Single Avast Pro license used by 744,651 pirates

[aaron]

You download old software that a company no longer offers any method for you to pay for: That's fine. You couldn't pay for it if you wanted to.

better delete those roms/isos that have been released on virtual console, xbla, and psn, then.

[Flake]

I actually have gone back and purchased pretty much anything I had in rom form that has been re-released on the wii. But that was mostly because I enjoy the classic controller WAY more than any controller released for PC.

[aaron]

sometimes i feel like i'm the only one who hates the classic controller.

[flamepanther]

Modern user-to-user non-commercial piracy is a weird, messy issue because it's something that copyright law was never intended to address. Traditional infringement-for-profit is a clear-cut wrong comitted against an author or authorized publisher. It's a clear attempt to undercut sales that rightfully belong to someone else. "Personal use" piracy may or may not be harmful to the copyright holder, depending on the circumstances and intent. Morally it's a slippery gray area, and legally it's a case of cramming a square peg into a round hole.

We obviously need legal standards to govern it, but the laws need to be updated, and they need to be fair to both creators and to the public--not flat-out dictated by Disney and the RIAA as the case has been for the last few decades. It's easy to find cases where fair use and the public domain are being eroded, where the legal realities and moral realities don't align, or where legal consequences are grossly disproportionate to a perceived offense. It's both weird and frustrating that discussions of this issue tend to break down into polarized positions of near-fascist iron-fisted legal absolutism versus something close to copyright anarchism. As usual, the truth is someplace in the middle.

Also, pirating Avast is stupid, and the company is handling it very well.

[Limewater]

"Personal use" piracy may or may not be harmful to the copyright holder, depending on the circumstances and intent. Morally it's a slippery gray area

Why should harm to the copyright holder matter, in a moral sense?

It's both weird and frustrating that discussions of this issue tend to break down into polarized positions of near-fascist iron-fisted legal absolutism versus something close to copyright anarchism. As usual, the truth is someplace in the middle.

Why? What is better about the middle than either extreme? People say this a lot, and I fear it's just a truism with little basis. I've never heard anyone explain why they assume this. I will certainly agree, however, that the situation is more complicated than folks on either side wish to address. But complexity doesn't inherently mean a "grey-area" solution.

I know I trimmed out a lot of your post. The parts I cut out were, imo, by-and-large good points. I just don't think you have fully justified the parts I'm questioning above.

[flamepanther]

Why should harm to the copyright holder matter, in a moral sense?

I think harm to anyone should matter in a moral sense. Generally speaking, that's what morals are about.

Why? What is better about the middle than either extreme? People say this a lot, and I fear it's just a truism with little basis. I've never heard anyone explain why they assume this.

When both sides of an issue make very good, nearly irrefutable points, but completely disregard all valid points made by the other... I find it intuitively obvious that it's incorrect to characterize one side as right and the other as wrong, and that reasonable compromise is appropriate. If we can find the points made by each side that hold up against careful, honest scrutiny, it should be possible to reconcile those individual truths to reach a sensible compromise, if not an absolute "Truth".

I will certainly agree, however, that the situation is more complicated than folks on either side wish to address. But complexity doesn't inherently mean a "grey-area" solution.

I say "gray area" not because it is a complex issue, but because at a certain point, the issue becomes contingent on specific circumstances and doesn't appear to have a "one size fits all" solution. Furthermore, once an individual's intent becomes an important part of the puzzle, it may not be possible for anyone but the individual to know whether an action is morally right or wrong. "Grey area" is never a solution, and I wasn't claiming to present one. Rather, I was expounding on the problem.

[Limewater]

I think harm to anyone should matter in a moral sense. Generally speaking, that's what morals are about.

I don't see how harm to others is inherent to morality. Given how hard you argued over the necessity of fun to the definition of "game," this surprises me.

Results-based reasoning is inherently flawed. The idea of basing a moral system on it, which is exactly what one based upon not hurting others is, seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

When both sides of an issue make very good, nearly irrefutable points, but completely disregard all valid points made by the other... I find it intuitively obvious that it's incorrect to characterize one side as right and the other as wrong, and that reasonable compromise is appropriate.

If both sides presented relevant arguments that were irrefutable, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they are both correct? I may be mistaken, but either your logic is flawed or your premise is wrong. Though, I guess you are appealing to intuition rather than logic. But intuition is also inherently flawed. There are many things that are intuitively obvious but incorrect.

I say "gray area" not because it is a complex issue, but because at a certain point, the issue becomes contingent on specific circumstances and doesn't appear to have a "one size fits all" solution.

That sounds exactly like a more complex issue to me. That's exactly what I meant by my previous statement. I think I was simply reading a little too far into what you said about the truth being somewhere in the middle. My apologies.

[Hatta]

I don't see how harm to others is inherent to morality.

I'm confounded by this. What alternative basis is there for morality (without resorting to supernatural entities)? Are you suggesting that harm to oneself should be the basis for morality?

Results-based reasoning is inherently flawed.

Empiricism is the only method that works. We had been doing a priori reasoning for thousands of years, then empiricism took hold and technology exploded. We should apply the same to our system of justice, concepts of ethics, and social mores.

[Limewater]

I'm confounded by this. What alternative basis is there for morality (without resorting to supernatural entities)? Are you suggesting that harm to oneself should be the basis for morality?

I have not advocated a moral system. I'm talking about the problems with a system of morality based upon harm to others. But there have been lots of alternative bases for morality through human history. Most have probably been quasi-religious, though. But again, I am not advocating an alternative moral system. I am merely stating that the question of harm to others is not inherent in morality. Any rule-based system governing action can be considered a moral system.

EDIT:An example of an ethical system not based upon harm to others is objectivism. I'm not a fan, but I figure you'll try to pick on me if I don't provide at least one solid example. I know there is a difference between ethics and morals, but I don't think the distinction is too important for this conversation.

Empiricism is the only method that works. We had been doing a priori reasoning for thousands of years, then empiricism took hold and technology exploded. We should apply the same to our system of justice, concepts of ethics, and social mores.

Person A gives a homeless guy a coke. As it turns out, the homeless guy, unknowingly, has recently developed a corn allergy, and he dies after drinking a few sips. Based upon the results, what Person A did was wrong.

Person B runs a stop sign and hits nobody.
Person C runs a stop sign and puts a dent in another car's fender.
Person D runs a stop sign and sends someone away in an ambulance.
From the results, what Person D did was worse than what Person B did.

To step away from morality for a second, a guy is playing Blackjack. He has a face card face-down and a two showing. The dealer has a nine showing. He says, "hit me," and busts. Judging by the results, he made the wrong choice.

[flamepanther]

I don't see how harm to others is inherent to morality. Given how hard you argued over the necessity of fun to the definition of "game," this surprises me.

Nearly every system of morality that exists, religious, legal, or humanistic, spends most of its focus on ensuring that people treat one another fairly: don't kill without cause, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat, etc. However, to borrow from Wikipedia's article on "morality":

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

The emphasis in bold is mine.

The idea of basing a moral system on it, which is exactly what one based upon not hurting others is, seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

Do you have a better one? The alternatives are usually pretty arbitrary.

If both sides presented relevant arguments that were irrefutable, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they are both correct?

No. The logical conclusion would be that the irrefutable arguments presented by both sides are correct individually--however, it does not necessarily follow that either side's entire position is correct at all. In fact, if the two positions, when taken as a whole, are directly contradictory, they cannot both be correct. A logically correct position would be one that was in agreement with any and all irrefutable points made by either side.

I may be mistaken, but either your logic is flawed or your premise is wrong.

Hopefully I've just answered that question, one way or another

Though, I guess you are appealing to intuition rather than logic. But intuition is also inherently flawed. There are many things that are intuitively obvious but incorrect.

Not quite. I was explaining that the obviousness of it (to me) is why I didn't go into further detail until asked. My explanation after that seems logical enough to me.