Piracy

[AndrewRyan]

This is a topic and post from another forum. I just wanted to post to see how I could improve my arguments.

OP: "well....I think piracy in some contexts is fine and in others not so much

with downloading video games I think it's fine if it's older video games that would be difficult to play legally, but downloading new video games that you can easily obtain (just have to spend a little money for) I don't think is right, but even then there are a few exceptions (best example would be Spore, because of the DRM EA put in it I think it was karma that it got downloaded so much)

with downloading movies I generally don't think you should do it because most movies are easily found (and not really all that expensive) and I defiantly don't think you should try to download a movie that's already in theaters, but there's exceptions also, for example I've downloaded a few movies that I couldn't rent on Netflix, but didn't want to pay full price to buy off of Amazon

and lastly with music well what I do is this, I pay for Rhapsody, but whatever music Rhapsody doesn't have I get elsewhere, that seems fine to me

one thing though is I think corporations that complain about piracy drastically hurting their sales are full of shit (the music industry, the movie industry etc etc), while piracy may hurt some sales I think they blow it how of proportion (waaaaaaay out of proportion)"

ME: "Me personally I like to go around taking 5 dollar bills out of people's wallets. I figure $5 wont hurt them all that badly. Besides, they probably make a lot more money than what I'm taking."

So my question, is there an argument that would be more effective than sarcasm? BTW, this forum is pretty hostile to objectivist ideas.

[Jake_Ellison]

You can explain how all criminals tend to evade the truth by rationalizing (among other things it usually lands them in jail, or dead, because it makes them ignore reality and the risks they expose themselves to), and hopefully they'll recognize their own thought process in your description.

[aelopix]

Your personal thoughts and the way you view Piracy has nothing to do with reality.

The basic idea of fairness (about economic transactions) is "you get nothing for free"; this may seem unfair but is the same thing as "you always earn something for your work". People often distinguish different situations in order to "justify" some of their actions, including the idea "stealing from a rich one is not as bad as stealing from a poor one".

It has nothing to do with how difficult is to find something nor how expensive it is, the basic rule is ALWAYS the same, you get nothing for free. If it's difficult to find a rare album then it's "fair" to steal it? (even if the owner's rich) If it's too expensive to buy a Ferrari then it's "fair" to steal one? the company will still be rich anyway.

When it comes to the internet, people tried to be more sophisticated about rules and create new ones. If you can't understand that a physical product is the same as a digital product, that proves that the only reason people obey the rules in the real word is because of the punishments, and when it comes to internet and there are not punishments people see "fairness" in stealing. It is the penalties that made piracy a controversial issue (for some people) not the physical-digital products. I, personally, download everything from the internet, but at least I acknowledge the fact that is not fair for someone, even a bit.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It is the penalties that made piracy a controversial issue (for some people) not the physical-digital products. I, personally, download everything from the internet, but at least I acknowledge the fact that is not fair for someone, even a bit.

Are you saying you are an Internet pirate and that you intend to continue doing this because you think you won't get caught and punished? It's not an issue of fairness or what is available to the thieves of the world. It is an act of evil to pirate someone else's work just because someone -- some other evil person -- made it available on the web. Your lax morals are opening yourself up to the initiation of force by anyone else who decides to take something of yours without your permission. I mean, what would you tell them, "You can't have it because it is mine?" Sorry, by your own actions you have denied that stance -- and besides, it is not yours if you stole it. Or would you rather have it that way anyhow, that the toughest SOB gets to have what he can take and what he can fend off for himself? The rule of muscle and guns and fists determining the relationships in your ideal society? Why don't you use your real name on here so we can notify the authorities to your piracy? I mean, how can you even say your post belongs to you, since you created it, if you don't recognize the equal rights of others?

[sanjavalen]

Stealing something that doesn't belong to you is bad.

Taking something you know has been stolen is also bad.

I think that summarizes it pretty well.

Edited April 25, 2009 by sanjavalen

[Tordmor]

Don't make it too easy. There is a hidden argument: "it's fine if it's older video games that would be difficult to play legally". If someone abandons property the finder may keep it. It's not stealing. If someone once invented a video game but no longer makes it available. Hasn't he practically "abandoned" his idea? There once was a ruling on the nylon trademark that you have to actively defend your trademark. The holder of nylon failed to do so and people started using it. Later it was ruled that the term became public property because the trademark holder had practically abandoned it by failing to defend it.

[Grames]

When it comes to the internet, people tried to be more sophisticated about rules and create new ones. If you can't understand that a physical product is the same as a digital product, that proves that the only reason people obey the rules in the real word is because of the punishments, and when it comes to internet and there are not punishments people see "fairness" in stealing. It is the penalties that made piracy a controversial issue (for some people) not the physical-digital products. I, personally, download everything from the internet, but at least I acknowledge the fact that is not fair for someone, even a bit.

This only proves that it is possible for a perceptual level mentality to steal on the internet, not that it isn't stealing.

[aelopix]

If you separate people to the people who would never steal in the real world (whatever the reasons are) you will have a quite big number, and the majority of the population. Of these people, if you take the part that would steal on the internet, I am pretty sure the number will be big enough to prove that most of them never cared about the "fairness" or "doing the right thing" before and the only reason their behaviour "changed" in the internet are the penalties. So basically most people follow the rule "you get nothing for free, unless you can". ( I am not saying this for everyone, just the people who are trying to justify the digital stealing)

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If someone once invented a video game but no longer makes it available. Hasn't he practically "abandoned" his idea?

No. It is his property and he can decide not to market it if he decides that. Property -- even intellectual property -- does not cease to be property just because it is not on the market. Using that argument, one could say that land -- such as your house -- is not your property if it is not on the market.

There once was a ruling on the nylon trademark that you have to actively defend your trademark. The holder of nylon failed to do so and people started using it. Later it was ruled that the term became public property because the trademark holder had practically abandoned it by failing to defend it.

I would disagree with that ruling. While it is true that one needs to defend one's property and trade marks, it doesn't cease to be your just because you haven't prevented people from using it, though in this case it sounds like they should have put up a better defense.

However, how is someone to track everything on the Internet? Isn't a simple copyright notice or patent notice sufficient on the original? Is a copyright holder supposed to check out all of the piracy websites that are out there? Known piracy websites ought to be shut down by law. And I was pleased to find out that recently Pirate Bay was legally fought and several of its operators are going to jail for copyright infringement and they have to pay something like $3.6 million.

I don't see anything different from Internet piracy and piracy on the high seas. In both cases, the pirates ought to be dealt with by justifiable force. I've even heard that a lot of the pirated software has viruses in them (even the pirated Mac OS), so I hope those viruses incapacitates those machines -- since it would serve them right.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Regarding music, the usual argument I get is that many bands are where they are because of this. That the only direct profit they get is from concerts, which sell well because of people getting to know them through downloading. Does this make it any right?

[AndrewRyan]

Regarding music, the usual argument I get is that many bands are where they are because of this. That the only direct profit they get is from concerts, which sell well because of people getting to know them through downloading. Does this make it any right?

If artists consent and make the music available for downloading then yes. If not then no.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The claim that pirated software or music or videos or writings is free advertising is a non-sequitor. If you want to provide free advertising for someone, you are free to mention them and advertise how wonderful they are via the Internet. However, you are not free to steal from them and distribute their property without their permission. Perhaps one reason why those bands mentioned earlier only makes money from concert events instead of via album sales is that their album sales are being stolen by pirates.

I'm hesitant to bring this up, because no one has ever complained to me about it directly, but I think my website is great free advertising for HBL and OSG. Unfortunately, OSG fell on the wayside as HBL flourished and website based forums began to rise. Of course, the fact that I am advertising HBL is not a cause for me to steal things from Harry Binswanger or any other HBLer; and I have asked several lawyers about the legality of me quoting from members of HBL and putting my replies up on my website. Most of those essays I put up there were previously published on HBL, anyhow, which is a low circulation periodical, and those lawyers have told me everything I have done on my site is fair use from a publication. So, I think I'm in the clear legally and morally; and as I've said, no one in three or four years has ever complained to me about it; and there is a notification of how to contact me if you do want to complain about it.

But these pirate websites often don't even keep track of what they are distributing, and don't care; except the more of them who are thrown in jail, the more other pirates may take notice and control their content or their distribution of materials.

[Chris.S]

I didn't want to start a new thread on piracy, so here's my question: if the government has made all incoming uncensored TV channels and DVDs illegal, is it immoral to watch these channels and DVDs if they are pirated? Or is it only immoral to buy, just not watch (the government doesn't have the tech to censor either media, so they are plain illegal. Cartoons are allowed, however).

My answer is yes it is immoral to buy and watch. But in doing that, I cut myself out of my new family's social life. The government in question is the Maldivian government, heavily influenced by Sharia law, and while the country is extremely warm and pretty, there isn't much to do within the capital island, Male. I still have to look around and see what's here, but that's my initial impression, and without movies and TV, entertainment will be nil.

This has actually brought some friction into an otherwise great new marriage (because I've been seemingly very antisocial), so any help is appreciated.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Chris.S

[softwareNerd]

... the Maldivian government, heavily influenced by Sharia law, ...

What's the problem with watching channels that the government has banned, is you can circumvent their censorship?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I didn't want to start a new thread on piracy, so here's my question: if the government has made all incoming uncensored TV channels and DVDs illegal, is it immoral to watch these channels and DVDs if they are pirated?

You might be confusing black market with piracy. Black markets arise when a government gets involved in censorship, which they really have no right to do. In other words, the government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot watch on your TV or via your entertainment system.

But I guess the piracy issue can come in as to how you get the material on the black market. Are those delivering the service pirating a signal and pirating DVD's -- as in duplicating them without the permission of the copyright holder? If this is being done, then I think you are in a moral bind. The government has no right to censor what you want to watch, but the pirates have no right to copy and to distribute material that they do not own (the cable signal or the DVD's).

If you can deal in the black market and be assured that the black market operators are not violating individual rights, then it would be moral. That is, if they are selling DVD's from the manufacturer, then that would be OK; but trading in stolen goods would not be good.

Is there some reason why you must be in this particular country being run by Muslims? If you have a choice, I would say leave.

[Chris.S]

Is there some reason why you must be in this particular country being run by Muslims? If you have a choice, I would say leave.

My wife is on contract job until next March, so even that is tough, although I have the option to fly back to Canada for school in August. And I'm fairly sure the black market stores do not have the rights to distribute. Any material shipped in, ie DVD's, are confiscated and watched to make sure there's nothing "bad" on them.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Chris.S