6 ms·

In the case, the OP already paid for it and can't get a refund, so the thing they paid for is being stolen from them. Meanwhile, some helpful people on the Inte

In the case, the OP already paid for it and can't get a refund, so the thing they paid for is being stolen from them. Meanwhile, some helpful people on the Internet will--for free--give them the original that they paid for. That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? The publisher decided to specifically ensure that they couldn't be a customer by specifically going out of their way to make it be incompatible with their hardware/OS. So the choices are skipping, or to receive a free, working copy from someone else, so they aren't using any of the publishers resources or affecting them in any way. Why is option 2 morally bad in any way?

falcolas 3y ago
I think you're right in one aspect, if the product is changed out from under us when it's been purchased, finding a working copy is acceptable. > That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally. So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person. Anyways, that's my rant.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  If you can't buy a working product, then the counterfactual to piracy is that you are not a customer and do something else. You yourself suggested they do something else, not that they do something like go buy a windows computer to run it. Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? How does that choice affect developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth? None of them are getting paid in either situation. Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others. Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy. > Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      I'm not making a claim that no one who pirates would have purchased. I'm addressing the reasoning behind "if you're not going to buy it, you should abstain". In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something (e.g. because the version that's for sale will not work, or requires some unacceptable rootkit to run), then why still abstain? It feels to me like that's just appealing to some self-congratulatory puritan ethic. Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Literally no one is affected by your abstention. Sitting in a quiet room isn't going to put food on the tables of artists.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        > In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something How much of that decision is driven by the ready availability of a pirated version of the product? If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place? > Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Particularly when it comes to entertainment, nobody is born with an inherit right to someone else's labor. Copyright is just the legal manifestation of this as applied to non-physical products. Even if nobody is "harmed" (I still consider this specious), nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book. What they are entitled to is accessing those in ways the actor/developer/writer have approved. And if they don't have an approved method for someone, well, that's just lost revenue for them; it's not a pass to obtain the product by any means available. As an aside, "go stare at the clouds" is just shy of reductio ad absurdum, since as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them. Much simpler to pick up one of those instead.

falcolas 3y ago

I think you're right in one aspect, if the product is changed out from under us when it's been purchased, finding a working copy is acceptable. > That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally. So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person. Anyways, that's my rant.

ndriscoll 3y ago
If you can't buy a working product, then the counterfactual to piracy is that you are not a customer and do something else. You yourself suggested they do something else, not that they do something like go buy a windows computer to run it. Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? How does that choice affect developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth? None of them are getting paid in either situation. Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
- falcolas 3y ago
  > Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others. Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy. > Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    I'm not making a claim that no one who pirates would have purchased. I'm addressing the reasoning behind "if you're not going to buy it, you should abstain". In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something (e.g. because the version that's for sale will not work, or requires some unacceptable rootkit to run), then why still abstain? It feels to me like that's just appealing to some self-congratulatory puritan ethic. Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Literally no one is affected by your abstention. Sitting in a quiet room isn't going to put food on the tables of artists.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      > In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something How much of that decision is driven by the ready availability of a pirated version of the product? If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place? > Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Particularly when it comes to entertainment, nobody is born with an inherit right to someone else's labor. Copyright is just the legal manifestation of this as applied to non-physical products. Even if nobody is "harmed" (I still consider this specious), nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book. What they are entitled to is accessing those in ways the actor/developer/writer have approved. And if they don't have an approved method for someone, well, that's just lost revenue for them; it's not a pass to obtain the product by any means available. As an aside, "go stare at the clouds" is just shy of reductio ad absurdum, since as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them. Much simpler to pick up one of those instead.