Morality and downloading

[The Grand Nudger]

Here, lets frame this in a way that makes the leading nature of your questioning apparent.  If you come to my McDonalds and work a 12 hour shift for me...and I don't pay you...what have I deprived you of?  Money? No, I haven;t deprived you of any money, your pockets were empty when you arrived, they will remain exactly as they were when you leave.  The burgers and fries..not yours...you didn't have any when you showed up, you won't have any when you leave.

So......whats the problem?
(also, when can you start?)

[One Above All]

No, again

Literally the first time you've said "no" in response to it.

and for the last time..I think it is immoral because the person has availed themselves of another's productive efforts without consent or remuneration.
(which is, amusingly, also why it's illegal)

And all I asked was what you thought the origin of that opinion was. Specifically, if you thought it was the same as I did. Now I'm thinking it's just selfishness (selfishness is not the same as immorality, just so we're clear): others can't stand to gain by using your software unless you do gain, even though, piracy or no piracy, you wouldn't have won anything extra anyhow.

[Cephus]

It hardly matters what they would have done if pigs had wings..now does it?

Not what I asked. Why is it so difficult to get you (people who view piracy as immoral) to answer a simple, direct question?

Because they have no real answers, they're just indoctrinated through their societal views that it's so. It's the same reason so many people claim that morality is objective, so they can pretend it's true without having to actually justify that it's true.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not personally claiming an objective moral proclamation.  It's my opinion, and explicitly so.  This is all I was asked for.  I come from a family of poachers and thieves (and worse), my indoctrination had to do with sticking it to the man and the meaninglessness of money and property..lol.

It is, however, objectively true that piracy involves availing one's self of the productive efforts of another human being without consent or remuneration.  Whether or not this is immoral to you would depend, like the example of the unpaid laborer...on whether or not you find this arrangement to be immoral (for whatever reason).

I don't think it has much to do with gain, or potential gain, or selfishness, from the point of view of morality - though that's definitely the line drawn in the sand by legality (excluding selfishness in that particular context, obviously).

[bennyboy]

It is, however, objectively true that piracy involves availing one's self of the productive efforts of another human being without consent or remuneration.  

So is watching Mrs. Johnson changing at her wide-open bedroom window.  But is it myself for watching, or her fault for being so darned watchable?

[The Grand Nudger]

Think there's a legal term for that as well, lol.  I'm willing to spread the blame between both parties. When I finally snap and end a motherfucker I want everyone to remember that - just assume they had that shit comin.

[Mudhammam]

The question I want to know is who is being hurt when a movie or a song is pirated? The artist? Please. Go perform your art. If people have the money to spend, they will still pay for your shit if it's worth it.

[Cephus]

The question I want to know is who is being hurt when a movie or a song is pirated? The artist? Please. Go perform your art. If people have the money to spend, they will still pay for your shit if it's worth it.

That's a point that lots of people cannot answer.  Where is the demonstrable harm?  People act like artists DESERVE to earn money, like people OWE it to them because they listen, yet as with any business owner, it's the job of the merchant, in this case a musician, to provide something of value to an audience at a price the audience is willing to pay.  Just because they make it, that doesn't mean they're going to get paid for it or that people will buy their product.  It is fallacy to think that simply having something to sell guarantees that you'll be showered in green.

[One Above All]

The question I want to know is who is being hurt when a movie or a song is pirated? The artist? Please. Go perform your art. If people have the money to spend, they will still pay for your shit if it's worth it.

That's a point that lots of people cannot answer.  Where is the demonstrable harm?  People act like artists DESERVE to earn money, like people OWE it to them because they listen, yet as with any business owner, it's the job of the merchant, in this case a musician, to provide something of value to an audience at a price the audience is willing to pay.  Just because they make it, that doesn't mean they're going to get paid for it or that people will buy their product.  It is fallacy to think that simply having something to sell guarantees that you'll be showered in green.

I'm still thinking some anti-piracy advocates assume most/all pirates can afford the stuff they download, but choose not to, when the opposite is true. The others subscribe to the kind of selfishness I mentioned above: if the artist doesn't win something, then others shouldn't so much as have the chance to win something either.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet others still think that its wrong to help yourself to someone else's productive effort, regardless of its value, regardless of any expectation of gain, regardless of any "harm"......without consent or remuneration.  

When are you starting at my McDonalds? -likely never, right..because you understand that it's a shitty arrangement.......

I wrote a book I never published. It'll never make me a dime. You still can't have it....because it's mine. Is there any file on your pc..a love letter or a naked picture maybe..that you feel is yours?

I don't know why you're so narrowly focused on a morality of affordability. Lets go rape and pillage bro.....it's probably okay..because we're both poor, amiright?