Quote from Automaton

I don't like the whole rationalisation that people put into piracy. It's as if they're trying to convince themselves that it's morally right..

Yes, it's not stealing...

I think you have the argument backwards. By definition it's stealing, or at the very least copyright infringement. People who try to justify that it isn't are the ones I look down upon -- but some very good moral arguments can be made for why piracy isn't harmful (or even beneficial) despite its technical illegality.

Also, why the fuck is ahmed still here, I'm getting tired of seeing old debates bumped by him just so he can agree with extremely old posts.

Dude, my whole post (and the video, I suggest you watch it) says why I think piracy is wrong. I never denied it was a legal offense, it's simply not theft. It doesn't fall under the legal domain of a criminal offense/theft, it falls under a civic offense. It's not removing anything from the owner, but it is taking something which they have the right to. There's a difference. Look at the picture to see what I mean.
http://puu.sh/POBN

I can say with out a doubt that I'd be a little upset knowing that I wasn't getting paid for software I developed, Art/ music I produced, or movies I made, but I'd also be flattered that people like it so much they'd risk getting arrested just to obtain it. I've definitely done my fair share of wrong concerning piracy, and I can't justify it or say that there's nothing wrong with it, I just don't have the money to drop on every movie, software, or piece of music I like. I feel piracy rates could go down if software products such as adobe, or microsoft lowered their prices so that professional tools can be open to a broader public spectrum. That's still no excuse for piracy though.

Quote from Automaton

I never denied it was a legal offense, it's simply not theft.

You said it's not stealing, which it clearly is. By your logic, saying you "stole" someone's identity is incorrect because the original person still has the identity as well. Same for stealing, say, a credit card number. Both are intangible and can be copied, more or less, but that doesn't mean it's not stealing. Not that I'm making any sort of moral argument here, but you're very wrong by saying "Piracy isn't stealing".

Regarding legal theft, I could try to legally interpret the word of law and argue that by depriving someone of potential revenue, you're still taking something tangible and usable from the owner of whatever you're downloading. But it's an argument of semantics and I fucking hate those.

Either way, you said you don't like it when people argue the morality of piracy, which I find absurd. It's the only thing worth discussing about the matter and attempting to do so shouldn't be discouraged.

If the argument is that tangibility influences the definition of theft for any product, that would make things extremely much more complicated. I feel that the idea of piracy or digital theft is a simple one: we made something, though intangible, it is usable, and we are willing to share it for compensation for each time it is distributed.

Continuing on the argument of tangibility being a factor in determining the importance of preserving something, or protecting it from theft, the morality of theft, and buying and selling, all of those are human ideas that are commonly accepted. theses ideas help us make rules. with this information, we can insure that everyone has a chance to provide for them selves. Information is intangible, stored in our minds, and so doesn't that mean that the idea of stealing is meaningless whether it be a physical object, or a piece of information?

All I'm saying is I don't really care to argue semantics with people on the internet with no legal training about how they personally interpret a legal term like "theft". It's a waste of time and is usually irrelevant to whatever their point is. Including mine.

"Stealing" is not a legal term and it's perfect fair to casually describe piracy as such. There's no real argument against that and, again, it's irrelevant to the moral aspect of the argument, which is all anyone should be focusing on.

Well, morally, I feel if someone receives anything in trade they should give something of equal value in return, but there are many other reasons and factors as to why people take it by force, justified or not

Quote from Exilement

You said it's not stealing, which it clearly is. By your logic, saying you "stole" someone's identity is incorrect because the original person still has the identity as well. Same for stealing, say, a credit card number. Both are intangible and can be copied, more or less, but that doesn't mean it's not stealing. Not that I'm making any sort of moral argument here, but you're very wrong by saying "Piracy isn't stealing".

Regarding legal theft, I could try to legally interpret the word of law and argue that by depriving someone of potential revenue, you're still taking something tangible and usable from the owner of whatever you're downloading. But it's an argument of semantics and I fucking hate those.

Well, perhaps we were using the term in a different way, but I agree that semantics are stupid. I was referring to stealing as being synonymous with legal theft, though I guess by definition that's not what it means. Still, when you say that stealing can just mean taking something you do not have permission to take or whatever, some line has to be drawn between what you have the right to take, and what "taking" is. For instance, as has been said, if we go by that broad definition then taking someone's idea is stealing, and that sort of stealing in my opinion is not as bad as taking somebodies car. Then if you draw the line just before piracy, who makes you the judicator of whether or not that should be the line, why not make it just AFTER piracy? My point to all this is that classifying what is stealing is a tough issue, and as such I used the legal definition of theft.

Either way, you said you don't like it when people argue the morality of piracy, which I find absurd. It's the only thing worth discussing about the matter and attempting to do so shouldn't be discouraged.

I never said I don't like it when people argue the morality of piracy, don't put words in my mouth. I said I don't like the rationalisation people put behind their avocation of piracy, and I find that 99% of the time it's to make them feel more moral about doing something that's illegal and by most standards immoral. I don't mind people arguing their case, I just don't like any of the arguments that have been put across by those supporting piracy. Not having money, not knowing whether you like the software/music/video, saying you'll pay them if you think they deserve it, saying it's not theft and therefore is moral, saying you wouldn't have bought it anyway and therefore there's no loss of profit; these are all bogus justifications in my eyes. Nothing changes the fact that:

a) you're getting something of value for free when it's not legally free and you don't have the legal right to do so.
b) just because you say you'll pay for it doesn't mean you will. I know many people that say this and then go back on it. If you've already got the software it makes it less likely you'll pay for it.
c) You're not the judicator of whether or not something deserves your money. Just because you say you don't think it's worth the money doesn't mean you should get it for free, it means you shouldn't pay for it or get it.
d) If you pirate something, the chance of you buying that in the future exponentially decreases, meaning saying you wouldn't have bought it anyway doesn't work because you may have bought it in the future on sale.
e) Even if you wouldn't have bought it for a cheaper price on sale, that doesn't mean that you have the moral or legal right to own it. Believing you're entitled to something for free just cause you wouldn't have paid for it and it therefore doesn't cause the company any losses (even though I'd argue that in 99% of cases it does due to the people that actually WOULD buy it on sale) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to have it. That's kind of arrogant.

Quote from Automaton

I never said I don't like it when people argue the morality of piracy, don't put words in my mouth. I said I don't like the rationalisation people put behind their avocation of piracy, and I find that 99% of the time it's to make them feel more moral about doing something that's illegal and by most standards immoral.

I figured the two positions were synonymous. If you're able to categorize and dismiss any opposing arguments so universally, it just seems like you don't want to listen to what people have to say.

I agree with most of your points, assuming anyone actually took the sort of positions you're arguing against. I don't think many people try to call their actions moral, and if they do then you're wasting your time even addressing such stupidity. But I feel like if I point out that I don't have $500 to spend on Omnisphere, and would absolutely never purchase it even if I did, so downloading it and using it in a hobby that I don't profit from means the action is harmless, regardless of morality.. you'd likely typecast me as part of the 99% of people who just rationalize their inexcusable actions.

The production forum I used to frequent had these sort of debates and I'd discuss this topic at length with 40-somethings who immediately called me a thief for the above scenario, to the point of insulting the rest of my moral character, without even considering my argument. They saw my reasoning, dismissed it as "rationalization" or "excuses" and immediately judged me for my behavior without any consideration for the circumstances. That's the sort of anti-piracy argument I'm used to so if you're accustomed to some equally ignorant pro-piracy crowd that I'm unfamiliar with, then maybe we're arguing different points.

Quote from Automaton

a) you're getting something of value for free when it's not legally free and you don't have the legal right to do so.

Legality has little to do with morality, the drug war is a good example of that. Beyond that no one argues that their actions are legal, that's not the point of piracy advocates.

Quote from Automaton

b) just because you say you'll pay for it doesn't mean you will. I know many people that say this and then go back on it. If you've already got the software it makes it less likely you'll pay for it.

I never buy software before downloading it first. I'll agree, this is a flimsy excuse, but most people with a steady income are willing to pay for things they use and enjoy.

This argument is worded specifically to target people who say "I'll pay for it after I download it" and then never do. No one will defend that sort of behavior as "moral".

Quote from Automaton

c) You're not the judicator of whether or not something deserves your money. Just because you say you don't think it's worth the money doesn't mean you should get it for free, it means you shouldn't pay for it or get it.

I'm the only person who decides what's worth my money.

I'm on the other side of piracy as a musician. If someone says they like my music but don't want to pay for it, I'd rather they just download my music instead of missing out on it entirely. I'm not getting money from them either way -- I'm not losing a sale through piracy, but still gaining exposure.

That doesn't apply to everything, I'm not saying it does, but you're not even trying to consider situations where piracy can have a net positive effect for both parties.

Quote from Automaton

d) If you pirate something, the chance of you buying that in the future exponentially decreases, meaning saying you wouldn't have bought it anyway doesn't work because you may have bought it in the future on sale.

Maybe, maybe not, but this is essentially the same argument as point B. Again, I buy plenty of shit after pirating it, and usually it's stuff I wouldn't think to buy without a free trial beforehand.

Quote from Automaton

e) Even if you wouldn't have bought it for a cheaper price on sale, that doesn't mean that you have the moral or legal right to own it.

No one argues about "rights", or defends their non-existent right to have whatever the fuck they want for free. Saying your behavior isn't harmful doesn't equate to "I have the right to do whatever I want". You don't. You also don't have the right to smoke marijuana -- what the fuck do rights have to do with the act itself, and how it affects the people involved?


I think you're dividing this issue into two positions: "ALL piracy is good" and "ALL piracy is bad". Piracy is extremely harmful in some situations. It's also extremely beneficial in others. In most situations, it doesn't make a significant difference.

It's not a black-and-white issue and you seem to speak as if it is. That's all I'm trying to say.

Quote from Exilement

I figured the two positions were synonymous. If you're able to categorize and dismiss any opposing arguments so universally, it just seems like you don't want to listen to what people have to say.

not really, I'm willing to listen to them, if they provide a NEW argument I'll consider it, otherwise I won't because I've considered it before. And there's not much depth to any argument for or against piracy so it's not as if one particular argument can have more to it than anyone's previously said.

I agree with most of your points, assuming anyone actually took the sort of positions you're arguing against. I don't think many people try to call their actions moral, and if they do then you're wasting your time even addressing such stupidity.

Erm, if they don't say their actions are moral then what's the argument? It's obviously not legal, so that's not a debate. The only thing that's left is morality, and if they don't argue that it's moral... what's left to argue? I've already said I occasionally pirate (usually expensive software) but don't think it's moral, so if that's the position you think most people are taking a) I'd disagree, most pirates I know of try to rationalise the morality, and b) I'm in that same position so not arguing against it.

But I feel like if I point out that I don't have $500 to spend on Omnisphere, and would absolutely never purchase it even if I did, so downloading it and using it in a hobby that I don't profit from means the action is harmless, regardless of morality.. you'd likely typecast me as part of the 99% of people who just rationalize their inexcusable actions.

Harmless, yes, I pirate software such as FL studio and Sony vegas and flash for non-profit hobbies the same as you. I don't say that it's moral but I do say that it's harmless. Most people that I've spoke to about this don't argue about how harmful it is, rather whether they should be allowed to do it for the reasons that I stated before.

The production forum I used to frequent had these sort of debates and I'd discuss this topic at length with 40-somethings who immediately called me a thief for the above scenario, to the point of insulting the rest of my moral character, without even considering my argument. They saw my reasoning, dismissed it as "rationalization" or "excuses" and immediately judged me for my behavior without any consideration for the circumstances. That's the sort of anti-piracy argument I'm used to so if you're accustomed to some equally ignorant pro-piracy crowd that I'm unfamiliar with, then maybe we're arguing different points.

I personally would never sanction anyone for piracy. As I stated, the only thing that annoys me is when people try and rationalise it. HOWEVER, what I didn't make clear and should have was that it annoys me when they rationalise the morality of it by saying stuff like "it's not theft, I wouldn't have got it anyway, it's only a copy of data". It doesn't annoy me when they say it's harmless, UNLESS it's a game or something that doesn't cost much and makes them less likely to buy it in the future. I don't have qualms with how harmful piracy is for expensive software, but I do for inexpensive stuff like games, movies and music. It doesn't help publicise the artist much at all, and should only be valid when the artist doesn't mind. If the artist doesn't mind their work being pirated and they've taken account of that in their business model, then fair enough.

Legality has little to do with morality, the drug war is a good example of that. Beyond that no one argues that their actions are legal, that's not the point of piracy advocates.

Yeah, I agree. Don't really know why I added that in. But there are SOME people who say "it's not theft" when you say "it's illegal" and they'll spout the "it's technically not a criminal offense"

I never buy software before downloading it first. I'll agree, this is a flimsy excuse, but most people with a steady income are willing to pay for things they use and enjoy.

Once you pirate software it's VERY, VERY easy to convince yourself that that software isn't worth your money just because of stupid excuses. With the example of games, someone can play a game for 30 hours, encounter a couple of bugs and then say "well, these bugs mean it isn't worth the £30". Sure, but is it not worth the 30 hours you've spent on it? Even if the game isn't worthy, you could have simply looked at demonstrations to decide, and not had the privelage of experiencing a premium experience for free. I just think that the majority of people that say that they will buy things if they like it after downloading won't actually do that, and the chances of them doing so are reduced exponentially as time goes on after pirating.

This argument is worded specifically to target people who say "I'll pay for it after I download it" and then never do. No one will defend that sort of behavior as "moral".

My point is that there are many people that say this and then don't, and they defend their actions as moral because they then say "I tried it and it wasn't worth the money". It's easy to make excuses and rationalise it in your own mind just to save some money, plenty of people that I know IRL do that.

I'm the only person who decides what's worth my money.

I'm on the other side of piracy as a musician. If someone says they like my music but don't want to pay for it, I'd rather they just download my music instead of missing out on it entirely. I'm not getting money from them either way -- I'm not losing a sale through piracy, but still gaining exposure.

1) I know these things are not the same in practice because one actually makes the company lose profit definitively, but in principle the idea is the same. Imagine someone goes into a restaurant and decides they want to try a meal before buying it. They try that meal for free, without the right to, and then decide that it's not worth the £50 so they don't pay for it. Now, I know that it's not the same, but I'm arguing that the principle of saying that it's not worth your money is incorrect. Just because you deem something isn't worth your money doesn't mean you should get that for free. If you honestly feel it's not worth your money, you don't eat at that restaurant, you wait for the prices to lower (a sale to go on) or you go somewhere else (buy another game / album). I don't see why it should mean that because one individual sees the price of something as too high, even though other people are obviously willing to pay that amount, they should get privilege just because of their views on the price.

2) About the artist thing, that's completely your call. The landscape changes completely when the artist decides that they don't mind piracy. I pirated some music that was advertised on thepiratebay when the musician was quoted on the frontpage as saying that he allows us to pirate it. I would, however, like to say to any artist and you in response to your other point:
"I'm not getting money from them either way -- I'm not losing a sale through piracy, but still gaining exposure."
If the option for piracy wasn't there, who's to say that you would be losing the sale? Do you not see how it's kind of circular logic to say that you don't mind piracy being there because people that pirate aren't going to pay for your album, however the only reason they do that is because piracy is there? Also you have to consider that these people might pay for your stuff at a lower price later down the line if the price drops in the future. I don't know too much about the exposure part, but I don't believe it gains too much. I mean, people that pirate your music already know of it to search it, and most people just sit listening to music themselves.

That doesn't apply to everything, I'm not saying it does, but you're not even trying to consider situations where piracy can have a net positive effect for both parties.

Maybe, maybe not, but this is essentially the same argument as point B. Again, I buy plenty of shit after pirating it, and usually it's stuff I wouldn't think to buy without a free trial beforehand.

I've already argued about this in this post so hopefully you'll pick up my response from the previous parts. Essentially, if you do this then great, problem is there're MANY people that don't and then blame it on it not being worth their money, as if they should be able to decide that whilst still getting the privilege of using it, and also use anything to make it seem that way in their minds. Just because you do this doesn't mean that others do. And for those that don't buy it, the chances of them buying it when it's at a lower price is extremely low, much lower than if they hadn't have pirated it. Regardless of what people do, you can't argue that the chances are higher for buying something on a sale after pirating than if not pirating.

No one argues about "rights", or defends their non-existent right to have whatever the fuck they want for free. Saying your behavior isn't harmful doesn't equate to "I have the right to do whatever I want". You don't. You also don't have the right to smoke marijuana -- what the fuck do rights have to do with the act itself, and how it affects the people involved?


I think you're dividing this issue into two positions: "ALL piracy is good" and "ALL piracy is bad". Piracy is extremely harmful in some situations. It's also extremely beneficial in others. In most situations, it doesn't make a significant difference.

It's not a black-and-white issue and you seem to speak as if it is. That's all I'm trying to say.

The only time I think there is a grey area with piracy is when it comes into a price-range that someone wouldn't buy even on sale, such as software like Sony Vegas like I pirated. I'd argue that the VAST majority, 99%, of pirates (excluding those that pirate software like that) can be generalised. As explained in this post, the odd ones out who do buy software still don't have the moral principled right (in my opinion, morals are subjective and all) to take something that they don't have the right for (unless the artist says they can). This makes them less likely to purchase it down the line, thus decreasing the potential income in the future to the companies that are the ones that decide the price of their product. Don't like the price? Don't get it.

Quote from Automaton

The only thing that's left is morality, and if they don't argue that it's moral... what's left to argue?

Whether or not piracy is harmful to the industries susceptible to it. That's the only thing I take any real stance on, and I think in that aspect we're in agreement, so I say we quit while we're ahead. I think you're defending the immorality of piracy while I'm just focused on whether or not it makes any practical impact, and if we keep arguing from those two different perspectives we'll just go in circles.

We seem to agree either way, for the most part.

Alright, I'll agree to that.

In relation to the subject of how harmful it is, however, do you think that piracy is ever positive? And if so, why?

I mean, I commonly hear people say that it gains publicity for things, but surely if they're pirating it they know about it to begin with? If they know about it, they can already tell others about it and advertise it without having that album.

For the most part I simply argue that piracy isn't even the real issue at hand. The internet fundamentally changed media distribution and most large game/music corporations refuse to adapt to the new environment. In the process they fuck over legitimate customers with region-locked, DRM restricted content. Why pay for that when you can download a superior version of the same thing for free?

Again, that doesn't say anything about it being morally right, but I can't blame people for doing it. When piracy is a superior alternative to buying something in every way, people are going to do it, it's that simple. When companies try to adapt and focus on what customers want, piracy doesn't hurt their bottom-line. Minecraft was a massive success because their distribution model made piracy disadvantageous. Same with Steam and the Humble Indie Bundle. All massively successful endeavors.

Then you look at companies like EA who shipped Spore with massive DRM restrictions, and it became the most pirated game of all time. There's a pretty clear pattern. That doesn't make what they do morally justifiable, but it's unfair to put all of the blame on one side. Piracy isn't an issue when companies actually focus on what customers want.

Here's a good article on piracy from a game developer, and here's an example of an artist who got fucked over from iTunes and wound up making more money through his own label and P2P distribution. Gabe Newell from Steam has also said piracy is a service issue instead of a pricing issue, and more anecdotal evidence supports that than the claim that piracy is universally harmful.

DRM is the devil incarnate, I agree. I think devs should focus more on preventing people from wanting to pirate a game than trying to prevent it from happening. I.e. better demos so that people can decide if it's worth the price. The best tool to combat piracy is honesty about the product you are selling, let people know exactly what it is they'll be getting. And yes, piracy is indeed a service issue, though sometimes price comes into that equation when a company starts to take advantage of things such as DLC. The fact that piracy is somewhat of a companies own-doing doesn't make it less of a problem for the market, however. In the case of music, yes, piracy can help a lot. There are some games where piracy has helped greatly in its advertisement due to the company allowing for it, but most of the time piracy doesn't have a positive effect on games, and when you combine no positive effect with the reduction of potential income that becomes bad for the market. It's not how it was designed to work, you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes. The market does work that way at the moment, but that's not healthy for the market. Just because it does work that way doesn't mean that it's more lucrative to work that way.

I have to preface this post by saying that I am a moderate when it comes to piracy, but I officially have to make sure that this site is not involved in anything actually piracy-related, based on the terms and conditions of Stickpage's host. Discussions like this are fine, but as soon as we get in to how-tos and actual links, I have to step in. It's not that I don't want you doing it personally, it's that we are obligated to to keep this site from any potential repercussions.

I am more than willing to pay reasonable prices for services and goods. However, when said services and goods are not available to me, I must look for alternative methods to acquire them. Take Game of Thrones as an example. Fucking love that shit, but I don't get HBO. HBO pulled their services from my cable provider, and outright refuses to offer any sort of paid subscription that I can access like Netflix. So what am I to do? The company offering the goods refuses to take my money for them. So, I opt to go with piracy while I wait for the blu-ray release, which I buy anyway because I love the series, want the extras, and want to support the company to make more.

It's HBO's own fault that people are pirating that show so heavily. Expecting customers to wait a year or more for a Blu-Ray release is a pipe dream. I think evidence shows that people are more than willing to pay for their goods (obvious exceptions aside) as long as they feel they are getting something worth what they are paying. Netflix, Steam, and iTunes have all heavily influenced the way consumers regard purchasing content, and companies like HBO need to embrace this, because that's what is demanded. Their shows are going to continue to be pirated unless the get on the ball.