(April 13, 2015 at 10:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

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

And do you have evidence that copies downloaded negatively affect overall sales?

(April 13, 2015 at 10:29 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: 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.

(emphasis is mine)

As long as people are willing to pony up at the box office I would argue that it's not. There will always be people who want to see it before everybody else.

I have to confess that some of the explanations/justifications/excuses given on this board for illegal downloading are astonishing.

This isn't rocket surgery, folks.  Being a have-not never EVER entitles you to become an I-will-take.  I don't give a rat's charbroiled arse if a software developer, film maker, musician or anyone else who creates digital content is so vastly wealthy that they live in a manor house constructed solely of the solidified armpit sweat of Fijian virgins.  I don't care if you view corporate entities as inherently evil (I view I share, by the way).  I don't care if you have issues with packaging that damages discs.  I don't give a steaming shit if you object to the price of some of these products.  I don't even care about the doubletalk distinction between 'theft' and 'piracy'.

If you take something without paying for it, you're a thief.  But I know this sort of thing won't stop.  So, enjoy your free entertainment, your illegal cable hookups, and the taste of the petrol you siphon out of your neighbour's car in the middle of the night.  It's all the same.

Boru

(April 14, 2015 at 3:32 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I have to confess that some of the explanations/justifications/excuses given on this board for illegal downloading are astonishing.

This isn't rocket surgery, folks.  Being a have-not never EVER entitles you to become an I-will-take.  I don't give a rat's charbroiled arse if a software developer, film maker, musician or anyone else who creates digital content is so vastly wealthy that they live in a manor house constructed solely of the solidified armpit sweat of Fijian virgins.  I don't care if you view corporate entities as inherently evil (I view I share, by the way).  I don't care if you have issues with packaging that damages discs.  I don't give a steaming shit if you object to the price of some of these products.  I don't even care about the doubletalk distinction between 'theft' and 'piracy'.

If you take something without paying for it, you're a thief.  But I know this sort of thing won't stop.  So, enjoy your free entertainment, your illegal cable hookups, and the taste of the petrol you siphon out of your neighbour's car in the middle of the night.  It's all the same.

Boru

So if someone couldn't afford a BMW car, but could magically clone one, you would be against it because BMW missed out on the chance to sell one more car?  What if they cloned a banana?  Would they be morally wrong because Chiquita lost a potential sale?

Now I remember the argument for pirating. Found it by reading this:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-c...he-economy

Quote:But what happens to the money the pirates would have otherwise spent on those legal copies? They don’t eat it!

(1) in the case that the counterfeit good has similar quality to the original, consumers have extra disposable income from purchasing a less expensive good, and (2) the extra disposable income goes back to the U.S. economy, as consumers can spend it on other goods and services.

As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.”

(April 14, 2015 at 6:43 am)bennyboy Wrote: So if someone couldn't afford a BMW car, but could magically clone one, you would be against it because BMW missed out on the chance to sell one more car?  What if they cloned a banana?  Would they be morally wrong because Chiquita lost a potential sale?

Sure new copies of programs, videos, music, prints, etc. can be made at no cost to the creator.  But the cost of the original is a dozy.  If the maker of a BMW were able and required to make limitless free copies, than making the original would be all cost and no profit and no one would have a BMW.

There are times when giving away free copies to those who can't afford them is a moral obligation.  Medicine for actual diseases (as opposed to blemishes) food, and shelter come to mind.  Entertainment, gourmet food, mansions, BMWs, etc. do not.

---

(April 14, 2015 at 9:23 am)Sionnach Wrote: Now I remember the argument for pirating.  Found it by reading this:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-c...he-economy

Quote:But what happens to the money the pirates would have otherwise spent on those legal copies? They don’t eat it!

(1) in the case that the counterfeit good has similar quality to the original, consumers have extra disposable income from purchasing a less expensive good, and (2) the extra disposable income goes back to the U.S. economy, as consumers can spend it on other goods and services.

As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.”

Let me re-write that for you:

Quote:But what happens to the money the pirates would have otherwise spent on those legal copies? They don’t eat it!


(1) in the case that tools stolen out of Sionach's garage have similar quality to tools bought at the store, consumers have extra disposable income from purchasing a less expensive good, and (2) the extra disposable income goes back to the U.S. economy, as consumers can spend it on other goods and services.

As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.”

Or to put it another way, whether the economy would be helped or harmed generally by theft, does not make theft moral.

Quote:So if someone couldn't afford a BMW car, but could magically clone one, you would be against it because BMW missed out on the chance to sell one more car?  What if they cloned a banana?  Would they be morally wrong because Chiquita lost a potential sale?

Yes to the first, no to the second.
BMW has patent protection on the design and technology of their cars.  The form, style and function of the car you clone is the property of BMW. 
Chiquita doesn't own the concept of the banana.  If you clone 50 billion bananas, you're fine until you put Chiquita labels on them (which is something Chiquita does own).
But in both cases, the economic repercussions are secondary.  It isn't a moral act to take something owned by someone else and intended to be sold by someone else, irrespective of the money involved.  From a moral standpoint, theft for personal gratification is equally contemptible no matter the cost of the item or idea stolen.  That being said, I suspect a case could be made that some instances of theft which are not for personal gratification (stealing medicine for a desperately ill child is the most common example) are not immoral.
Boru

(April 14, 2015 at 1:35 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 10:29 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Distribution costs have gone down, but prices have risen with inflation. The market demands otherwise.

(emphasis is mine)

As long as people are willing to pony up at the box office I would argue that it's not. There will always be people who want to see it before everybody else.

You're right for the most part. But there are also a massive amount of people pirating new movies. My thought is that this is the market responding to the price of content.

Okay, we have a lot of people just defining theft. But nobody is talking about the basis for the morality behind it.

For example, what happens if the majority of people download music? Does this establish a new cultural norm to which companies should be expected to adapt, or does it just represent a moral decay of society? What about Youtube? Do people have a moral responsibility to double-check that each channel owner has sufficient rights to play a song, or should those people expect Youtube or the channel-holders to bear the moral responsibility? What if the EXACT same content is provided by official channels and also non-official ones, and I'm listening to a playlist which has a bit of both-- should I stop and take several hours to compile a playlist of only officially-supported versions of the song?

There is entirely too much emphasis on the dollar in this greedy damn culture.