Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Norsefire, Jan 10, 2010.
If the company lets you, then that's fine.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The problem is that many companies attempt to mislead people about the quality of their products so as to trick people into buying them. Of course they don't give permission to try their products before buying them, because then no one out buy their shitty software or music. I don't feel bad about trying before I buy, even without their permission. Yes, it is technically illegal; but I don't see anything immoral about it.
Except alot of people aren't simply 'trying before they buy'; they just pirate, and continue pirating. You guys are naive if you think people who pirate only do so once or twice and then start buying. They just keep on pirating.
Some people do, some don't. Of course there are some people who just pirate everything, but I suspect they're a much smaller minority than you think. Most of the people I know who have huge mp3 collections also have huge CD collections. In any case, I'm not going to feel bad about what other people do...
The more you pirate and justify it, the more they will be justifying themselves. The first step to stopping immorality and wrongdoing is taking a firm stance against it and upholding standards of nobility and purity. And if you are a real man, you will agree with me.
For the longest time, I was vehemently opposed to the pirating of commercial games. At the time, I felt that it was not only illegal to pirate games, but that it would also spur the industry towards creating increasingly invasive anti-piracy schemes which would screw things up for ALL users (which has indeed turned out to be the case). However, during the past year or so, I have had quite a turn-around in my ways of thinking about this issue. I am no longer opposed to the pirating of commercial gaming software. Let me tell you why:
Because the gaming industry... or to be more specific, the major gaming publishers... have been stealing from and exploiting their consumer base so severely during the past few years that I no longer feel any sense of fair play, decency or integrity coming from "their side." Thus, I no longer feel obligated to hold up my end as a consumer, either.
Let's pick something notorious as a working example... Hellgate: London, for instance. That game was released waaaaaaay prematurely, by people who KNEW... absolutely KNEW AHEAD OF TIME... that their product was being released in a largely broken, unfinished and downright dysfunctional state. And yet, the law allowed them to release it anyway... and charge everyone a premium price for it. What do you call someone who sells you something that doesn't do what they promise it will do..? For example, what if I charged you full price for a new car -- knowing that the brakes were faulty, or that the engine was only producing two-thirds of its rated horsepower..? I dunno about you, but I'd call that person a scammer. Or a con artist. Or a manipulative, greedy and amoral thief.
The law considers software piracy to be a form of theft. Yet isn't it also a case of theft when somebody knowingly charges you full price for a broken product, and then gets to keep your money regardless of how loudly you complain..? We have even seen quite a few cases of those complaints being stifled on the "official forums" of various software publishers (such as Bethsoft, ActiVision, Blizzard, EA, etc. to name but a few) Many people (myself included) have even been banned... pushed under the rug for telling the truth, basically.
So then, who committed the first theft here..? Who was the first to be dishonest..?
Obviously standards aren't important to you. Come back when you grow up.
It's amusing to me that you think I'm the one who needs to grow up, when you seem to have the moral perspective of a young teenager; you want to view everything through a simplistic, binary lens that makes everything either totally wrong or totally acceptable, and doesn't require you to actually think about specific scenarios very much. You seem unable to contemplate the possibility that some actions aren't inherently moral or immoral, but rather depend on the specific circumstances and people's intentions. And when your simplistic view of morality is threatened, you retreat to silly statements about "upholding standards of nobility and purity," rather than allow yourself to ponder the possibility that maybe it's only immoral to pirate IP sometimes, rather than all the time. Why don't you come back when you're mature enough to accept that the morality of actions can't always be easily categorize.
Oh, and if you're not a communist pedophile satan worshiper, you'll agree with me.
Of course morals are subjective. What is your point?
Theft is immoral, and always immoral; theft is lowly. Therefore piracy, being theft, is immoral. It is pathetically sad to see you justify yourself. Instead of that, you can just pay like everyone else and follow the damn law, because it's more about the law than it is about morals: follow the law. Or not, and face the consequences (that should be there)
No, it doesn't. Not in the USA, anyway. It's usually not even a criminal offense, unless you were doing it for commercial purposes.
Piracy is theft. It is illegal, and it is logically theft as well, since the company owns the property and you are taking it without paying.
What's pathetically sad is that you still don't seem to understand that piracy is not the same thing is theft. In order to commit theft, you must deprive another person of tangible property. Making a copy of something does not deprive anyone of tangible property. In fact, it doesn't deprive them of anything. They are no worse off than they were before you made the copy. But hey, don't let silly things like the definitions of words get in the way of your simplistic arguments.
Haha. So who cares about morality, we just need to know what the law says? And you have the nerve to say that I need to grow up? Seriously, how old are you???
The company owns the intellectual property that they produced; they say that you need to pay to use it. You are taking it without paying. If that isn't theft, it's still just as bad.
You are taking the value without paying for it like you are required to. It's unjust, and illegitimate.
Or you can be a criminal, but you are already; and you are great a rationalizing your criminal behavior. That isn't surprising. Grow the hell up. Or you can face the guillotine once we get a criminal policy that isn't a laugh.
Really? Then why don't people who commit copyright infringement get charged with theft.
My god, how is it possible that you STILL don't get it? You aren't taking anything. You are creating a new copy. Nothing is taken from anyone.
Tell me something Norsefire, if I take careful measurements of a friend's table and build a copy of it using my own labor and materials, have I stolen anything? Have I committed theft?
We're arguing technicalities. The basic idea still applies: you are taking something without paying for it, like is required. Why aren't you paying? It's required. What part of required do you not get? You have to do it; it isn't a choice. If you don't, you are violating the law. It is required.
The company owns the intellectual property and you are using it without paying like you are required to. See above.
If the table design is patented, then yes.
Of course that's what the law says. But should that be what the law says? Or are there some situations where it's not necessarily immoral to violate copyright laws? You have yet to actually explain why you think it's wrong for me to try software before I buy it. Are you interested in actually having a discussion about ethics, or did you simply come here to parrot the law at people over and over again?
Why specifically do you think it's wrong for someone to download software in order to test it out? Don't just say "because that's the law," see if you can actually construct a coherent ethical argument.
Oh, I see. So now you've switched from taking something without permission to using without permission. That's a bit more reasonable. So now let's address the issue. Why do you think it's wrong for me to use it without their permission? Does it harm them in some way? If so, how? What makes the company any worse off after I download their software then before?
The law is the primary reason of my opposition; and then, the fact that you are using the work of another man for your enjoyment without doing what he requires in return, which is paying him.
it's not wrong, if the company lets you. If not, then it's wrong; it's about free individuals making free decisions, including the decision to have their work protected and to charge for it. For you to go behind their back and use it anyway is wrong. They have already established that you must pay, so pay, or don't use it.
They aren't receiving the payment they deserve for the use of their product; you can say 'but I wouldn't have bought it anyway', but you're still using it. If you're using it you need to pay; if you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then you won't use it anyway. It's unjust to use it without paying. That completely circumvents the system.
As I already explained, if I get any enjoyment out of the product I buy it - or I stop using it.
Intellectual property rights are NOT fundamental rights, like the right to own real proper and have that ownership respected. From the beginning, the law has been clear that they are "artificial rights" that are granted under limited circumstances for the benefit of society (rather than the benefit of the rights-holders). While real property rights are considered to exist because they are fundamental and inherently worthy of respect, intellectual property rights only exist for the utilitarian purpose of "promoting the useful arts" and encouraging innovation etc. It seems to me that someone evaluating a product before deciding whether or not to purchase it is not at odds with that goal.
The mere fact that the law says they should be paid does not necessarily imply that they "deserve" payment. Many people get money under the law that they don't deserve, for all sorts of reasons. They deserve payment when they provide me with something that is useful to me. Until then, they don't deserve anything.
So if I want something that's for sale, if I decide that the owner doesn't deserve to be paid, I'm justified in just taking that item without paying the owner anything at all? ...because I've decided that he doesn't deserve it?
But what if the owners of that product don't want you to "evaluate" the product without payment?
Nasor, I know that you know that you're scratching hard to find some justification for copyright infringement, but you know that it's illegal. If you think that everything should be free, then say so. Or if you think all music and software should be free, just say so, and work to get the laws changed. You've said yourself that you're quite happy giving away your music, that people shouldn't pay you a penny for it. So, if you're like that, then every artist and musician must be like that, right? ;=)
Separate names with a comma.