4 ms·

I'm going to be honest with all of you. You all are doing something that is ethically and morally wrong and statements like this are only way too human attempts

I'm going to be honest with all of you. You all are doing something that is ethically and morally wrong and statements like this are only way too human attempts to justify the actions of things you know are clearly wrong. You can't find legal sources of swing manouche just like you can't find legal sources of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da vinci. What are you going to do? make a counterfeit copy of the Mona Lisa then buy tickets to the art museum to absolve you of all crimes? That being said I use popcorn time and stremio and torrents regularly. The difference is, I don't justify my crimes. I'm aware of what I'm doing, I don't need to live in a universe that is a self created moral illusion. I likely will do something unethical if I could hide it and it made economic sense. I am human and, morally, I am imperfect, but unlike most of you, morally, I am aware of my imperfections and I don't try to construct logical scaffolding to lie to myself and others. I can pirate because most people pay for the things I pirate, such a model is only sustainable if most people don't do what I do. Things like popcorn time threaten to change the balance. If you want to save the world or do better for the world, do not assume that the world is as described by our parent poster pachico. It's not intelligent to assume that people are going to use popcorn time then purchase Netflix to offset some of that guilt (still a crime btw). Assume the world is made out of people who are as pachico really is.. people who are morally grey but make up lies and illusions to comfort themselves into thinking they are justified in their crimes. I stopped pirating games 10 years ago when my salary crossed a threshold where it wasn't worth my time anymore to pirate a game vs. the convenience to buy it from steam. The way to combat piracy is to create systems that appeal to the previous aforementioned logic. Spotify was a step in the right direction but it eliminated much of the huge profits made by the music industry. Perhaps those profits were ludicrously too large anyway. Either way, the way forward isn't trying to justify your crimes. It's admitting that hey, we are victims of the tragedy of the commons, we use popcorn time because it's free and easy to use... to combat this situation you either need to take steps to destroy this product or come up with something way better.

pachico 7y ago
My specific case was live albums of a band named Waso, which were never printed in CD. The only digital copies were fans that owned original vinil records from the '70s and digitalised them. What do you do in this case? I remember downloading a copy of them and not feeling any kind of remorse about it. Not sure it helps but I was myself a musician and my brother plays too as is his only source of income. I know a bit of the industry.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Well let's put it this way, does the artist as the the creator of said art permit you to do such a thing? If the artist is okay with it great! But if the artist is not okay with at all does he own the rights to the art he created? Does he have the right to permit you not to copy his things? That is the ethical question. Did you have the right to do it without asking the artist for permission? What if one day the artist did actually want to make a profit off his work?
  - pachico 7y ago
    This is not an ethical question, again, this is, at most, a legal question.
pachico 7y ago
You seem to be quite sure about the type of person I am and defining me grey is quite insulting but that's beyond what is being discussed here. You seem to have missed what I wrote a out having accounts of Spotify and 3 video streaming services. I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day. Don't make it profound. Make it simple. The kid couldn't find the album so he DLed it illegally. The kid is aware of this illegality at some level. That awareness is how simple the situation actually is. The profoundness arises when someone tries to justify the situation. I use the word ethics and morals as one would use it in common english parlance about discussions of such matters, I am not asking for a philosophical definition of said terms.
  - pachico 7y ago
    Here's where you are wrong, also: it wasn't illegal (at least at the time - now I don't know since I don't download stuff). So, being that the case, all your profound, simple, philosophical or vague attempts to find this illegal, and therefore wrong, are useless, I'm afraid. As pointed by someone also, you seem to argue that illegal follows wrong but that's not granted. Legality is an attempt to out in practice a certain amount of ideas about what right and wrong is by a certain society at a given time in history, that's all.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      I didn't make anything profound or philosiphical that's just you. I'm conflating illegality, morality and ethics into a singular simple concept: What you did is wrong plain and simple, and you're aware of it. What's going on with your 'philosophy' now is a complicated attempt at justification.
pachico 7y ago
For the sake of argument, I'm contemplating the idea of counterfeiting Mona Lisa, as you say. I can't see anything wrong with it if it's for my own personal pleasure and I'm not hurting anyone. Don't forget copyright is a human construct and is far from being perfect. Also the amount of years after which art becomes public is human made and totally arbitrary. Why not 2 years? Why not 500 years? Ethics are not in the game here, I'm afraid. I'd like you to reply but please, restrain yourself from insults this time. Thanks
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Ok it's not wrong from a very technical sense for the mona lisa. I obviously meant forgery, where you claim the painting is an actual mona lisa... but Who cares? That's not my point. My point is what you're doing is wrong and you know it on some level.
psychlops 7y ago
Without disagreeing with what you wrote, you are conflating ethical and moral with legal and criminal. They are not the same and it makes it difficult to understand the foundation upon which you rest.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  You're right, I didn't want to get into a philosophical argument on technicalities. That wasn't the point. The point is that a lot of these technicalities are self constructed justifications. Illusions and lies we tell ourselves to cope with our imperfection. I conflate because I don't care about the technicalities, I'm talking about something primal and simple. In its most simplistic form, this is what I mean: If I create a work of art to make money or even for just limited showings and you copy it and distribute it without my permission, than you are doing something wrong and you know it. That's all. My argument is saying that anything on top of that is an attempt to justify your actions.
degski 7y ago
I fully agree with you on all points except: "still a crime btw". 'pirating' on this small scale without a direct financial benefit [money coming towards you] is a violation of the copyright act(s) and you would end up in civil court.
shadowprofile77 7y ago
Your argument about the Mona Lisa i absurd. You can indeed make as many copies of her as you like and even sell them or put them on paid display to others (if they'll even pay to see it) and it's not in the least bit illegal, as long as you don't claim they're the original. It doesn't fit this scenario. Secondly, you first accuse a bunch of people here of moral infringements then plainly state that you yourself commit piracy, but that it's somehow better, because you don't "justify" your "crimes". You actually do, by saying it's less morally wrong because you're "aware" of your actions. Quite a shit mix of contradictions.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >You actually do, by saying it's less morally wrong because you're "aware" of your actions. This is an utter lie. I never said this. Me being aware of my actions does NOT make any of my actions more moral. I never said this. You are either lying or delusional. I'm actually a very high scorer on the psychopathy spectrum. The official term is antisocial disorder. This means I am technically less moral than most people. Me being aware of my actions only makes me aware of my actions and my morality and who I actually am as a person. That's it. >as long as you don't claim they're the original. It doesn't fit this scenario. You're getting into technicalities. Let me put it simply. It fits. I'm talking about the general notion and feeling about plagiarism. This is the ENTIRE point of my conversation. Copying something without permission is in general wrong. There are cases where if the author is dead for over a century then things may feel gray, but who cares. I don't want to get into technicalities because I don't care for the technicalities and neither do you. We all are aware of the cases there's no need to argue about it. If you want to argue about how a "technicality" makes the original posters plagiarism correct than don't care yo have that conversation because it's a waste of my time.

pachico 7y ago

My specific case was live albums of a band named Waso, which were never printed in CD. The only digital copies were fans that owned original vinil records from the '70s and digitalised them. What do you do in this case? I remember downloading a copy of them and not feeling any kind of remorse about it. Not sure it helps but I was myself a musician and my brother plays too as is his only source of income. I know a bit of the industry.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Well let's put it this way, does the artist as the the creator of said art permit you to do such a thing? If the artist is okay with it great! But if the artist is not okay with at all does he own the rights to the art he created? Does he have the right to permit you not to copy his things? That is the ethical question. Did you have the right to do it without asking the artist for permission? What if one day the artist did actually want to make a profit off his work?
- pachico 7y ago
  This is not an ethical question, again, this is, at most, a legal question.

pachico 7y ago

You seem to be quite sure about the type of person I am and defining me grey is quite insulting but that's beyond what is being discussed here. You seem to have missed what I wrote a out having accounts of Spotify and 3 video streaming services. I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>I am also tempted to tell you that you might want to revise you usage of the words morally and ethically and that these are probably more profound than to be applied to a kid wanting to buy an album but failed to find it. Having said this, have a good day. Don't make it profound. Make it simple. The kid couldn't find the album so he DLed it illegally. The kid is aware of this illegality at some level. That awareness is how simple the situation actually is. The profoundness arises when someone tries to justify the situation. I use the word ethics and morals as one would use it in common english parlance about discussions of such matters, I am not asking for a philosophical definition of said terms.
- pachico 7y ago
  Here's where you are wrong, also: it wasn't illegal (at least at the time - now I don't know since I don't download stuff). So, being that the case, all your profound, simple, philosophical or vague attempts to find this illegal, and therefore wrong, are useless, I'm afraid. As pointed by someone also, you seem to argue that illegal follows wrong but that's not granted. Legality is an attempt to out in practice a certain amount of ideas about what right and wrong is by a certain society at a given time in history, that's all.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    I didn't make anything profound or philosiphical that's just you. I'm conflating illegality, morality and ethics into a singular simple concept: What you did is wrong plain and simple, and you're aware of it. What's going on with your 'philosophy' now is a complicated attempt at justification.

pachico 7y ago

For the sake of argument, I'm contemplating the idea of counterfeiting Mona Lisa, as you say. I can't see anything wrong with it if it's for my own personal pleasure and I'm not hurting anyone. Don't forget copyright is a human construct and is far from being perfect. Also the amount of years after which art becomes public is human made and totally arbitrary. Why not 2 years? Why not 500 years? Ethics are not in the game here, I'm afraid. I'd like you to reply but please, restrain yourself from insults this time. Thanks

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Ok it's not wrong from a very technical sense for the mona lisa. I obviously meant forgery, where you claim the painting is an actual mona lisa... but Who cares? That's not my point. My point is what you're doing is wrong and you know it on some level.

psychlops 7y ago

Without disagreeing with what you wrote, you are conflating ethical and moral with legal and criminal. They are not the same and it makes it difficult to understand the foundation upon which you rest.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
You're right, I didn't want to get into a philosophical argument on technicalities. That wasn't the point. The point is that a lot of these technicalities are self constructed justifications. Illusions and lies we tell ourselves to cope with our imperfection. I conflate because I don't care about the technicalities, I'm talking about something primal and simple. In its most simplistic form, this is what I mean: If I create a work of art to make money or even for just limited showings and you copy it and distribute it without my permission, than you are doing something wrong and you know it. That's all. My argument is saying that anything on top of that is an attempt to justify your actions.

degski 7y ago

I fully agree with you on all points except: "still a crime btw". 'pirating' on this small scale without a direct financial benefit [money coming towards you] is a violation of the copyright act(s) and you would end up in civil court.

shadowprofile77 7y ago

Your argument about the Mona Lisa i absurd. You can indeed make as many copies of her as you like and even sell them or put them on paid display to others (if they'll even pay to see it) and it's not in the least bit illegal, as long as you don't claim they're the original. It doesn't fit this scenario. Secondly, you first accuse a bunch of people here of moral infringements then plainly state that you yourself commit piracy, but that it's somehow better, because you don't "justify" your "crimes". You actually do, by saying it's less morally wrong because you're "aware" of your actions. Quite a shit mix of contradictions.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>You actually do, by saying it's less morally wrong because you're "aware" of your actions. This is an utter lie. I never said this. Me being aware of my actions does NOT make any of my actions more moral. I never said this. You are either lying or delusional. I'm actually a very high scorer on the psychopathy spectrum. The official term is antisocial disorder. This means I am technically less moral than most people. Me being aware of my actions only makes me aware of my actions and my morality and who I actually am as a person. That's it. >as long as you don't claim they're the original. It doesn't fit this scenario. You're getting into technicalities. Let me put it simply. It fits. I'm talking about the general notion and feeling about plagiarism. This is the ENTIRE point of my conversation. Copying something without permission is in general wrong. There are cases where if the author is dead for over a century then things may feel gray, but who cares. I don't want to get into technicalities because I don't care for the technicalities and neither do you. We all are aware of the cases there's no need to argue about it. If you want to argue about how a "technicality" makes the original posters plagiarism correct than don't care yo have that conversation because it's a waste of my time.