4 ms·

Actually, in many places (specially what we call '1st world countries'), removing the 'morals' makes almost all theft rational economic choices. This doesn't ma

by mtoledo 17y ago

Actually, in many places (specially what we call '1st world countries'), removing the 'morals' makes almost all theft rational economic choices. This doesn't make people steal the small store where they are not looking at you. That would make them thieves. Pirates, though, don't feel like they are thieves, and that's the point, not the economics. They think 'if I copy this' that other person won't lose his copy' and 'I wouldn't have bought that if it wasn't available for free'. These are the rationalizations people do, not 'its cheaper stealing this and risking getting caught than buying it'. Most don't think 'stealing' and 'pirating' belong together. Therefore, it doesn't really inflict the same 'moral' cost you suggest.

rms 17y ago
Involuntary, inhumane incarceration threatens actual thieves. Those that collate stealing and piracy are wrong; it's just a cheap rhetorical point they use because it takes too many words to dispute. Moral values should come into play only at a meta-level, because we can only ever talk about economic models rather than the reality that economics doesn't actually describe. Morals do function as a modifying factor in the model of the overall willingness of people to donate to artists for recorded music. BitTorrent pirates are never ordered to jail, except maybe the Pirate bay guys, but I don't think anyone expects them to actually serve any time.
ewjordan 17y ago
You bring up a very important point. Some people do associate zero moral cost with piracy. They simply don't believe that music (games, software, etc.) should be paid for, and they're never going to, but they think it has value and want it anyways. These people make up a loud piracy background noise that companies selling bytes need to learn to ignore, rather than focus on as if it's money taken out of their pockets. They are not lost sales, there's nothing that can be done to convert them to sales, and unless/until they change on their own, they won't stop pirating your stuff. It's the rest of us, the ones that have a bit of money and feel bad when we take for free something that for whatever reason we feel deserves to be paid for, that need to be focused on. Fixed price points do a spectacularly bad job at serving the sections of the market that agree that something should be paid, but don't happen to think the charged prices are reasonable. It's these people who are relevant to the argument I posted above, and there's a lot of money there that's being lost.
- mtoledo 17y ago
  I have to say that I'd need more time in order to properly think through your argument right now, and I don't have such time at the moment. But the first thing that comes to mind is that no, these people shouldn't be ignored. This feels like saying "the very big thieves are always gonna be thieves, lets not worry about that. Instead, lets focus on the occasional thieves". You might argue that since the items are not being lost, that doesn't have an impact, but I digress. There is no way to tell what would really be the pirate's action were him totally prohibited from pirating. What would he do.. pay for the stuff he likes, turn to a new hobby? Sit still thinking about all the things he is not doing? We can't know.

by mtoledo 17y ago

rms 17y ago

Involuntary, inhumane incarceration threatens actual thieves. Those that collate stealing and piracy are wrong; it's just a cheap rhetorical point they use because it takes too many words to dispute. Moral values should come into play only at a meta-level, because we can only ever talk about economic models rather than the reality that economics doesn't actually describe. Morals do function as a modifying factor in the model of the overall willingness of people to donate to artists for recorded music. BitTorrent pirates are never ordered to jail, except maybe the Pirate bay guys, but I don't think anyone expects them to actually serve any time.

ewjordan 17y ago

You bring up a very important point. Some people do associate zero moral cost with piracy. They simply don't believe that music (games, software, etc.) should be paid for, and they're never going to, but they think it has value and want it anyways. These people make up a loud piracy background noise that companies selling bytes need to learn to ignore, rather than focus on as if it's money taken out of their pockets. They are not lost sales, there's nothing that can be done to convert them to sales, and unless/until they change on their own, they won't stop pirating your stuff. It's the rest of us, the ones that have a bit of money and feel bad when we take for free something that for whatever reason we feel deserves to be paid for, that need to be focused on. Fixed price points do a spectacularly bad job at serving the sections of the market that agree that something should be paid, but don't happen to think the charged prices are reasonable. It's these people who are relevant to the argument I posted above, and there's a lot of money there that's being lost.

mtoledo 17y ago
I have to say that I'd need more time in order to properly think through your argument right now, and I don't have such time at the moment. But the first thing that comes to mind is that no, these people shouldn't be ignored. This feels like saying "the very big thieves are always gonna be thieves, lets not worry about that. Instead, lets focus on the occasional thieves". You might argue that since the items are not being lost, that doesn't have an impact, but I digress. There is no way to tell what would really be the pirate's action were him totally prohibited from pirating. What would he do.. pay for the stuff he likes, turn to a new hobby? Sit still thinking about all the things he is not doing? We can't know.