For all the would be software pirates.

[bilcliff]

I think Valve's view on piracy is actually is a really good one, and that is that they should actually compete with piracy rather than combat piracy. By offering better customer service than the pirate, more people are likely to choose purchasing over pirating. A big reason you see DRM riddled games getting pirated is because they are DRM riddled games.

wow something we agree on in this thread I was going to reply to your last post directed at me but in the end it was better to agree to disagree, i didnt have the energy or time to keep debating for days

although this:

it is not possible to have a comprehensive solution or debate about a topic when anyone involved does not consider the entire situation.

is what you should have just said in the first place and we could have all been done with it . Jokes aside, this applies to pretty much any debate about the game industry unless you're someone who works in the industry. And it especially applies to the whole piracy debate itself and to CD Projekt's method's of 1) calculating their piracy figures & 2) their "100% accurate" way of issuing fines to pirates

[Deathmineral]

wow something we agree on in this thread I was going to reply to your last post directed at me but in the end it was better to agree to disagree, i didnt have the energy or time to keep debating for days

although this:

is what you should have just said in the first place and we could have all been done with it . Jokes aside, this applies to pretty much any debate about the game industry unless you're someone who works in the industry. And it especially applies to the whole piracy debate itself and to CD Projekt's method's of 1) calculating their piracy figures & 2) their "100% accurate" way of issuing fines to pirates

Honestly I think most of us here probably agree with each other more than we disagree, but we tend to make the differences more important than the similarities is all. Us agreeing on something shouldn't be too surprising is what I mean I guess.

 

The problem I have with Jim's statement is that it's really quite a challenge to take the whole picture into consideration, a big reason for why this is so difficult is because we often times don't have the facts that we would like to have when discussing things like this. Personally I don't take a lot of the material into consideration, such as CD Projekt's estimates of how many people pirate their game, because it's being released by a very bias source.

 

Personally, I really enjoy topics like this one, even if we don't look at the big picture or don't agree on everything, I still think it's fun just to talk about stuff like this. I also like to think people do learn stuff from these kind of discussions, I know I did anyway. So I don't have the same view that this thread has to be the perfect debate, all that really matters is whether you enjoyed discussing the matter or not. I think a person is still in the right if they had fun with this thread even if they're wrong in what they say in the thread.

[TheHostileGamer]

People who condemn people who pirate games don't mind get bent over paying for DLC' a month after the game gets released.

 

I pirate to demo because big companies say it's too expensive to make a demo. I'll also pirate a game that was ported from console to PC and is not designed for my platform but yet they are trying to make money off of.

 

I WILL not pirate music because the music distribution platform is much better now and I feel it is fair to consumers.

 

Movies? Well they are just too flippin expensive for a blu ray

[Alexandre]

Been watching this thread for a while now and I like the discussion happening. Good to keep sharpening our moral compass by talking about these issues.

However one thing I have noticed is the lack of precision in people's arguments - we jump all over the place from one argument to another and not really getting anywhere fast.

 

So I want to offer you my thoughts and provide a simple argument which we can analyse and discuss.

 

Here is my argument in premise form:

 

1) Stealing is taking someone else's property without their permission.

2) Stealing is immoral.

3) Software is the property of the people who produced it.

4) Pirating is the act of downloading/taking software without the permission of the owners.

5) Therefore every act of pirating is stealing.

6) Therefore piracy is immoral.

 

Comment: I am ignoring laws set by the government and premise 4 is what I believe to be the definition of pirating. If you are downloading with the permission of owners then you are not pirating by definition.

 

If the above argument holds (which I believe it does) then we have the following corollary:

 

- Whether you like the terms of agreement for purchase/acquisition of property is irrelevant (ie if you think price is too high, the people selling a greedy capitalists etc). Taking it without the owner's permission is still stealing.

It is not your property and you need permission - if you don't like the terms then you don't have a claim on it and therefore cannot take it morally.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A few comments/responses based on the justifications provided in favour of pirating in this thread:

 

a) If you own a product and you lost a disk or something similar, you will only be able to download that disk if it is allowable by the purchase agreement. Otherwise you do not have the permission of the owners and thus acting immorally.

b) If the owners do not provide a demo to trial the game, then obtaining it behind their backs in order to trial it is still by definition stealing because you do not have permission. Whether you buy the game later or not is irrelevant because act of immorality lies in the prior method of acquisition for trialing not in the purchasing.

c) Appealing to the fact that a person who condemns piracy (or any form of immorality) is himself immoral in some other cases is really the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem . You are attacking the person rather than the argument - it's simply illogical and useless for discussion as it doesn't bear any relevance to the question of whether piracy is moral or not.

 

If you think the given argument and/or my thoughts afterwards are invalid please provide reasons as to why you believe they are invalid - I'll be happy to discuss it

 

Thanks for taking the time out to read guys! I hope this will spark some more fruitful discussion

[Deathmineral]

 

If you think the given argument and/or my thoughts afterwards are invalid please provide reasons as to why you believe they are invalid - I'll be happy to discuss it

 

Thanks for taking the time out to read guys! I hope this will spark some more fruitful discussion

You argument is invalid because morals are nothing more than opinions on what is right and wrong. Piracy can be immoral to some and moral to others, just like killing. Sure, we all think killing is a pretty bad thing, but world leaders seem to think it's a pretty cool thing to do. If we can justify killing, I don't see why we can't justify lesser crimes.

[SpeedCrazy]

You argument is invalid because morals are nothing more than opinions on what is right and wrong. Piracy can be immoral to some and moral to others, just like killing. Sure, we all think killing is a pretty bad thing, but world leaders seem to think it's a pretty cool thing to do. If we can justify killing, I don't see why we can't justify lesser crimes.

Okay, challenge accepted, justify killing.

[Deathmineral]

Okay, challenge accepted, justify killing.

Pretty sure you can't say challenge accepted and then issue me a challenge, that's not how it works.

 

If you want someone to justify it, ask the President, he okays killing on a daily basis.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Deathmineral

[Alexandre]

You argument is invalid because morals are nothing more than opinions on what is right and wrong. Piracy can be immoral to some and moral to others, just like killing. Sure, we all think killing is a pretty bad thing, but world leaders seem to think it's a pretty cool thing to do. If we can justify killing, I don't see why we can't justify lesser crimes.

Ok so your claim is that morals are nothing more than opinions. What reasons do you have for believing this?

[Deathmineral]

Ok so your claim is that morals are nothing more than opinions. What reasons do you have for believing this?

The definition

 

Seems to indicate that morals mean something different for each person. On that page they give Virtuous as a synonym for Moral.

 

virtuous implies moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>.

 

This example is a pretty good one I think because it uses religion. If you take religion and consider that some people in it believe plenty of people are moral and good regardless of their beliefs, while others of the same religion may believe the same people are immoral and the work of the devil for not believing the same stuff.

[Stonerboy779]

Killing is justified when the value of the oil is greater than thay of human life.

 

Or so it would seem.

 

As you can see you can justify anything with any reason no matter how poor. Just because you can justify killing or pirating or any other crime ect. It wont necessarily make it right.

 

Yes I punched that person, who had done nothing wrong by me because I felt like hitting something.

 

There is my justification "i felt like hitting something" although this brings up another issue I may be able to justify to myself, by this reasoning this action. However such reasoning will likely not justify the action to others.

 

/ramble

[Deathmineral]

However such reasoning will likely not justify the action to others.

That's why politicians are paid for lying to people, they lie to you so you don't feel bad for lying to yourself. I mean, just imagine what society would be like now if everyone honestly thought it was okay to kill? It's important that we don't understand the difference of killing for profit and killing for freedom, we need lies, we need... justification.

[Alexandre]

The definition

 

Seems to indicate that morals mean something different for each person. On that page they give Virtuous as a synonym for Moral.

 

This example is a pretty good one I think because it uses religion. If you take religion and consider that some people in it believe plenty of people are moral and good regardless of their beliefs, while others of the same religion may believe the same people are immoral and the work of the devil for not believing the same stuff.

Ok so people have different opinions about what it means to be moral - but does it then follow that they are merely opinions (your claim) - that there is no correct answer?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Alexandre