This hypothetical person is selling it. The average software pirate generally does not, in fact, sell what he pirates. He keeps it for personal use, and if said pirate thinks that the performance is awesome, he will buy a ticket to experience it in-person, since footage ripped from a $60 camera is not equivalent to the full experience at an actual broadway show.

Lots of companies are combating piracy effectively, not through more sophisticated DRM, but by providing a better service than the pirates. IMO, that's the path companies should strive for. If you can provide something that pirates cannot, you're guaranteed sales, perhaps even moreso than if piracy did not exist as pirated copies serve both as marketing and as a "full trial" that may compel people to purchase the game later down the road if they want to benefit from additional features offered by the company. People may pirate SC II for the campaign and decide they want multiplayer, so they buy the game. Those same people (assuming Blizzard didn't release that starter edition), with no access to pirated copies of SCII as a trial, may not have been compelled to purchase the game in the first place. Thus, it can be argued that piracy has actually boosted sales of StarCraft II, rather than decreased as some may be inclined to claim.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 23 2012, 7:06 am by Aristocrat. Reason: typo

So basically, it's only immoral if the man's actions affect my well-being and livelihood. If money were no object, there would be no infraction, yes?

Aside from money, copyright allows you to control how a work is used. Would you like it if your masterpiece work of art was used by the KKK to fundraise their activities? Many people might think that you condoned and supported the KKK, through their association with your art work.

But at the truest form of freedom of expression, they're permitted to. I could release a similar statement saying that I do not in fact support the KKK, and that they're just monkey sucking pricks.

If you personally permit them to, then that is your choice and you're able to do that under copyright law. However, other people who create works like to be able to control those works and how they are used and copyright protects the interests of those people (if they choose to use it in that way).

Effectively by being anti-copyright you're saying "I don't care if the KKK mis-appropriated something I created, therefore no one else is allowed to care either".

That's not my position.

I AGREE WITH SACRIEUR! cest le impossiblé

You cannot steal something digital, you cannot steal an idea. You can duplicate it but you cannot remove it from someone's possession and bring it into your own possession (barring extreme circumstances like a hacker cracking someone's server, and using cut rather than copy to take the data).

If I painted a painting, and someone took a photo and sold the photo, they have not stolen anything of mine. Sure, they're profiting off something I did, but every time you do some work for your boss and he sells it at a higher price than what he pays you, he's profiting off something you did. And the idea that the photographer has somehow "stolen" from me is ridiculous. A) I still have my painting, B) he only has the data of the way the light shone off the painting in his digital device; to say he stole it is to say that remembering what my painting looked like in your mind is stealing.

Guys this is a starcraft site, put it into a context they will understand.

Let's say you make a map, then some dude takes that map and edits it so he takes the credit for it. In both cases the map is free, but you would be pretty pissed if someone else is taking credit for your work. This is one of the reasons copyrights exist.

Now you may argue that if you're pirating for personal use its ok, but a pirate will tell other people to pirate as soon as he gets an opportunity.

Pirates don't edit and then release movies/games as their own.

It would be hilarious if they did though.

This. Impersonation and trademarks/company names are different from patents, copyrights, and IP.

That's the problem with analogies, there is rarely one that perfectly mirrors the situation being discussed, and then people will go "I see the point you were making but refuse to acknowledge it because there's a way in which your analogy is dissimilar even though it isn't flawed in the respect you meant it."

I was also thinking of the StarCraft analogy and was hoping to see it at some point. There's a reason people want their maps protected.

However, it's better to not use analogies at all, and discuss the situation directly, because anyone who can't understand your original point without comparisons isn't going to understand such an indirect method of explanation either, as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

I get the point behind them.

For the record, I do think the scenarios are not respectable ways of behaving. But neither is masturbating to some pictures of your mom. But just because something is shunned does not make it immoral. And actually, I think it could be immoral, if morality had different levels. I think the means justifies the ends in this case, and if there is minimal harm, then it is not immoral.

However, if there is a harm to my well-being, then the action is immoral. But this is not because the action itself is wrong (stealing in and of itself isn't actually wrong), but because of the resulting consequences.

No its more like, he copied the precious vase, leaving the original there, and sold that copy on the black market.

Oh God Sac you're steering this from piracy discussion into the vague, ill-defined realm of ethics...


HELL YES LETS PHILOSORAPTOR THIS SHIT!!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 23 2012, 10:05 pm by Oh_Man.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jan 23 2012, 11:22 pm by Vrael.

Because Cloud casted Meteor and missed.

Even if he doesn't sell it, that doesn't change the fact that he stole the performance. Now I think there should be some leeway given to personal use, just like it was ruled that VCR's were legal for personal use back in the 80's, one because it would be impossible to stop everyone from doing it, and two because as you've mentioned, it doesn't really hurt anyone all that much. If piracy was made legal however, I'd bet my life all those "good" pirates out there who don't sell anything for personal profit suddenly would. The argument that they don't now so it should be legal is about as valid as arguing that murder rates are low so we should make murder legal since no one will do it anyway.

From Merriam-Webster:
Steal
1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Yes, you can. Simply appropriate a copy without the permission of the owner and you've stolen from him. I don't think the "intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" is in question here.

WTFBBQHAXOMGKKKLMFAOBRBAFKTLCNAACP

Still stealing. The precious vase in this case is a particular pattern of materials arranged in a particular way, copy that pattern exactly and that's what you've appropriated. All physical objects reduce to a state comparable to computer files in this way.

Merriam webster: "1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"
I'm not taking anyone's property. They still have their property. It has not been removed from their possession.

Yeah, we get it, it's not "theft" in the normal sense. We've established that.

Stop purposely using an outdated meaning of theft just to argue semantics. I think most rational people can agree that digital property works a little differently than physical property. The two are incomparable, as they are obviously and extremely different in how they exist, in the reasons they hold value, in how their value is quantified, and in the ways that additional time, energy, and money are involved in their creation and maintenance.

I wish I could see people discussing the actual subject matter, and not just focusing on imperfect analogies or irrelevant semantics.

It's so lame to copy some definition from a dictionary and leave it there unsupported as if it is an argument.

This is philosophy dictionary definitions are out the window. We are going way deeper than semantics.