I pay for a lot of music, and a lot of software. I just like to try it before I buy it.
If the company lets you, then that's fine.
I pay for a lot of music, and a lot of software. I just like to try it before I buy it.
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.If the company lets you, then that's fine.
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.
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...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...
lolthe 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.
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.Obviously standards aren't important to you. Come back when you grow up.
Of course morals are subjective. What is your point?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.
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.The law considers software piracy to be a form of theft.
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.
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.Therefore piracy, being theft, is immoral. It is pathetically sad to see you justify yourself.
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???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)
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.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.
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.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???
Really? Then why don't people who commit copyright infringement get charged with theft.Piracy is 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.It is illegal, and it is logically theft as well, since the company owns the property and you are taking it without paying.
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.Really? Then why don't people who commit copyright infringement get charged with theft.
The company owns the intellectual property and you are using it without paying like you are required to. See above.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.
If the table design is patented, then yes.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?
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?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.
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 company owns the intellectual property and you are using it without paying like you are required to.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
As I already explained, if I get any enjoyment out of the product I buy it - or I stop using it.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.
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.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.
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.They aren't receiving the payment they deserve for the use of their product...
The mere fact that the law says they should be paid does not necessarily imply that they "deserve" payment.
It seems to me that someone evaluating a product before deciding whether or not to purchase it is not at odds with that goal.