It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Nafe: I don't think one can equate stealing and copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean that I think it's always OK to pirate things. As I've said above, if the act of piracy in any way negatively affects the developer/publisher then I think it's morally wrong. However, piracy does not always negatively affect the devs/publishers so I don't think it's black and white. I expect the overwhelming majority of piracy is simply a case of people not wanting to pay for something though, which would be wrong.

Hmm... I have to admit I am a bit black and white-ish on this issue but I still do it anyway. It does feel wrong to me, regardless that it's this little thing or that. Like stealing a penny from someone would still feel wrong regardless that the person probably won't need it or care. The simple act of doing something I know it's illegal makes me feel like it's wrong, regardless that it affects the publisher or not. If it's an upbringing or personality trait, I don't know, it just feels that way.
If I actually made real money out of Illustrator and photoshop on my machine, I would buy them, since then it'd be an investment and not just software for the ocasional on the side thing or the retouching of this or that picture. I do pay for software I can afford though. I'd really like to go legal on Windows too, but it's just out of my budget.
Pirating Win95 doesn't really affect Microsoft so I can see your point quite clearly, but I guess we just have different moral compasses. In my eyes, the truly moral thing to do would be NOT to download the thing and suffer your inability to do whatever it was you'd do with it, but that would be very impractical, so I'd end up downloading it anyway even if it felt wrong.
avatar
El_Caz: Hmm... I have to admit I am a bit black and white-ish on this issue but I still do it anyway. It does feel wrong to me, regardless that it's this little thing or that. Like stealing a penny from someone would still feel wrong regardless that the person probably won't need it or care. The simple act of doing something I know it's illegal makes me feel like it's wrong, regardless that it affects the publisher or not. If it's an upbringing or personality trait, I don't know, it just feels that way.

Fair enough. I think I used to have that sort of attitude, but in recent years I've found myself re-evaluating my morality. It's actually something I think about quite a lot, as a result I've ditched certain moral ideals as I've come to think of them as baseless. To use an extreme example, some people consider homosexuality morally incorrect. I expect a lot of them just feel it's wrong, others may have more explicit reasons. When you actually give it some serious thought it's hard not to realise that there's no logical basis to thinking homosexuality is immoral, and so probably best to ditch that idea.
That's the way I try to keep my morality, based on logic alone. In fact, one of my pet-hates of late is what I like to call artificial morality. Morality that has no bearing on the real world, and seems to exist for morality's sake, without actually affecting, one way or another, our interactions with other people.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Okay what about video piracy? I was supposed to tape the first episode of the amazing race last night for my mother but it was on earlier than it used to be and I missed it, I'm currently downloading it off the net.
Better or worse than taping off free to air tv? She won't get the ads but she ignores or fast forwards through those anyway so I don't see any difference

As you can imagine, I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
Post edited July 23, 2009 by Nafe
I personally see no ethical problem with this matter. But then I'm also a copyright minimalist who thinks that anything older than 10 years should be in the public domain.
One thing that often gets forgotten though is that these days "downloading" often means Bittorrent. And bittorrent means you are also uploading.
Is it morally ok to download that episode you missed? Maybe. Is it ok to upload it to loads of other people? Or is it ok to download it without sharing it to others? Who knows.
Although it's risky to compare virtual copies with physical ones, how about this one. If someone throws out a pile of stuff and leaves it for the garbage man, is it ok to take that?
I could kind of see win95 being analogous to that... sort of.
avatar
soulgrindr: One thing that often gets forgotten though is that these days "downloading" often means Bittorrent. And bittorrent means you are also uploading.

I think in any torrent client you can restrict your torrent to download-only.... :|
avatar
soulgrindr: One thing that often gets forgotten though is that these days "downloading" often means Bittorrent. And bittorrent means you are also uploading.
avatar
Catshade: I think in any torrent client you can restrict your torrent to download-only.... :|

BitTorrent is designed to assign packet priority based on how much you upload. So though you CAN do that, it will slow down your download considerably, because people who are uploading will get packets that you might have gotten.
avatar
barleyguy: Let me put it another way. Copyright is not some natural law that is simply the state of things. It is a legislative monopoly granted to an individual to be the only one to copy and distribute a creative work. If that individual no longer has any interest in that work, that legislative monopoly is no longer relevant. And, in fact, it really is up to the copyright owner to enforce the copyright.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Unless I've misunderstood everything I've read about copyright, its a fixed term monopoly wherein the rights holder has exclusive rights to control distribution of a product. The fact they do nothing with this or even enforce it may well be bad business or a sign of neglect but it does not invalidate the copyright.

No, it doesn't. My point is, the copyright owner is the only one that can bring charges to enforce the copyright. So for practical purposes, if they are not enforcing it, nobody is.
Does that make it legal? In a theoretical sense, no. In a practical sense, it might as well be. With the exception of simply feeling bad that you've broken "the law", there is no practical difference.
Post edited July 24, 2009 by barleyguy
avatar
Aliasalpha: Unless I've misunderstood everything I've read about copyright, its a fixed term monopoly wherein the rights holder has exclusive rights to control distribution of a product. The fact they do nothing with this or even enforce it may well be bad business or a sign of neglect but it does not invalidate the copyright.
avatar
barleyguy: No, it doesn't. My point is, the copyright owner is the only one that can bring charges to enforce the copyright. So for practical purposes, if they are not enforcing it, nobody is.
Does that make it legal? In a theoretical sense, no. In a practical sense, it might as well be. With the exception of simply feeling bad that you've broken "the law", there is no practical difference.

Isn't that just committing a crime on the (admittedly good) assumption that you'll never be caught?
avatar
barleyguy: No, it doesn't. My point is, the copyright owner is the only one that can bring charges to enforce the copyright. So for practical purposes, if they are not enforcing it, nobody is.
Does that make it legal? In a theoretical sense, no. In a practical sense, it might as well be. With the exception of simply feeling bad that you've broken "the law", there is no practical difference.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Isn't that just committing a crime on the (admittedly good) assumption that you'll never be caught?

I think it's more like committing a crime with someone being well aware that you're committing the crime, but they don't really care.
Less sneaky crime and more anarchy & looting then?
avatar
Aliasalpha: Less sneaky crime and more anarchy & looting then?

Pretty much.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Less sneaky crime and more anarchy & looting then?

I'd equate it to swimming in your neighbor's swimming pool while he's on vacation. You didn't actually take anything from him, and he might not care even if he notices. But you didn't actually get permission either.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Less sneaky crime and more anarchy & looting then?
avatar
barleyguy: I'd equate it to swimming in your neighbor's swimming pool while he's on vacation. You didn't actually take anything from him, and he might not care even if he notices. But you didn't actually get permission either.

That's why I always fill my pool up with piranhas when I go on vacation.
avatar
barleyguy: I'd equate it to swimming in your neighbor's swimming pool while he's on vacation. You didn't actually take anything from him, and he might not care even if he notices. But you didn't actually get permission either.
avatar
ceemdee: That's why I always fill my pool up with piranhas when I go on vacation.

LMAO :p
That would be the equivalent of hiring a team of rabid lawyers to protect software you don't sell anymore.
avatar
barleyguy: I'd equate it to swimming in your neighbor's swimming pool while he's on vacation. You didn't actually take anything from him, and he might not care even if he notices. But you didn't actually get permission either.
avatar
ceemdee: That's why I always fill my pool up with piranhas when I go on vacation.

*Steps away from ceemdee's pool and quickly runs towards the nearest Taco Cabbana. NACHOS!!!* Wow, your poor neighborhood kids who try that... LOL