(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Yes, this debate again. Take a breath, exhale, repeat, and enjoy!

*The ethicality and morality surrounding piracy is very subjective so I've left it out of the poll.

'Theft' implies that the original was taken. It was not. The word you're looking for is 'copying'. I know it doesn't carry the same negative connotations but factually it's an awful lot more accurate.



1) It's a distinct possibility, word of mouth is one of the best forms of advertising. Look at Minecraft for an obvious example.
2) ...that you couldn't afford anyway. Nobody is hurt by you using/enjoying them assuming you wouldn't have bought it had piracy not been an option.

Actually,
Steal - "to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
Take - "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as"

It is considered intellectual theft.


It's pretty hard to derive Minecraft's success to piracy.


You are using someone else work without any type of compensation. Movies, music, software, games, and whatever else all take time, money, and effort to create.

As for the term afford, seriously? A would be shocked if even 25% of piracy that occurs is done by those who could otherwise no afford the products in some way. There is this thing called opportunity cost, essentially if I buy something I then lose the power to buy something else, that constitutes the markets. Maybe if I want to buy a certain game, then I don't go to the movies.

I'm not preaching that everyone should go any buy everything, but in the very least don't act as if the act of piracy is somehow righteous. It's something that a lot of people have done in some way, but it isn't something to be proud of per-say.

The key word there is 'take'. When you pirate you don't 'take', you 'copy'.




Just demonstrating the power of word of mouth advertising, which happens when you pirate stuff that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to enjoy.



And yet piracy has no negative consequence if you wouldn't have been able to buy it to begin with.



Or maybe you buy that game and pirate those movies. Again, no negative consequence over just flat out not seeing the movies.

And I personally suspect the number is close to 50%, if not eclipsing that. The number is probably closer to 95% when it comes to stuff like Photoshop.

I've gotta say, if you think that 75% of pirates could afford what they're pirating then you haven't noticed that we're in the midst of a recession and mass unemployment. Heck, a ton of employed people can't afford it either due to more important things such as utility bills.



I'm not claiming piracy to be necessarily moral, I'm just claiming that it isn't automatically immoral.

Once again, do you have evidence of direct success due to it?


Minus the fact there may be a loss of sale, you aren't participating in the basic act of trade, etc...


...no? You just took away profit from the movie because you knew that you would pirate it? As a consumer, sure. You chose there was more worth in the game than the movies, end of story.


I would be flat shocked, unless you consider it reasonable to download anything you can.


Really? So those people don't go to the movies, out to dinner, etc... Luxuries they choose to participate in rather than those products?


It's unethical. The claim that it's okay because there are no negative consequences doesn't work. It assumes so much:
- There is an increase in product buying by word of mouth (which can easily be done by buying a product worthwhile)
- The majority of people who pirate can't afford it. Obviously when someone has to own every piece of software and game in existence.
- There are no negative consequences. Even though, there are times when people otherwise would buy them.
- It completely ignores the basics of the markets and wills of the producers

If the producers don't want people to play the game they spent crazy amount of time creating then you don't have the right to. It directly conflicts with what they want to occur to their product.

Clutch,

Let's pretend you're capable of writing code that enables gamers to have a 5 K/D ratio.
You spend 100 hrs writing it and 100 dollars in developing it.
You advertise it on NGU and charge people 5 dollars to perform the service.
It a big hit and everyone wants it, but some claim they can't afford it.

Someone here finds a way to copy your program and does it himself for free and then makes a copy of yours and posts it for free on the site.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't cry theft or demand that his copy be removed?

Every court in the world considers piracey to be theft.
Your argument is completely without merit.
Stealing from another is wrong regardless of how easy or difficult to prevent.

I'm not claiming that I have never stolen goods or services, but I would never argue that it benefited anyone but me.

Ill tell you what piracy is, paying for something that isnt actually as adequate as its supposed to be.

People spend their money all the time on subpar merchandise, if you ask me, the pirates arent the people, but its the people selling that merchandise knowingly keeping it on subpar levels while boasting of its high quality. What they need to do is stop robbing these people and start selling to them, you feel me?

I never claimed that word of mouth solely via piracy can make or break a game, just that it can provide a small but noticeable positive benefit that people often ignore.



Still ignoring that under the pretense of this discussion the pirate can't afford the item in question, and therefore wouldn't have bought it anyway, et cetera...



What the f*ck? The alternative was just not seeing the movie. A lot of my arguments depend highly on whether you'd actually have otherwise paid for the item(s) in question and you're completely disregarding that.



I know I don't. Maybe I'm the anomaly, but I've heard some damning statistics about the amount of debt people have here in the U.K. for instance, and if those people are still actively going out to overly-expensive dinners then I can't really resonate with them at all.



Let's see.



This is irrelevant to whether someone pirating X is ethical or not(who otherwise couldn't afford it, et cetera). It's just something I brought up anyway that's often ignored.



I think we're at crossed purposes here. I'm trying to claim that piracy isn't unethical if people A, B & C couldn't afford it anyway. I am not claiming that it's not unethical all across the board. As far as piracy amongst more well financed people is concerned, I'm quite simply undecided and am therefore not arguing that either way.



See above. This is turning into a bit of a strawman.



I put certain things such as personal enjoyment amongst people who otherwise can't afford that enjoyment ahead of some misguided moral dilemma coming from the wills of the producers.



Legally, sure. Ethically, I disagree. As I keep saying, if people A, B & C can't afford X then they ethically have every right to pirate it as it harms no-one!



Yes, that's what I'm claiming. I'd have no respect for anyone who enjoyed it, could afford it but chose to pirate it anyway, but I'd be fine with it being there for the sake of anyone who can't afford it.



The courts of the world say all sorts of despicable things, I don't find them to be of much if any moral authority on just about anything.

And I know there are at least a few countries that just don't care about piracy, for what little it's worth.



This is just a mantra with no thinking behind it. If there's no negative repercussions, why is it wrong?

And please, whoever replies, remember this is only within the context of someone who otherwise can't afford it.

I shall make a second post:

Piracy is okay so long as what you are pirating is no longer available for purchase or it's not available in your country. Examples like this can be found all over the place, personally I watch a fuck ton of anime and I can't obviously buy it because it's not for sale in the UK until 1/2 years after it aired. Same can be said for music the only two albums I would buy this year and I can find neither of them in stores.

Piracy of material that is for sale essentially depreciates the price of the original, if you copy the original it becomes worth less and this eventually begins to add up, but at the end of the day this hurts the record company which doesn't bother me. Frankly I'd much rather all the money goes to the artist and nothing to the record company.

You have the good side of piracy though that it makes distributing things incredibly easy and less labour intensive for new artist if they get popular by releasing there music for free chances are they are going to get a load of new fans and these fans will pay to see the band/musician live or to buy their merchandise. Piracy isn't all bad but one thing that is certain, corporations are far to powerful all they have to do is throw some money towards the politicians and they get there way, I.E. the American 6 strikes policy.

Music can be sold? Music shouldnt be sold at all, music should be shared, its something that has an effect on people right? Not all of it has to be crummy club bullcrap that can attract a dollar and an abnormally large amount of fangirls who will remember every single record that was released by said person/group.

Honestly some things in this world shouldnt be paid for at all.

Water. That needs to be pillaged- per say.