Single Avast Pro license used by 744,651 pirates

[aaron]

the simplest way of looking at it for me is anytime you get something for free that you would normally have to pay for through illegitimate means (meaning gifts, freebies, deals, digging through the trash, et al. would not count), you are stealing.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

[flamepanther]

the simplest way of looking at it for me is anytime you get something for free that you would normally have to pay for through illegitimate means (meaning gifts, freebies, deals, digging through the trash, et al. would not count), you are stealing.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

Careful. For starters, digging through other people's trash is usually illegal even though it's rarely enforced. That means you really can "steal" someone else's trash, even though they wanted to be rid of it in the first place. Now what? That's a whole can of worms regarding legality versus morality right there.

Also, suppose it was somehow possible to conjure objects from nothing, by means of black magic or what have you. It would be hard to classify this as a "legitimate" way to get things. Now suppose you use this power to gain something that is not subject to a copyright or patent monopoly, but which would normally require human labor to produce: a loaf of bread, for example. Is that stealing?

Now, also suppose you answer "yes" to the above question, reasoning that since you conjured a loaf of bread from nowhere, you deprive your local baker of his living by not having to buy bread (even though he doesn't lose any bread). OK, but what if you have two local bakers. When you buy from Baker A, you are not buying from Baker B, thereby depriving Baker B of his income, even though you would get your bread "legitimately". Are you stealing from Baker B when you buy from Baker A? Why not?

Or, suppose you answer "no" to the question of whether your hypothetical magic bread equals theft. How is magically getting bread any different from "magically" copying data over the Internet?

I'm not asking these questions to shoot you down. I think they are legitimate questions that deserve consideration.

[Limewater]

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.

Yeah, pulling a quote from a general description on Wikipedia isn't the best way to support your argument. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the statement you bolded is pretty wrong, in that it seems to completely disregard Dentological or Virtue ethics as "based on prejudice, ignorance, or even hatred." It also doesn't really say clearly who is what is being harmed, so it doesn't even really support your point. It speaks of a general benefit or harm, but to what? That could be to other people, to oneself, to one's soul or spirit, etc.

But, even if we allowed this quote, it still states that a moral system can be based upon things other than "not hurting others." So, ultimately, I don't see where it supports "not hurting others" as the inherent basis for morality at all.

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.

But what you have described seems pretty arbitrary a lot of the time. A guy runs a stop sign and kills nobody, it's not that big a deal. He didn't hurt anyone. He does the exact same thing and hits a car and he's a horrible, horrible person. A guy shoots a gun in the air, and we generally agree that's bad. His bullet actually hits someone on the way down, and suddenly what he did was a lot worse. These situations happen all the time, and are handled rather arbitrarily. For more examples, see the war on drugs or prostitution laws in the US.

But sure, here are some alternative ethical systems that are not based upon "harm to others" that are at least no more arbitrary than what you have described. Utilitarianism (which actually encompasses what you describe, plus a lot more), Virtue Ethics, Objectivism, W.D. Ross's system (which encompasses utilitarianism, plus more), etc.

But I don't really want to argue about those. This discussion came up in discussing the morality of software piracy, and the assumptions being made.

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.

I think I originally misunderstood what you meant when describing your premises. However, I still disagree with them. I am not sure that either side has presented any relevant, irrefutable arguments.

[Hatta]

the simplest way of looking at it for me is anytime you get something for free that you would normally have to pay for through illegitimate means (meaning gifts, freebies, deals, digging through the trash, et al. would not count), you are stealing.

So Ghandi was stealing when he made salt from the sea? I can accept that if you can accept that stealing is not always morally wrong. But that would mean you can't use the argument "X is stealing, therefore X is morally wrong" anymore.

This is the problem with pinning ideas of morality to ideas of legality. There comes a point when the law itself is morally wrong. It's much more accurate to say that the British were stealing from the Indians by forcing them to pay taxes on something that should be free. Similarly, I'd say that the copyright cartels are stealing from the public by over extending copyright. Nothing made during our lifetimes will enter the public domain in our lifetime. That's a real and quantifiable loss. The copyright industry has stolen our public domain in a way much more real than the "theft" any internet pirate commits.

[AppleQueso]

Piracy, stealing. Meh, it's all semantics.

[aaron]

the simplest way of looking at it for me is anytime you get something for free that you would normally have to pay for through illegitimate means (meaning gifts, freebies, deals, digging through the trash, et al. would not count), you are stealing.

So Ghandi was stealing when he made salt from the sea? I can accept that if you can accept that stealing is not always morally wrong. But that would mean you can't use the argument "X is stealing, therefore X is morally wrong" anymore.

This is the problem with pinning ideas of morality to ideas of legality. There comes a point when the law itself is morally wrong. It's much more accurate to say that the British were stealing from the Indians by forcing them to pay taxes on something that should be free. Similarly, I'd say that the copyright cartels are stealing from the public by over extending copyright. Nothing made during our lifetimes will enter the public domain in our lifetime. That's a real and quantifiable loss. The copyright industry has stolen our public domain in a way much more real than the "theft" any internet pirate commits.

i said nothing about morality. also, that ghandi reference is completely asinine, i'm talking about a finished product, not a natural resource.

stealing is stealing is stealing. whether or not you're okay with it (and its many forms) is up to you.

also, like i said...

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

[Erik_Twice]

This is simple. If you pirate you are benefiting from someone's work and they get nothing. You are abusing their effort. No matter if you planned or not to buy it, you are getting a benefit that you are not entitled to.


And let's be frank, everyone here has enough money so as to never need to pirate anything. We all have more games that we can play and can get more for very little.

[flamepanther]

This is simple. If you buy used you are benefiting from someone's work and they get nothing. You are abusing their effort. No matter if you planned or not to buy it new, you are getting a benefit that you are not entitled to.


And let's be frank, everyone here has enough money so as to never need to buy anything used. We all have more games that we can play and can get more for very little.

^If the issue was simple, it wouldn't be so easy to do that and still have your statement work. In fact, I think we're all aware that people in the games industry have made exactly the modified version of your argument I just posted.

[Erik_Twice]

I'm not very keen on people modifying my posts to make points I never made and comparing used games to piracy is not something I ever did.

That someone else claims that used games do not support the creator is not my concern, because it's not my claim and I don't agree with it.

So, no you can't say "it wouldn't be so easy to do that (change pirated games for used games) and still have your statement work" because it no longuer works. There's a logical gap because used games do support the creators.

Also, if you think that used games do not support the creators, then you should oppose them unless you think that a model where artists are not paid for their work is sustainable. In fact, such model would also apply to patents and engineering so I very much don't think it's sustainable.

[flamepanther]

I'm not very keen on people modifying my posts to make points I never made and comparing used games to piracy is not something I ever did.

No, but others have used your EXACT reasoning to do so.

"That someone else claims that piracy does not support the creator is not my concern, because it's not my claim and I don't agree with it." Oh, snap. The point is, the reasoning you've presented is too vague, lacks support, and can be used equally well to support all sorts of points you won't agree with. If the reasoning isn't enough to justify someone else's point, you should probably provide more than that to justify your own.

So, no you can't say "it wouldn't be so easy to do that (change pirated games for used games) and still have your statement work" because it no longuer works. There's a logical gap because used games do support the creators.

If that's true, then you need to explain what the gap is. How does buying a used game support the creators? They don't get any of that money at all.

Also, if you think that used games do not support the creators, then you should oppose them unless you think that a model where artists are not paid for their work is sustainable. In fact, such model would also apply to patents and engineering so I very much don't think it's sustainable.

Actually, if you take a look at how our patent system affects software developers, it's how we treat patents that isn't sustainable.