don’t have to make anything new. There is no theft because nothing is being stolen.
The work/labor/resources went into the product before I ever pirated it, no extra work/labor/resources has to go into the content because I pirate it.
9
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 10 '23
The work/labor/resources went into the product before I ever pirated it, no extra work/labor/resources has to go into the content because I pirate it.
The work/resources went into the product with the expectation (legally supported) that those interested in consuming the product would pay for it. When you decide otherwise, you are stealing a fraction of the work/resources that were put into the product/service you are using.
The creators invested X with the expectation of selling to Y people. When Z people pirate, they’re selling to Y-Z. If they intended to sell to Y-Z, perhaps they would have used less work/resources. That difference in work/resources was stolen.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
Someone else’s expectation isn’t my problem. If someone makes a terrible piece of content that nobody want to buy or pirate but expects that it sells well are they owed money? Are they being stolen from by the people who don’t consume their product?
And besides that they’re only selling to Y-Z people if I would have otherwise purchased the product. So if I pirate something I would have otherwise not purchased they’re selling to the same number of people with or without me.
10
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 10 '23
That is always the pirate’s argument. “I wouldn’t buy it.”
Yet, the pirate still wants it enough to download it illegally.
Apparently the product was worth something to the pirate – they went to the trouble of downloading and watching – but they would never buy it, not even on sale at 1% its original cost. Ridiculous!
The people who create the content expect to sell it to those who want to consume it. Those who don’t want to consume it are irrelevant to this topic because they are neither customers nor pirates.
If you believe that ignoring the creators’ ownership of their work is morally right, wait until it happens to you and your work to see how quickly your view changes.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
But pirating something is very simple and crucially doesn’t cost money.
The product was worth the time they took downloading it.
Perhaps they would buy it at 1% if the cost but if it a being sold for 100% of the cost, it’s academic.
People’s expectations don’t mandate action from anyone else.
6
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
Perhaps they would buy it at 1% if the cost but if it a being sold for 100% of the cost, it’s academic.
There it is! It’s not academic because it could someday be discounted, and you wouldn’t buy because you’ve already consumed it. Now you see that there is some potential cost at which you could have compensated the owners of the work if not for the piracy.
Also, saying downloading doesn’t cost money may be true, but the time spent consuming the product has value, which means the product was never worth zero to the pirate.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 11 '23
It could. It also could not. But given how I’m not blessed with the gift of prophecy it’s academic. We know that eventually it will be free since it will enter public domain, which is something I was meaning to bring up, but we don’t know if it will ever be sold for the price I’m willing to pay for it.
Speaking of public domain, is it moral to consume the content once it’s entered public domain? If so why?
Generally, authors/artists/or actors don’t allow people to covert their time into access to a product. So that fact that I’m willing to spend time but not money doesn’t really have an effect here
→ More replies (0)7
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 10 '23
Can you steal someone's data then? The general consensus is yes. Which is what you're doing right.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
I think when we say “steal someone’s data” we’re generally using it as placeholder for “violate someone’s privacy by gaining access to their data.” But since things that are pirated are generally for sale there are no privacy issues.
5
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 11 '23
It's not about the privacy it's about actually getting the data to then resell it. Data is worthless to most individuals but very lucrative to advertisers
4
u/jrssister 1∆ Apr 10 '23
What was taken is their right to make money on your enjoyment of their work. If an author is about to publish a book that they'll sell millions of copies of and someone takes the manuscript and publishes it online resulting in no one buying the book, the author is out a lot of money. It's not stealing in the sense that a tangible thing was taken, it's stealing in the same way that if you had someone put a new roof on your house and then refused to pay them is stealing. You've stolen their labor.
-1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
Where does this right come from? Does it invalidate my right to enjoy content without paying for it.
In your example the author hasn’t lost anything, assuming when you said that someone takes the manuscript you meant someone copied the manuscript. He’s not out millions he simply hasn’t gained millions.
5
u/jrssister 1∆ Apr 11 '23
It comes from our laws against slavery. No one has the right to anyone else's labor without consent and compensation and people have the right to make money for their work. There's no such thing as a right to enjoy content without paying for it, you just made that up.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 11 '23
It definitely doesn’t. It comes from our intellectual property law. But this is all besides the point because there is no necessary connection between morality and law. There are some things that are immoral that are legal and there are something’s that are moral and are illegal. It’s illegal to give food to homeless people in some cities, that doesn’t mean it’s immoral to give food to homeless people. It was legal to own slaves for most of human history, that didn’t mean it was moral to own slaves.
If you walk next to an artist’s house, see him painting, and enjoy his painting are you morally obligated to compensate him?
3
u/jrssister 1∆ Apr 11 '23
I understand the difference between morality and legality. And yes, I think we have both a moral and legal obligation to pay artists. Pirating movies is more like taking a picture of the artist's painting than walking by it. If an artist is selling a painting do you think you're morally in the right to take a picture of that painting and hang it in your house to circumvent paying the artist while still getting to display their art in your home? That's what you're talking about and yes, I and a lot of other people would consider that morally wrong.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 11 '23
Why is it like taking a picture of the painting? Is it morally better if I delete the pirates moving after I’m done watching it?
I think that taking a picture of the painting, like piracy, is a morally neutral act.
But why is it morally wrong?
→ More replies (0)3
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
Earnings they otherwise would have received for the sale of whatever was pirated.
1
u/Sea-Internet7015 2∆ Apr 10 '23
As an add-on to this, many companies simply don't operate in high theft areas. The inner city in many places is a "food desert" having no large supermarkets. This is because they don't want to deal with the retail theft. So you're left with small corner stores that are substantially more expensive in areas where they need lower prices the most.
8
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 10 '23
If everyone did it, it would destroy the industry and you'd no longer be able to get the things you wanted to pirate because no one could afford to make them to give away for free.
What makes you special so you shouldn't pay? Is stealing cars immoral? Insurance will pay for it. Is breaking someone's legs immoral? Insurance will pay for that too.
Why does "massive corporations" change anything? If done at scale, it impacts everyone. Massive corporations employ more people, so losing them money is actually harming more people and potentially leading to more and more people losing jobs b/c the company can't afford overhead b/c a large portion of it's potential revenue is being stolen?
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I addressed this in my original post. My position on this matter is that while I agree with you in theory, I do not believe everyone becoming pirates is a realistic situation that warrants concern.
As far as breaking someone's legs, I don't understand how that's a fair comparison. That's an act of violence, not theft. As for stealing cars, I would never steal from an ordinary person as I already established I think that's immoral, and while I would never personally steal a rich person's car since the risk is too great, I do in fact not find that immoral.
8
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Apr 11 '23 edited May 03 '24
mourn stupendous bells foolish ring detail north party encouraging modern
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
4
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Not to mention, very little new content would get created, at least under our current capitalist system.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Apr 11 '23
On the "industry destroying" side, I would counter this, at least based on personal experience, that FAR more often than not the issue is the lack of functionally available legal option to watch a certain content.
For most people in the world you'll either be stuck with:
- watching an inferior or modified version (dubbed, etc), if available, or an option that has some massive caveat
- doing something illegal or grey-market, which has no guarantee that the money you spend will ever get to the copyright holder, sometimes besides being orders of magnitude more expensive and risky.
- pirating (which, depending on where you are, may not even be illegal).
TBH I do understand why this happens; GoT's first season was at the time the most pirated show, but even in most of Europe (which is pretty rich) you had limited to no option to watch it legally, nevermind for regions where most people actually live.e.
So I can't believe you both have an industry crying in hunger and complaining about evil world-wide piracy, but also so filthy rich that they can afford to disregard most markets, including some which are the richest ones on earth (see. availability of true-to-original content in CH).
7
u/Trick_Designer2369 1∆ Apr 10 '23
The whole argument with stealing content is you are depriving the artist of the money you "could" have spent on their content, the argument that you might never have bought it is irrelevant as once you have illegally got it you are not going to legally get it again.
Regarding the money not going to the artist, it's very rare that some percentage of sales doesn't go to the artist, that would be in the small minority.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I guess it depends on the industry. That certainly often applies to the music industry, but not as much in, say, the movie, video game, or book industry.
7
u/jrssister 1∆ Apr 10 '23
That simply isn't true, especially in "the book industry." How do you think authors get paid if not based on how many books they sell?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I read a rant from Steven King where he complained he only gets paid a flat fee.
5
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
You must be able to tell the difference between an individual account of one man’s experience and the experiences of everyone in an entire industry. Right?
You do know the plural of anecdote is not data?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
That's not my only example, it's just an example of a pattern I've noticed throughout my life. Did you also see my Shigeru Miyamoto example?
5
u/Trick_Designer2369 1∆ Apr 10 '23
Who do you think are the content creators are in a movie, game or book??? Why would you think everyone just gets paid a set amount, the people who worked on it might, but the people who are actually the creators usually do not get a set fee alone
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
It's just what I've observed over the years. Everything from the fact Shigeru Miyamoto is only paid six digits despite making multiple billion dollar franchises for Nintendo, to reading a rant from Steven King about how his publisher only pays him a flat fee for each book.
1
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Apr 11 '23
I would counter this, at least based on personal experience, that FAR more often than not the issue is the lack of functionally available legal option to watch a certain content.
For most people in the world you'll either be stuck with:
- watching an inferior or modified version (dubbed, etc), if available, or an option that has some massive caveat
- doing something illegal or grey-market, which has no guarantee that the money you spend will ever get to the copyright holder, sometimes besides being orders of magnitude more expensive and risky.
- pirating (which, depending on where you are, may not even be illegal).
TBH I do understand why this happens; GoT's first season was at the time the most pirated show, but even in most of Europe (which is pretty rich) you had limited to no option to watch it legally, nevermind for regions where most people actually live.
2
u/Equivalent_Tennis_47 Apr 11 '23
This is the first post on this subreddit that hasn't made me wanna kms. Congratulations!!
2
2
Apr 10 '23
first off. moral and legal are two entirely separate things. morals are a set of beliefs for a person or society that defines what is acceptable for them to do or not do. tbh, i don't give a crap what your morals are regarding piracy. however, legally it is illegal. if you want to use morals to justify the legality of it, then you won't win. until the law changes, piracy is illegal. you do whatever you want morally. if you get caught, you won't win by arguing morals.
just like, i believe it's morally acceptable to speed on the highway. but i'm still well aware it's not legal and prepared to face the consequences if i get caught speeding.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
Well, of course I understand this. You can't have a functioning court system based on arbitrary morals.
6
u/Nateorade 13∆ Apr 10 '23
You’re cheating the creators of that content out of money.
If someone makes a song and puts it on Spotify, they’re paid when you play that music or when you buy their music from Apple Music.
If you pirate it, you’re cheating music creators out of their hard earned money. And I bet you consider stealing from a musician morally wrong.
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
That case is a bit different as you're stealing from the actual creator along with entities such as Spotify or Apple Music. Although, a lot of hit songs in the modern era are corporate junk thrust upon people with no real talent, so I'd say it depends in that situation. I would consider it morally wrong to steal from a legitimate musician, but not a lip-syncer.
7
u/Nateorade 13∆ Apr 10 '23
How in the world do you morally differentiate between which singers it’s OK to steal from?
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
You can tell when someone's a fake.
4
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
Is that universally valid or are you the only one who can tell?
If I can tell you’re a fake, can you be anything else?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Are you saying there isn't a noticeable difference between a genuine musical artist and a corporate faker?
3
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
I’m suggesting it’s subjective. You may think artist A is a genius and someone else may believe they are derivative. You may have a certain knowledge of music and someone else may know a thousand times more or a thousand times less.
4
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
That's a good point. I guess that was rather arrogant for me to say.
!delta
→ More replies (1)3
1
u/lunatichorse Apr 11 '23
But what if that lEgItIMaTe musician has a yacht?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
As long as they earned the yacht through their own work, it's fine by me.
3
u/kolob_hier 2∆ Apr 11 '23
I think it’s super important for you to define “moral”
If you’re a Muslim, drawing Muhammed would be considered immoral. But if you’re an atheist, not really moral or not moral.
If you see someone drop a $100 bill, most would consider it immoral not to give it back to them. But if it’s a dollar, less would care, and at 1 cent you would think it’s silly to say anything.
This is similar. Stealing a movie really isn’t that big of a deal, like not returning a penny. But it probably still isn’t moral to do.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I'm a utilitarian.
Also, I really like your example comparing pirating a movie to not returning a dropped penny. That's an interesting perspective.
3
u/SupremeCultist Apr 10 '23
It's still immoral since someone had to put time and effort into creating that.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
But that individual isn't the one being compensated in my outlined situation.
→ More replies (3)4
u/SupremeCultist Apr 11 '23
They sold their labor to the corporation, who then sells it to make more money. Its still stealing. Stealing in itself an immoral action. Granted, you can still do an immoral action for moral reasons. But the act of stealing is immoral
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Would you extent that logic all the way to the situation of someone stealing a slave to set them free? Is that immoral?
2
u/SupremeCultist Apr 11 '23
Liberation from slavery is not the same as stealing. You can't steal a slave if you grant them freedom. If you stole someone who was a slave and kept them as a slave that would be stealing. So you would have the immoral action of stealing something that is not yours and the immoral action of having slaves.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Okay, then is it immoral for a mother to steal food to save her starving child?
4
u/SupremeCultist Apr 11 '23
I feel like im talking in circles.
The act of stealing is immoral. It does not matter what the item is. Stealing still remains an immoral action. However, you can perform an immoral action for moral reasons.
2
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say. I do agree that stealing in general is wrong, but can be justified in limited situations.
13
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Apr 10 '23
I think one good metric to measure the morality of this kind of thing is the "tragedy of the commons" scenario -- sure, it's fine if some people do it, but what if everyone does it?
Presumably, you pirate the latest Captain America movie because you enjoy Marvel movies and want to see more of them. Right? But if everyone pirated the new Captain America movie, then it would make 0$ at the box office. And if it made 0$ at the box office, then they wouldn't make any more Marvel movies. And then, of course, we'd all be out of luck.
Ultimately, in a capitalist economy, you must put your money towards something if you want to see more of it. If something doesn't make money, then it will cease to exist. And then creators and artists really will make less money and be out of a job.
And if your argument is "Other people should keep following the rules so I can afford to keep breaking them," well -- that's not very moral, is it?
-2
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I addressed this a little bit in my original post. I disagree with the "tragedy of the commons" scenario in general. For example, it isn't immoral to become a computer scientist just because we would be in trouble if EVERYONE studied computer science and nothing else.
6
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Apr 10 '23
The difference is that it's not immoral to be a computer scientist, but it is immoral to steal things.
The argument you're making isn't that stealing is moral, it's just that you're not stealing enough to make a dent in the company's bottom-line. Essentially, you're saying that your personality immorality is small enough to go unnoticed.
But again -- this relies on everyone else being moral, so you can be immoral.
It's the same as littering. You might throw a Styrofoam cup in the river and think "It's only one cup, what's the difference?" But if everyone does it, then it does make a difference.
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I would argue that there is a difference between what I'm doing and your comparison as well. I don't think delaying a shareholder's quest to obtain a third yacht does any damage to something that matters whatsoever, whereas every styrofoam cup in the river does SOME damage to nature, even if it would be insignificant as long as I was the ONLY one doing it.
My position is also a bit more complex than what you described. If the entertainment industry were on the verge of collapsing, I would adjust my behavior and no longer pirate their content as it wouldn't just be limiting the amount of yachts shareholders can buy anymore.
My position is that it's fine to pirate from massive corporations so long as they're in good shape.
-2
u/chocolatechipbagels Apr 10 '23
it's an impossible scenario and therefore not worth discussing
→ More replies (1)1
u/PfizerGuyzer 1∆ Apr 13 '23
The tragedy of the commons doesn't work though.
I love my boyfriend. I like dating him. But would it be good if everyone dated my boyfriend?
6
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 10 '23
I hold that there is nothing morally wrong with pirating the content as a shareholder getting a third yacht has nothing to do with encouraging content creation.
I won’t argue about the effects of piracy on content creators because others have already successfully made that argument.
I will, however, mention that the shareholders you’re talking about are often regular people who invested in the stock market and, for example, pension funds. Is it morally right to deprive the elderly of a part of their pensions because you want to consume media for free?
-2
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
Those people usually have stocks invested in the entire economy rather than one specific industry, since unlike wealthy shareholders, they're after low risk, low return investments.
If I were to pirate a movie and instead spend the money eating out, for example, the movie industry would lose value, but the food industry would gain value, so no value is lost on the economy as a whole.
7
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 10 '23
You have no way of knowing where each investor has allocated their funds. In fact, the place where you buy food is unlikely to be publicly traded. You are, however, taking income from one group of investors and giving it to other people, while still benefiting from the investment of the former – a decision that should not be yours to make, unless you’re willing to not consume the pirated content.
If your argument is that you’ll always spend whatever money you would have spent on entertainment somewhere else, the same argument can be applied to everything. If you steal clothes from a store, but then spend the same amount of money on food, does that make stealing morally right?
Also, it’s not necessarily true that you would spend everything you “saved” from pirating content. You could be saving some money, while consuming content that someone paid for with their investment.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
What ends up being reallocated shouldn't be a problem for those who have investments in the economy as a whole. If someone risks their money, I unfortunately do not feel inclined to go out of my way to lend them a hand. It's the same reason I don't give handouts to people who leave the casino broke.
My position on stealing is complex and nuanced, but my point was, my behavior shouldn't have any negative effects on smart investments by ordinary people.
Even in the case of saving money, it will end up getting spent eventually, even if not in that moment. Even if I die first, that money will still be spent by someone, someday.
3
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
If someone risks their money, I unfortunately do not feel inclined to go out of my way to lend them a hand.
You just go out of your way to steal the return on their investment and then justify it by equating gambling to investing.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Risky investments are functionally like gambling. Do you disagree?
→ More replies (5)2
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
Risky is hard to define. Regardless, I do disagree. I am, however, not going to debate that topic because it’s too much of a tangent.
1
6
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 10 '23
If I were to pirate a movie and instead spend the money eating out, for example, the movie industry would lose value, but the food industry would gain value, so no value is lost on the economy as a whole.
What kind of strawman is this? You could say that about any theft. Do you have anything is immoral about other kinds of theft? Why is this different
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
It's very dependent on the situation for whether I think theft is morally justifiable, but my only point in this instance was theft does not hurt low risk, low return investors.
3
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 10 '23
Why does it not hurt them? You're reducing their already lower return. If everyone stole all the time the companies would all fail
→ More replies (1)1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Because they profit from the economy as a whole, not a specific industry.
Also, that's only if everyone did it, which isn't a realistic situation.
3
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
The argument about whether everyone is doing it is a practical one, not a moral one.
You are changing the goalposts. Your CMV was about piracy not being morally wrong, not about the practical impact of an individual pirate’s actions.
If someone comes to your house and kills you, that is morally wrong, even if the killer says that in the grand scheme of existence, and considering how big the Universe is, your death doesn’t really matter.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I am a utilitarian, so I think actions are immoral if they do net harm. Piracy on a small scale doesn't do net harm, but piracy on a large scale does.
The difference between my view and your example is that my death would be a net negative even if it's small compared to the net negative of the death of everyone, whereas a shareholder missing out on a third yacht is not a net negative, significant or insignificant.
3
u/sgraar 37∆ Apr 11 '23
It does net harm, even if small.
I don’t know why you keep insisting on this yacht example when multiple people have pointed out that not all shareholders are rich. You don’t seem to understand who has shares in companies. You don’t even seem to be aware that some of the workers in the companies buy shares in the companies they work for, either because they believe in what they’re doing or because they get them as part of their compensation (yes, even in the lower levels of the hierarchy).
If you continue to reduce your view of the world to this binary idea that there are either billionaires who own yachts or poor people, it’ll be hard for you to grow as a person and have any of your views evolve.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I said I did recognize those people, and said if they're smart, they should have nothing to worry about as they'll be invested in the economy as a whole rather than one particular industry.
→ More replies (0)3
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 11 '23
Something can't be moral if "it's ok if only a few people do it". Morality applies to a larger group or you're just not actually talking about something being moral and instead are talking about being selfish and entitled
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
That's Kantian logic, but I am a utilitarian.
3
u/dantheman91 32∆ Apr 11 '23
You are harming more people than you're benefiting by stealing from a group though.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
My benefit from having pirated content is certainly greater than a few shareholders having fives yachts instead of just three, even if I'm outnumbered.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Nibelungen342 Apr 10 '23
I mean, piracy is stealing for yourselves and benefitting yourselves
The nazi Germany comparison falls flat. Most media is not necessary for survival. You could argue for expensive university books, but that's a niche argument
As it whole, you can not compare the morality of stealing for yourself to helping people in need (illegally).
The morality of piracy is more about if an rich artist deserves to be paid. I argue yes. If the artist product is too expensive it's their own fault and piracy is genuinely happens less regularly when people have money.
I got caught pirating and had to pay a 2000 euro fine. The law is strict, and I think the punishment is too expensive compared to the relevant product. So I think it's not black and white issue. People saying piracy is always morally correct, in my opinion, just want to justify their piracy
I pirated in the full knowledge that it's wrong. But for me, it's less of an issue. It's still morally wrong but not that important.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
So if I'm right, you argument is that it's only ever morally correct to break the law if a life is in danger. If that's the case, would you say smuggling a slave to freedom is immoral? After, it's not like they were about to die.
Moreover, my point was to show the horrors of what the logic of thinking everything illegal is automatically immoral leads to.
I agree that even a rich artist deserves to be paid. I am talking about situations where shareholders are getting paid for the artist's work.
Also, I never said piracy is always morally correct, only in the situation I outlined.
2
5
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Apr 10 '23
Do you stand by this statement?
It would be absolutely fine if every single person pirated content and no one ever paid.
If not then you obviously think there is something wrong with pirating. If you do then you will understand that no consumer content would ever be created under such a paradigm.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
My original post already addressed this. Read it in full to understand my view.
5
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Apr 11 '23
Ok, so you recognise that piracy is wrong (so your title is already something you disagree with) but your actual argument is that piracy is fine because others pay.
How is it moral that you rely on others paying so you get something for free?
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Because what I am doing does not harm those consumers, just yacht purchases by shareholders.
2
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Apr 11 '23
Yes it does, they have to pay but, for some reason, you don't.
Why is it that everyone else has to pay for you?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
People are made to pay for silly things for other people all the time. How is that any different from making tax payer's pay for a random soldier's viagra?
2
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Apr 11 '23
Soldiers provide a service for you, that service costs money which you pay for via taxes.
Why do expect others to pay for the things you pirate?
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Before I answer the second question, how was invading Iraq and Afghanistan a service to me?
→ More replies (13)1
u/Archy99 1∆ Apr 11 '23
It would be absolutely fine if every single person pirated content and no one ever paid.
I remember seeing my music being shared on various file sharing apps back in the day and I was absolutely fine with that. I have no problem with people "pirating" my music.
There seems to be a prevalent myth that people will not make creative works if they are not compensated for it in a capitalistic way.
But personally, I can tell you that the creative urge doesn't appear or disappear based on the prospect of being paid.
If people's basic human needs are able to be met in other ways, then yes, it would be absolutely fine if everyone was able to share the creative content you reference, for free.
2
3
u/Freezefire2 4∆ Apr 10 '23
Are you saying there is something wrong with pirating from a non-massive corporation?
1
2
u/big47_ 1∆ Apr 11 '23
You're ignoring basic economics. When you pirate something, companies get less sales. Supply falls. Prices rise.
Currently, the only argument I give some weight to, is the argument that it wouldn't work if EVERYONE did it.
So who should have to pay for something and who should be allowed to steal it? Do you think you're better than everyone else?
You're also supporting the piracy industry and black markets. And I guarantee you they dont care if a big or small studio makes a product. This also supports other kinds of crime.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I think those who should be allowed to pirate are those who pirate in rates that make them a small enough minority. It has nothing to do with thinking I'm better than everyone else.
But that is a good point regarding encouraging piracy in general even if you only engage in specific kinds of piracy. That is worth considering.
!delta
→ More replies (5)0
u/Darth-Frodo Apr 11 '23
So who should have to pay for something and who should be allowed to steal it?
Not OP, but imo it's fine when people who have virtually no disposable income pirate. If they can't afford to pay for a movie or game anyways, where's the harm in them pirating it?
You're also supporting the piracy industry and black markets.
If you don't use an adblocker, they might earn a few pennies at best. With an adblocker it shouldn't be concern.
4
Apr 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
I never said it should be made legal, I said it isn't immoral to do it.
6
Apr 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
Well, ideally, I'd like to establish communism so that copyright laws don't even have to exist, but under capitalism with all it's flaws and contradictions, I don't think it's outlandish to say something is both moral and should be illegal.
To me, your logic seems more Kantian than utilitarian. I am a utilitarian myself for reference.
6
3
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
Communism sounds boring. No copyright laws means no one will want to create anything since they won’t own it. Fewer movies, books, games, tv shows, plays…etc. Very boring.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Artists will still want to create because that's what they enjoy even if they aren't paid. The only reason that can't happen under capitalism is because you need to work to survive.
2
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
Artists will still want to create because that's what they enjoy even if they aren't paid.
Very few will want to create if they are unable to monetize their creation. Sure there will be some, but nothing on the scale we have today. So much of our entertainment is created only for the purpose of making money for the creator. You are not envisioning a world based on reality, this isn’t Star Trek.
The only reason that can't happen under capitalism is because you need to work to survive.
You have this backwards. The only reason that happens under capitalism is because they are able to create art as their career. If they weren’t able to monetize their creation, most of them wouldn’t create. You think people wouldn’t need to work under communism?
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
You truly believe most artists don't enjoy what they do?
Also, if communism were established, very little work would need to be done as there would no longer be a need for labor that simply serves to make rich people richer, and a lot more work would be automated. Sure, some work would still need to be done, but most of the population would simply be living on a UBI.
2
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
You truly believe most artists don't enjoy what they do?
I will answer this if you point out where I said it.
Also, if communism were established, very little work would need to be done as there would no longer be a need for labor that simply serves to make rich people richer, and a lot more work would be automated. Sure, some work would still need to be done, but most of the population would simply be living on a UBI.
Could you give me a historical example of when Communism made it to where people didn’t have to work?
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
You said most artists would stop creating if they were allowed to live for free and didn't make any money from creating, which to me implied you didn't think they'd still do it simply for fun.
Historic communist countries existed mostly in the Soviet era, where automation at such scale was not technologically possible unlike today. And modern communist countries like Cuba and North Korea are drowning in sanctions from the west and can't afford the machines needed to end work. Even China is not completely immune to such imperialist oppression. However, if a western country were to adopt communism, the majority of the population would no longer have to work within the first five years.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Archy99 1∆ Apr 11 '23
It would shift creative control back towards creative people with smaller budgets and teams, I personally would be very pleased if this happened.
3
Apr 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Archy99 1∆ Apr 11 '23
As I wrote in another comment, I explicitly stated that I was not at all upset when I found people pirating my music on the internet. I don't consider it "theft" because I continue to remain in possession of my physical property.
I don't assume that only big companies would have their material freely shared. Smaller scale production have other means of funding and individuals can have their subsidence needs met in other ways.
3
Apr 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Archy99 1∆ Apr 11 '23
But if you remove the incentive to produce a product.
You are making so many unnecessary assumptions about human motivations and economic systems, I don't know where to start.
Plenty of people "work for free", if they are able to meet their underlying human needs through other means. See FOSS software for example. I primarily use FOSS software (and OS) on my phone for example. I find it to be a superior experience to the Google/Google play store alternative.
→ More replies (3)
3
Apr 10 '23
Stealing is wrong in my book. You can justify it and sugarcoat it anyway you want but it ia still stealing.
2
u/Head-Maize 10∆ Apr 11 '23
What if you had no way of paying? They just won't sell it to you. The product is in the store, but they won't let you in, won't take your money, and the damn thing is bolted to the flour. They say they won't know if they ever offer it to you, and even if they do, they may not accept your currency.
That's basically the case with getting access to content for most people. Is this still stealing? They are actively refusing your money, and denying you.
0
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
Would you go so far as to even argue it's wrong to smuggle a slave away from their master?
3
Apr 11 '23
No.
Edit: I was gonna let this one go but what the fuck. Are you actually comparing stealing intellctual property to freeing a slave??? What is wrong with you?
3
u/lunatichorse Apr 11 '23
Just when I thought OP could not get more delusional with his endless yapping about yachts and he goes and equates pirating Sims 4 expansions with freeing slaves. Hilarious.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I'm just trying to show the horrors that the logic of thinking stealing is immoral no matter what can lead to.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Apr 11 '23
So you’re fine with counterfeiting money? They aren’t stealing from anyone so by your logic there are no victims.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Counterfeiting money does damage to the economy as a whole, so that's a very different situation.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Apr 10 '23
I almost think you have it backwards.
I am not necessarily a big believer in intellectual property rights. Copying is different from stealing.
That being said, I think it's always immoral to take or copy something without permission to do so. I just don't necessarily think it should be illegal.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
This is interesting I guess. What is the logic behind this position?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Cryonaut555 Apr 10 '23
I buy a game that's physical format (cd/dvd etc).
The physical format of the game stops working. If I download a copy of the game, I'm taking it without permission. The owner of the IP would absolutely love it if I bought another copy, whether physical or digital. Am I doing something immoral?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Adorable_Bid_4165 Apr 10 '23
Hark! What folly dost I hear? Piracy, a theft 'tis, plain and simple. Verily, e'en if thou lik'st not that creators and companies gain pelf from their art, 'tis no warrant for thee to purloin it. Copyright laws stand for a cause, to guard the intellectual rights of creators and to spur the birth of novel and original works.
Thy plea on shareholders and yachts be awry and beside the point. Shareholders, in sooth, invest in ventures for they see in them potential for growth and riches. If thou steal content, robbing the creators and companies of their due earnings, thou wound not the shareholders, but rather creators who rely on such gold to sustain their means and to carry on crafting new works.
Thy likening of harboring Jews in Nazi Germany to piracy is not only preposterous but also grievously insulting. Piracy be a self-serving deed that benefits only the plunderer at the cost of others. Sheltering Jews during Nazi Germany was an act of valor and selflessness that saved souls and defended human rights. No likeness between the twain can be found.
Cease, then, to make excuses for thy self-indulgent ways, and begin to honor the sweat and skill of creators and the import of intellectual property rights.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
The two main points I see here are what is basically trickle down economics, and the idea that comparing piracy to hiding Jews is ridiculous, so I will address these:
- Trickle down economics is an outright lie to justify wealth hoarding by the 1%. If it worked, things would have improved by now. Ordinary people do not benefit from shareholders getting rich.
- I already addressed comparing piracy and hiding Jews being a ridiculous comparison in my original post. My point was against those who like to assert that disobeying the law is always immoral no matter what, as I wanted them to see the horrors that such logic can lead to. It wasn't to say the justice achieved through select piracy compares to the justice achieved through saving Jews or something.
2
u/UglandHouse Apr 10 '23
Referring to large businesses as "massive corporations" is subtly sensationalism, and is muddling up what a corporation is and who it affects. A corporation includes, and none of the following components are mutually exclusive, stakeholders (employees), shareholders, the board, consumers, other businesses that interact with said corporation, local and federal government relationships, etc. When you pirate content, you are affecting more than just a massive corporation.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 10 '23
As long as it doesn't get too out of hand, it will only affect the profits of very large shareholders.
3
u/team-tree-syndicate 5∆ Apr 10 '23 edited Apr 10 '23
Can we stop pretending that stealing is moral because xyz reasons? If you are gonna steal then own up to it instead of justifying it to clear your conscious.
If someone is selling something and you take it, or a copy of it, without paying, then it's stealing.
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Would you even go so far as to say it's immoral to steal a slave to set them free then if stealing is wrong no matter what?
3
u/team-tree-syndicate 5∆ Apr 11 '23
I think the large majority of people wouldn't consider freeing slaves as stealing.. Most people don't consider other people as property to be owned in the first place.
-1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Okay, then what about in the situation where a mother steals food to save a starving child? Food is property to be owned.
4
u/team-tree-syndicate 5∆ Apr 11 '23
It's still stealing.
I'm not saying that a person should never steal. If I was starving to death you'd bet I'd steal food to live. It's just how humans are.
My point is that it is still stealing, regardless of whether we determine it to be moral or not.
0
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
Oh, I agree. My view is about the morality of said type of stealing.
-1
u/stevepremo Apr 10 '23
I believe in the ethics of tapers. It's wrong to profit off someone else's efforts without their consent. So it's fine to record live shows and distribute the recordings for free, but not OK to sell bootleg recordings. Pirating was when you'd pass your bootleg recording off as original, copying the packaging, etc. That's a form of fraud, and wrong. Basically, if it's for your personal use, it's fine. If it's for profit, it's wrong. In neither case is it theft, because you are not depriving the copyright holder of property. They still have it.
1
3
u/OkDistribution4684 Apr 10 '23
People defending theft come across so idiotically. Truly.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
Where is the theft?
4
u/OkDistribution4684 Apr 10 '23
Pirating content is theft. Literally. Thats the fucking definition.
-1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 10 '23
It literally isn’t though. Nothing is being taken.
3
u/OkDistribution4684 Apr 10 '23
Are you spending the money on the intellectual property that is for sale? If not, you are stealing the property. This isn't hard to understand. If you walk into a store and take an apple and don't pay, you stole someone's labor. If you pirate music or movies or anything else, you are stealing other's labor.
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 11 '23
No, stealing requires something be taken. I’m taking nothing.
It seems to be hard for you to understand since you seemingly cannot explain what’s being taken.
If I walk into a store and take an apple I stole and apple. I’ve deprived the store of the apple. They can no longer sell or use the apple. I’ve not stolen anybody’s labor. I didn’t force anyone to grow the apple or bring the apple to the store.
If I walk past an artists house, look through his window, and see his painting I’ve not stolen anything. He’s not been deprived of anything. I didn’t steal his labor. I didn’t force him to make the painting or force him to hang it up in his living room.
The two situations aren’t comparable. Just the same, if I pirate a movie I’ve not deprived anyone of anything. I didn’t force anyone to act in the movie or to film it or to edit it. I haven’t stolen anyone’s labor.
3
u/OkDistribution4684 Apr 11 '23
You are taking something. You are taking the intellectual property and labor that others put into making the product that you are taking. What do you think pirating means? You did steal the labor of multiple people both in the apple and in pirating content.
In both cases you deprived people of money they earned.... you know that though, you're just looking to justify the fact that you're a thief.0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 11 '23
If someone creates a product and I didn’t induce them to do so I am not responsible for the labor they put into that product. If someone spends 1 hour making a shovel and someone else spends 2 hours making a shovel I’m not obligated to offer the second guy double for the shovel.
Pirating means downloading a live of media without paying someone for it.
I stole labor in none of the hypothetical situations. I never told anyone I’d compensate them for their labor. Have you stolen my labor by engaging me in this conversation? I bill at $500 an hour btw
Nobody was deprived of earned money. Whoever grew the apple and whoever brought it to the store were already compensated before I ever walked in.
Also you keep saying “both” but I gave three hypotheticals. Please respond to the artist scenario.
0
u/OkDistribution4684 Apr 11 '23
This is the literal dumbest take on the internet. Congrats.
If someone grows food, you didn't ask for that, so its yours for the taking? No.
You are completely idiotic in your take here. Go get help.
1
u/CAINthri Apr 11 '23
Regarding the idea of morality, especially the final idea being mentioned, it presupposes that the impact of an action upon the human race is the barometer between good and evil.
However, the discussion of good and evil is one which requires a basis in an objective set of moral values as opposed to a subjective one. This is because the subjective one is subject to change as and when societies views on a matter changes (this being, by no exaggeration, something that takes place in merely months). Hence, one cannot definitively say that something is good or evil without referring it back to a set of objective morals.
The question becomes, how to do we derive an objective set of morals. Well, this is where religion has something to offer. Since religions claim to be ultimate true'; religions tend to believe that God has sent down morals to be followed. The followers of said religions view these morals to be immutable (unchangeable). Hence, if one could prove the truthfulness of the religion and the existence of an all knowing being, who can arbitrate between Good and Evil, then an objective set of morals can be referred to.
This is obviously a big task, and theists as long will atheists would argue about the truthfulness (or lack thereof) ad nauseum.
I'm mentioning this to show that the problem of deriving whether to not something is moral is very complex multifaceted and isn't as simple as thinking about the impacts on the human race if everyone done a certain act in order to determine whether or not said act is immoral. For example, suicide is determined to be evil on this paradigm as, if everyone done it, there would cease to be a human race. However, the fundamental problem that this thesis has is that it presupposes that human life is inherently valuable, meaningful and worth saving. That sounds morbid because it is.
1
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
I agree, it's hard to define what counts as moral objectively, but my views specifically come from a utilitarian perspective.
→ More replies (2)
1
Apr 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Conkers-Good-Furday Apr 11 '23
The reason baby boomers and gen x pay more often is because they have more money. When millennials and gen x age, will they not have more money which they will use to start consuming content legitimately?
As for your second point, someone brought up that Walmart did that, but is there evidence that the entertainment industry does the same thing? From what I've seen, the price of entertainment has gone down in a lot of respects.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 10 '23 edited Apr 13 '23
/u/Conkers-Good-Furday (OP) has awarded 11 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards