Morality and downloading

[The Grand Nudger]

Benny., my man...gimme a link to their stuff and I'll steal their shit too.  
(so long as it doesn't interrupt my Britney feed)

-Theres a third option..it works. Artists do put their stuff up for unrestricted download and allow the consumer to pay whatever they feel is proper. Surprising to some, it works, and often enough it brings in more profits. Apparently, people are more easily manipulated into parting with their cash by their better natures than by means of black box extortion.

Then take a look at crowdfunded games like Star Citizen. They've brought in more without actually providing the product than most do -by- providing the product. IP is rough - I'm actually not much of a p2per myself - but I understand why people are...and it;s difficult to look down my nose at them. If you're looking for absolute truth (or even a lack thereof), in a moral sense.....perhaps IP isn't the most lucrative mine to swing a pick into? IP itself is currently an issue of consensus, so if piracy were also an issue of consensus (and it appears to be)..they'd be on level ground - on that count, wouldn;t they? Who's to decide, other than "the committee" which is more right or more wrong than the other - and upon what grounds?

I suppose that's your question though..so....:backs away slowly:

[Thumpalumpacus]

You fucking dumbass, honestly?

Oh, that's a nice opening there. Nothing like setting the tone, eh?

I am a writer by trade, so I consider myself quite creative.

Oddly enough, your opening line is typical internet tripe ... no matter your self-opinion.

 

However, being a creative writer trying to make a mark in society does not guarantee success in writing.  

Who's talking about "success"?  I'm talking about people downloading entertainment without paying for it, and I'm arguing that if you want to be entertained, either entertain yourself, or pay for it yourself.

The part that really gets to me is that you make it seem as though having a job where one works and makes money means one has more time to spend on one's talents or hobbies.  You are a dumbass.  I work forty hours a week and I have no time to work on anything outside of work.  I work and sleep, that's about it.

I work sixty hours a week, and I still have time to entertain myself without taking someone else's intellectual property.

I know what being an artist entails, you piece of shit.  You should apologize.  Please do.

I'll let you know when I want your advice. Until then, go, uh, entertain yourself. 

[Silver]

I'll let you know when I want your advice. Until then, go, uh, entertain yourself. 

Ditto.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see anybody illegally downloading small struggling Indie bands. It's the Metallicas and the Britney Spears that get downloaded. The small bands are doing gigs. They draw bigger crowds so a pub can sell more beers. And if they're lucky, they get laid once in a while. I know plenty of good bands who would have standing orgasms if more than about 1000 people ever listened to anything they ever produced.

So then the morality of taking the product of someone's labor depends on how well-off they are? By that logic, it's fine to steal a six-pack od Budweiser, but wrong to steal a six-pack of your local brew.

Care to describe how that works, exactly? I mean, aside from "he's rich, he can afford my theft"?

---

I'll let you know when I want your advice. Until then, go, uh, entertain yourself. 

Ditto.

Pretty sure you claimed to be a creative writer ... but "ditto" is pretty much the antithesis of that ... "dumbass".

Maybe you can make your point without insults, and with substance?

[Silver]

I don't see anybody illegally downloading small struggling Indie bands.  It's the Metallicas and the Britney Spears that get downloaded.  The small bands are doing gigs.  They draw bigger crowds so a pub can sell more beers.  And if they're lucky, they get laid once in a while.  I know plenty of good bands who would have standing orgasms if more than about 1000 people ever listened to anything they ever produced.

So then the morality of taking the product of someone's labor depends on how well-off they are? By that logic, it's fine to steal a six-pack od Budweiser, but wrong to steal a six-pack of your local brew.

Care to describe how that works, exactly? I mean, aside from "he's rich, he can afford my theft"?

 Take a look:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32694-po...#pid919725

---

Pretty sure you claimed to be a creative writer ... but "ditto" is pretty much the antithesis of that ... "dumbass".

Maybe you can make your point without insults, and with substance?

Because resorting to a commonly recognized term automatically brands me a petty.  Only in your limited world.

What insult?  The one that was non existent yet you imagined being there?  

[One Above All]

So morality is a process, by which a thief determines whether the party being robbed deserves the stolen resources?

"Deserves"? No. However, even if piracy was unavailable, most people who pirate games would still not buy the softwars because they can't afford it. Because the prices are unjustly high.
Also, I'd like to note that "piracy is technically theft" isn't the same as piracy actually being theft. The former is in the eyes of the law, and the latter is the common definition of it - depriving someone else of their property.

[bennyboy]

I don't see anybody illegally downloading small struggling Indie bands.  It's the Metallicas and the Britney Spears that get downloaded.  The small bands are doing gigs.  They draw bigger crowds so a pub can sell more beers.  And if they're lucky, they get laid once in a while.  I know plenty of good bands who would have standing orgasms if more than about 1000 people ever listened to anything they ever produced.

So then the morality of taking the product of someone's labor depends on how well-off they are? By that logic, it's fine to steal a six-pack od Budweiser, but wrong to steal a six-pack of your local brew.

Care to describe how that works, exactly? I mean, aside from "he's rich, he can afford my theft"?

Just two posts, I called this kind of thinking into question.  However, your drama about the poor hard-working musician doesn't make sense.  The guys who aren't currently rich and famous ALWAYS benefit from greater exposure more than from a couple iTunes downloads they might pick up from family members and people they meet in the bar.  The only ones really hurt by those loss of sales are music agencies and executives.

---

So morality is a process, by which a thief determines whether the party being robbed deserves the stolen resources?

"Deserves"? No. However, even if piracy was unavailable, most people who pirate games would still not buy the softwars because they can't afford it. Because the prices are unjustly high.
Also, I'd like to note that "piracy is technically theft" isn't the same as piracy actually being theft. The former is in the eyes of the law, and the latter is the common definition of it - depriving someone else of their property.

See, that's what I wonder.  People who pirate games might not buy them-- but they sure are capable of talking about them.  I think word of mouth is an asset not to be disregarded.

But let's be very clear, here.  The laws of almost every country forbid copying software without permission, and so it is legally stealing.  Another issue would be this-- is it immoral to disobey a law that doesn't represent the interests of the majority?  Also, is it moral to establish a culture which absolutely revolves around music, movies, games and television, and then exclude from these cultural experiences those who can't pay for them?

[One Above All]

The laws of almost every country forbid copying software without permission, and so it is legally stealing.

Indeed it is. Legally, piracy is thievery.

Another issue would be this-- is it immoral to disobey a law that doesn't represent the interests of the majority?

The law isn't the issue; the software developers are. I guarantee it: if software were affordable to the majority of pirates, then the majority of pirates wouldn't pirate that software.
Speaking of me, personally, as soon as I got the money to buy Watchmen (the novel) and Before Watchmen, I did. I could've downloaded them - it crossed my mind - but I didn't. Because the books were fairly priced (IMO), because I could afford them, and because I wanted them, I went out and bought every one of them. However, if they cost around €40-€50 per book (€200-€250 total), I'd have downloaded them in a heartbeat.

Also, is it moral to establish a culture which absolutely revolves around music, movies, games and television, and then exclude from these cultural experiences those who can't pay for them?

I can't answer that, because I care about social trends (music, movies, games, TV, fashion, et cetera) about as much as I care about the average number of water molecules in a drop of rain. Less, in fact, because the calculations and reason for the latter might actually be interesting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

Maybe you can make your point without insults, and with substance?

Because resorting to a commonly recognized term automatically brands me a petty.  Only in your limited world.

What insult?  The one that was non existent yet you imagined being there?  

No, because "ditto" is an insubstantial  reply, akin to "NO U" ... not something I'd expect from someone who claims to be creative.

As for the insults, did you not type these? 

"You fucking dumbass"


"you piece of shit"

Yup, that was you ... not my "imagination".  How forgetful you are.

As for my world, you have no clue how limited or open it is.  I'd suggest you stick to things you know, like third-grade retorts and pinching the works of creative people.

You let me know when you have something of substance. I'm not going to reply to any further shitposting from you, because quite frankly, you don't strike me as having anything useful or instructive to say. Improve your posting.

---

Just two posts, I called this kind of thinking into question. However, your drama about the poor hard-working musician doesn't make sense. The guys who aren't currently rich and famous ALWAYS benefit from greater exposure more than from a couple iTunes downloads they might pick up from family members and people they meet in the bar. The only ones really hurt by those loss of sales are music agencies and executives.

I'm not pinning my argument on the practical effects.  I'm saying that if you didn't create it, and the author is charging money for it, taking it without paying the fees being asked is unethical. This isn't drama or anything else.

I've had people crash gigs I've played rather than pay the cover charge. I don't like it, not because it hampered my exposure -- it obviously increased it -- but rather, because it makes it harder to line that gig up again, because the owner rates our value with two metrics: the gate, and drinks sold. It didn't kill a career, because I've never been in a band that garnered more than local interest; but it did make it harder to make money making music.

[bennyboy]

I'm not pinning my argument on the practical effects.  I'm saying that if you didn't create it, and the author is charging money for it, taking it without paying the fees being asked is unethical. This isn't drama or anything else.

Why is it unethical?

I've had people crash gigs I've played rather than pay the cover charge. I don't like it, not because it hampered my exposure -- it obviously increased it -- but rather, because it makes it harder to line that gig up again, because the owner rates our value with two metrics: the gate, and drinks sold. It didn't kill a career, because I've never been in a band that garnered more than local interest; but it did make it harder to make money making music.

How did they crash? Didn't the venue have security?