[adam_grif]
>I support piracy because piracy should not be a crime. Well, piracy should be, but breach of intellectual property rights should not count as piracy, because intellectual property >rights should not exist.
So when someone spends hours and hours doing something, they shouldn't be compensated for it. Do you work? Do you like getting paid for your work? Right now, I'm working on a novel, and it takes hours upon hours to make one. First i come up with good ideas (not something everyone can do - believe me I've read other amateur author's works), then write a first draft, and boy do they suck, so I am at the stage where I at least have one re-write for most what I've written. Later I'll be taking things out not because of poor writing, but because it doesn't fit into the story. That's just fiction. Non-fiction may involve a lot of research (I do research for my novel too). So why shouldn't they exist? Because it isn't concrete like making something like a chair?
>Say what you want about "the creator deserving to own the stuff he creates", in the words of Psycho, that's bollocks and you know it.
I guess I don't. A quote alone from someone (I'm assume someone fictional, is this Robert Bloch or Bret Easton Ellis or someone else?) is never adequate: here is my reason you shouldn't pirate: "that's bollocks and you know it." Okay, maybe that person whoever said that really meant that about what you were talking about, then we're talking about someone's (fictional?) opinion. Maybe the fallacy of quoting out of context or just the fallacy of attribution or just using a quote for evidence (a kind of non sequitor )
>REAL piracy is when you hijack a ship or boat. Fake piracy is when you breach copyright.
See : Genetic Fallacy. Everybody knows the current meanings of piracy and the internet, it's been established for decades.
>Lets clarify, shall we? Copyright. Copy Right. The Right to Copy.
Wow. So a lightning bug = lightning + bug ; hamburger = ham + burger? Fallacy of composition.
>Originally, this was not something that existed forever
Do you mean "it was not meant to last forever?" Things go out of copyright, like when someone dies. I don't believe the grand children should get copyrights, for they they didn't do anything but be a descendant.
>and it is not a right recognized by the United Nations charter on Human Rights
That's what laws for countries, etc. are for. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights wasn't meant to be a catch all for every single right anyone may have. It was only for basic fundamental things like "no slavery" and "education for all" Just look at the document and there are hundreds of things you can do that isn't in there. You can't use that as evidence because it wasn't what the document was set out to do. (a sort of fallacy of intention, but there's a better name for one that I've seen in fallacy books). And on a technical note, it's not binding anyways.
>That's because it's NOT a human right
According to just about every civilized country it is a right . (I don't know if there is a difference between a right and a human right - but I don't think cats are making the next GTA sequel) It does differ from country to country.
>A noble intention, the only problem is you are inventing a system designed to serve the public which finds massive opposition inside of the public
It's not intended to "serve the public" but the individual and or company that created it. And the only opposition are the people who steal (which with video games, etc. has varying degrees of wrongness, see below), go figure. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it's right (an appeal to popularity)
>The rates of music piracy are phenomenal. The rates of movie piracy are huge. The rates of game piracy are moderate to large
Just because something is done often or is easy to do doesn't make it right (appeal to popularity)
>A law that makes criminals out of more people than it protects is not a good law.
Well, let's take babies. Can we safely say that it's illegal to kill or try to kill babies? Let's say for argument there are 1,000 babies. What if 1,100 people tried to kill them? (Remember, some may not be successful, so it's possible) Ergo, a law against killing babies is bad because it makes more criminals than it protects. Laws aren't democracies, the votes of the people committing the crimes don't outweigh the rights of the people they are meant to protect. (A non sequitor). Someone with more legal knowledge may give a better explanation of "minority" rights (less than 50%, not racial). Look at how many people hate the Klan, but they're protected under the law.
>Except it shouldn't be considered theft, because the person doesn't loose anything, they just don't GAIN something.
No, nobody got money physically taken out of their pocket. But, it's what is earned or due to them. Let's take the work thing again, By rights, your employer doesn't have to pay you. You didn't lose anything, did you? Ergo, they're not stealing and it isn't wrong, so I hope you enjoyed working those two weeks for free. Also you're taking their "content " (as by the copyright, etc. their work as a whole) without permission. That's why there are laws that cover things that aren't exactly physical objects (like the ideas of things or the fact you can "electronically' steal, but it's not physically stealing) (cherry picking the definition of stealing)
>You say we gained something and we didn't pay for it. So what? Imagine if I overhear a great joke, then tell it to my friends. Should I be legally obliged to pay money to the person >who invented the joke? No I shouldn't. The principle is the same here, even though making a joke didn't take money.
Actually, there are people who make jokes and sell them for a living and there have been disputes. There's some hazy part between making something small and big. Should those little children books that are 5 pages be copyrighted? But anyways, jokes are what, two minutes at the most? We're talking about with video games, etc. something that takes hundreds of man hours. Not a little joke that takes what, a minute to make up and a couple of minutes to say? Phrases are the same way, whoever copyrighted "that's hot" (Paris Hilton?) shouldn't get money because it's just a little phrase, and one she didn't invent anyways. I don't want to split hairs and determine where something common, small, or already in use (jokes, phrases, etc.) ends and where copyright begins, but video games are definitely in the latter category. (Fallacy of the beard, part /whole fallacy, etc.)
>You're saying people should be allowed to OWN IDEAS and PATTERNS.
I don't think ownership of ideas is a good way of thinking about it (then we get into "do they really own that idea?' arguments ), but it should be thought in terms of people coming up with original ideas (which should be rewarded if done properly) - societies stagnate without new ideas. Let's encourage the idea makers not make them give up and say "oh, they'll just make illegal copies anyways, why bother". It should also be regarded in terms of hard work, people put in a lot of man hours, and should be rewarded.
> The legal ramifications are obvious - people can and have patented Genomes. Fucking DNA sequences. The key to life.
So with that patent they own you or something? (This area is highly monitored and under a lot of legal and ethical inquiry). Sorry, I'm not convinced about this "Genomic Big Brother" you imply, or that they're going to make Frankensteins or whatever. (Slippery slope fallacy).
[Soap]
>Real muscians don't need record sales anyway, they have the talent and ability to sing live and earn a living doing what they love that way.
I really feel bad for musicians. They're expected to be poor and they're deemed sell outs if they dare ask for money (never mind the corporations behind them were making billions)
Let's break it down: "Real muscians don't need record sales anyway" no, they just need food, water, air, and shelter. If they make an album (you know put a lot of hours of studio time, etc. that often costs them money), why not? This just begs the question. "they have the talent and ability to sing live and earn a living doing what they love that way" What if they're shy and/or don't want to sing live? (I know Kate Bush had albums she didn't tour under). Why should making a concert get them money but making an album not? It's just a rationalization by people who steal music online. And "doing what they love?" so, doctors and professional athletes shouldn't get paid much either, well in fact nobody who like what they do should. Just because you love what you do doesn't mean you shouldn't be compensated (Non sequitor)
For all cases, pirating is illegal, but I don't think necessarily unethical. I haven't been part of pirating in a while, but here's what i think:
Well almost all of us can agree mass pirating and not buying anything hurts the industry. But there's always a few, you know the "let's make everything free" crowd. I don't think society would function if everything was free. How would you get food? (well if it's free, I'll just grow stuff for myself - there's no reason to give it away). And there's the people who basically think just because it isn't tangible, people don't have rights to it, or because the people who create are in the minority, and the people who buy are in the majority so whatever they do is right or whatever other reasons I've debunked. Puh-lease. Here's some trickier aspects:
"Things hopelessly out of print/ hasn't been made in years, etc"
I don't find it bad pirating these things (Of course I'd try E-Bay a bunch of times before), because the person isn't making any more, there's no way they can make money (I suppose you could try and track the people down and pay them). Just make a reasonable (whatever that is) effort to get it legally
"I try before I buy"
This all depends on the pirate. I see nothing ethically wrong if it's done sanely. It also helps keeps the big companies from just pushing out mediocre or bad stuff. Have a reasonable plan and don't download hundreds of things and deem them all sucky. And actually buy stuff. There have been suspicions raised by the doubters, but in the end, it's what you do, not what they say you do.
"Download sucky stuff just for laughs"
Well, you weren't going to buy it anyways. I can see someone doing this for that Rig Racer game just to really know how much it really sucks. Just if by some miracle you like it and are playing it for hours (like watching a B movie that its suckiness is a redeeming quality), please buy it.
"I don't want to be feeding evil corporations"
Just don't screw the little people. Like with music, "Corporations make most of the money from album sales" well, I'm for you downloading the music and giving the artist a money order for some amount (at least a dollar, maybe more depending on their finances and how much you like it - and make it a money order - there are ramifications of signing checks that a "celebrity" has to deal with (like future forgeries) ). I know, corporations need money too, but when are they going to pay me back for stuff I overpaid? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but the evils of a corporation are far more than what i do. In some ways they are hypocrites for whining about money lost, but have no qualms when they all gauge.
"I don't have any money"
This is suspicious to me. I mean how'd you get a computer, etc. in the first place? This raises some other issues. I don't think because you're poor, you have no right to entertainment, but then again just because you're poor doesn't mean you're justified in pirating like there's no tomorrow. I don't know, maybe having an adjusted pirating allowance scale? I guess it's a bit more justifiable. if you're poor then you're working a crap job or are (or at least should) be looking for a job and/or your parents are poor. I don't think we should have a society in which someone has to say "I work a low wage job and can't afford entertainment because it is taken up all in food and rent, therefore when I get home, I will just lie on a bed because I can afford that" On the other hand, if you just spent $100 on beer last night and download because you don't have any money, then no, you don't deserve any downloads.
"Britanny Spears, etc. doesn't deserve the money"
I guess I can't really think why you should give her any more money (other people vary by who they are). I know, their being rich doesn't justify not paying them (but with someone like Brittany who was wasteful, it's not so bad). I guess this is a case by case basis, and if you only like that one song (One case for piracy is that, let's face it, albums are known for having filler or being bad except for those singles), well okay. But if you're downloading Madonna's entire recorded history, then no, buy her albums. In this case she is rich and deserves to be, for why are you downloading so much stuff? Hey this could be an "acting out' deterrent : "I really like your music, but you act like a two year old, so as a responsible consumer I am downloading your music and not letting you have any of my money to fuel your coke habit. I have the money in escrow until you go to rehab and really stop"
Log in to comment