(April 13, 2015 at 9:30 pm)One Above All Wrote: ...OK, that's just silly.

Merely contributing to the other silliness here.  

I've see in this thread so far a lot of justification and condemnation. However, I haven't seen anyone (forgive me if I missed you) discuss the WHY and HOW of establishing a moral framework about downloading.


On what philosophical basis should someone be condemned for downloading? On social contract-- I don't use your data because I don't want you using mine? Does that mean that Google and the American government are "pirates" and are behaving immorally? More importantly, can the desire of someone about their data be expected to act like a binding will, automatically accepted and respected by everyone?

Is the internet an environment, in which shared files are part of that shared environment? Why wouldn't this make a library letting people read books for free immoral? Or that whoever listens to music at a party but didn't pay for the right to listen to it is immoral?

What about me streaming my desktop, including sound? By sharing my own direct experience and letting someone virtually look over my shoulder, am I stealing from the music company? What if I give others control over my desktop, allowing them to vote on what song I will play next? What if I run a game on my computer, and charge people the right to control my computer, and to view the game (i.e. to play it without buying it)?

(April 13, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 9:30 pm)One Above All Wrote: ...OK, that's just silly.

Merely contributing to the other silliness here.  

What silliness? Piracy is technically theft. When you purchase a game, you're not actually buying the game; you're buying the rights to use the game within the scope of the developer's wishes. The developer is giving you permission to use their intellectual property as they see fit and as you (implicitly) agreed to by purchasing the game. When you break this implicit contract, you're effectively stealing from the developer, because you're using their product without their consent.

(April 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm)One Above All Wrote:  Piracy is technically theft.

Technically, but not decidedly?

(April 13, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It doesn't matter what they charge.  Either you pay it and have a right to it, or you don't.  It doesn't cease to be theft if you steal candy because the grocery has decided to charge two million dollars per ounce.  And unlike food, there's never a moral reason to steal it because you don't actually need it.

Don't get me wrong, I know that people have a right to charge what they like, I'm just saying that having been handed a perfect justification for keeping prices high and giving their remaining customers a feeling of being on the moral high ground rather than just feeling rorted, distributors aren't likely to give that little excuse up no matter how low the piracy level dips.

(April 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm)One Above All Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 9:31 pm)Sionnach Wrote: Merely contributing to the other silliness here.  

What silliness? Piracy is technically theft. When you purchase a game, you're not actually buying the game; you're buying the rights to use the game within the scope of the developer's wishes. The developer is giving you permission to use their intellectual property as they see fit and as you (implicitly) agreed to by purchasing the game. When you break this implicit contract, you're effectively stealing from the developer, because you're using their product without their consent.

And what is the moral basis of your argument?  Why should someone downloading a game online feel bound by the contract between the buyer and the seller?

(April 13, 2015 at 9:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 9:38 pm)One Above All Wrote: What silliness? Piracy is technically theft. When you purchase a game, you're not actually buying the game; you're buying the rights to use the game within the scope of the developer's wishes. The developer is giving you permission to use their intellectual property as they see fit and as you (implicitly) agreed to by purchasing the game. When you break this implicit contract, you're effectively stealing from the developer, because you're using their product without their consent.

And what is the moral basis of your argument?  Why should someone downloading a game online feel bound by the contract between the buyer and the seller?

The seller relies on the buyers to perpetuate the cycle of production, and without sufficient purchases people could lose their jobs? Sales power the engine that makes new games, meaning the enjoyment of others is tied to sufficient sales to make more games?

(April 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Sionnach Wrote: Also, deeming pirating as immoral and stealing just seems silly to me, considering how we pirate every time we speak.  Every time we say something, should we not be stating, "From the dictionary"?

Not to mention that the dictionary is recording what we speak, not vis versa.  

The MPAA and the RIAA are the biggest problem because of standardized pricing. It's the reason why a Spice Girls album from 1994 costs the same as a brand new album by Beck.

Dinosaurs like me are also a problem because really, they should stop producing the physical product all together as far as music goes. There is no reason a digital download should cost anywhere near as much as a CD. Again, the market is too flush with content, people have too many artists to purchase content from to justify $15 an album. Back when I was a kid, I'd buy a CD or two a month at most. Now, I listen to 20 different artists a day that I'd like to hear their music. I use rdio with a subscription to make playlists, but no such service exists with movies/TV. Services like Pandora and rdio and Spotify have cut down on piracy, but with little help to the artist.

It costs $20 minimum to go to the theater and see a new movie nowadays. Movie theaters are pricing themselves out of the market. Enough people go, and 'box office numbers' are still monumentally important, so they remain. If studios want to combat piracy, they need to provide an option.

Distribution costs have gone down, but prices have risen with inflation. The market demands otherwise.

(April 13, 2015 at 8:08 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 5:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It depends, of course.

I buy all of the software I use (everything that isn't freeware, that is).  I don't download music.

Any video that I download is limited to productions that I'm entitled to watch (i.e. I don't see a moral issue with downloading episodes of "Game of Thrones", because I pay for a subscription to HBO).  It's legal to use a VCR / DVD or other recording device to time/place/format shift a video recording for personal use.  If it's legal for me to do so, and it's legal for me to possess and use a recording, then I see no problem with downloading something I'm already legally entitled to view (and record, should I feel like it).

The media producers may disagree, but they can fuck themselves.

Most of the services have that option built in to the higher tier packages.

Guess what?  I have, and pay for one of the higher tier packages, and I didn't download TV shows until Comcast and the networks started disabling fast forwarding in their on-demand services - I get not allowing you to fast forward through a particular commercial break, but the when they started preventing fast-forwarding through material (including the show) I had already watched, then they can fuck themselves.

...and as I said, I don't download anything that I'm not already paying for.  So, no.