11 ms·

Using drugs, "facilitating underage drinking" and even jaywalking are quite a bit different than stealing. You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if th

by watsix 14y ago

Using drugs, "facilitating underage drinking" and even jaywalking are quite a bit different than stealing. You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if that makes it ok, but you are stealing. It's a different form of stealing, but you do steal, you lack empathy for the act, and you are usually hurting the creators of that material in one way or another. Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble. You do steal, and you do hurt people. You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same.

icebraining 14y ago
"Stealing", as you call it, doesn't "hurt the creators of the material" any more than simply not buying does. In fact, if anything it helps: Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/vwapj/IndustryCanadaPaperMay4_2007_en.pdf/$FILE/IndustryCanadaPaperMay4_2007_en.pdf http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/vwapj/IndustryCan... You may say it's still wrong - and that's a valid opinion, 'though I don't share it - but "hurting the creators" is just false.
- watsix 14y ago
  That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's wrong in the same way that saying every single pirated copy of something results in lost revenue (as the MPAA and RIAA contend.) It might not be as wrong, but it's still wrong. And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digital-piracy-really https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit... In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.) Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt." So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.) It's valid to say that the creators have to suck it up and adapt, and that many of them won't be able to make money in the ways they did before. But they are getting hurt.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. First, downloading doesn't prevent purchasing. Secondly, otherwise how? Either you download it or you don't. Do you mean, if it wasn't available to download? But that's not the "stealing" part. That's uploading/sharing, which is a different issue. Thirdly, "hurting" potential sales is not inheritly wrong. In fact, that's what many - most? - startups try to do. And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit.... That's not a study, that's a joke. 30 movies of an extremely biased sample over just a three year period? I'd rather have a more global view of the movie industry: for example, the five years of consecutive record profits that the MPAA had right during the Bittorrent boom. In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.) Most studies are paid by the industry. It'd be extraordinary if they said otherwise. Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt." I'm pretty sure file sharers feel offended by your inacurate accusations too, but that didn't stop you. So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially Again, not buying is not buying. Whether you "pirate" or not is irrelevant - it doesn't affect the creator financially either way. and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.) And I'm pretty sure MS doesn't want me to install LibreOffice on "their" work. So what? We, content creators, are not gods that have a right to demand whatever we want from our users. Is it unethical to lend or sell your car if e.g. Toyota doesn't want you to?
    - dorian-graph 14y ago
      Downloading and consuming some content removes the primary reason of purchasing something—to consume that content. Now, the ideas of people on here and in the tech world in general really can't be further than that of those in the 'outside world.' When people I know who aren't technical people speak of downloading stuff many often make note of how awesome it is to consume something without having to pay for it. Not paying. It's a big deal to a lot of people who pirate.
Agart 14y ago
How is it stealing if you're not taking anything away from anyone?
tomp 14y ago
I'm not hurting them - I would never have bought what they are selling. I'm just letting them benefit me, and thus increasing the level of happiness in this world.
- notJim 14y ago
  You're saying that if tomorrow you could no longer download movies, music and tv shows for free, you would simply stop consuming all of these things?
  - tomp 14y ago
    Most, yes. We would still have YouTube, though. Actually, I bought 1 CD this year, Parov Stelar's Princess, that I would have bought regardless, but that's about it.
    - notJim 14y ago
      > Most, yes. Then the answer to my question is “no.” Even if you would stop, I don't think most pirates would. They'd probably consume less, and be a lot more discriminating, but I do think they would buy.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >you would simply stop consuming all of these things // If he continues to consume those things at the same level (ie spends the same amount of money on them) then the argument still stands IMO. I've seen articles saying that those who download a lot are often also ones who consume at higher levels; a movie buff can spend a huge amount of income on movies and still torrent. Removing the torrenting won't necessarily increase the amount spent, indeed it could decrease it under models that come readily to mind.
  - yoasif_ 14y ago
    Libraries do still exist.
    - 14y ago
cncool 14y ago
It's clearly not stealing.
laughinghan 14y ago
You make one good point, but I think you overall misunderstand my stance. Firstly, You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if that makes it ok... I don't think not stealing makes piracy ok, and I didn't say so. What I mean, and what I tried to say, was that I haven't decided whether I think piracy is ethical or not, and I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the forseeable future. ...but you are stealing. It's a different form of stealing, but you do steal...and you are usually hurting the creators of that material in one way or another. ... You do steal, and you do hurt people. In my eyes (and maybe this is unreasonable of me, anyone else?), you lose credibility when you state, as fact, your own opinions that you know other people disagree on. The fact that everyone agrees on, is that you believe pirating is stealing, and that it hurts creators. Whether your belief is true or not, is not a fact that the participants of this discussion all agree on or stipulate too. ...you lack empathy for the act... Minor point, but I don't think this makes sense, as a statement. My understanding of empathy is that it's possible to have empathy and do harm, if you don't realize you're doing harm and hence even though you would empathize, you don't. So I'm not lacking empathy "for the act", whatever you mean by that, but rather I think you mean that I don't realize I'm hurting people, as you say in the next part of your sentence. Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble. I had trouble phrasing this, since I had two things to say about me saying "it's wrong": I wanted to both contrast with saying "clearly unethical", and explain how I would go further. To clarify, I definitely did not mean I would "go no further", in fact I later went further, and said I'd say it's wrong because it's hurtful, and I don't like being hurt. Now, the one good point you made: Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. [...] You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same. Well, yes and no. Would I ever beat and murder women if it were "socially acceptable" to? I want to think I wouldn't, but I don't know that, and you don't know that you wouldn't. A couple decades ago, in some of those United States, bus drivers made anyone who was visibly of African-American descent sit in the back. Was that unethical? I think we all agree it was. Was the bus driver an unethical person? Well, we sure don't punish everyone who ever engaged in acts that we now consider unethical but engaged in them simply because it was socially acceptable at the time, like these bus drivers. I want to believe that everything I do that's socially acceptable is ethical in some absolute sense, and that all those things that are socially acceptable that I don't think we should do (and don't do) are unethical in some absolute sense, but both of those things are almost certainly false. For those things that are unethical but I don't realize and do anyway because they're socially acceptable, how is "socially acceptable" not a justification? Surely it's unreasonable to expect me to know what is absolutely ethical and what isn't.

by watsix 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago

"Stealing", as you call it, doesn't "hurt the creators of the material" any more than simply not buying does. In fact, if anything it helps: Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/vwapj/IndustryCanadaPaperMay4_2007_en.pdf/$FILE/IndustryCanadaPaperMay4_2007_en.pdf http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/vwapj/IndustryCan... You may say it's still wrong - and that's a valid opinion, 'though I don't share it - but "hurting the creators" is just false.

watsix 14y ago
That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's wrong in the same way that saying every single pirated copy of something results in lost revenue (as the MPAA and RIAA contend.) It might not be as wrong, but it's still wrong. And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digital-piracy-really https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit... In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.) Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt." So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.) It's valid to say that the creators have to suck it up and adapt, and that many of them won't be able to make money in the ways they did before. But they are getting hurt.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. First, downloading doesn't prevent purchasing. Secondly, otherwise how? Either you download it or you don't. Do you mean, if it wasn't available to download? But that's not the "stealing" part. That's uploading/sharing, which is a different issue. Thirdly, "hurting" potential sales is not inheritly wrong. In fact, that's what many - most? - startups try to do. And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-digit.... That's not a study, that's a joke. 30 movies of an extremely biased sample over just a three year period? I'd rather have a more global view of the movie industry: for example, the five years of consecutive record profits that the MPAA had right during the Bittorrent boom. In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.) Most studies are paid by the industry. It'd be extraordinary if they said otherwise. Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt." I'm pretty sure file sharers feel offended by your inacurate accusations too, but that didn't stop you. So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially Again, not buying is not buying. Whether you "pirate" or not is irrelevant - it doesn't affect the creator financially either way. and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.) And I'm pretty sure MS doesn't want me to install LibreOffice on "their" work. So what? We, content creators, are not gods that have a right to demand whatever we want from our users. Is it unethical to lend or sell your car if e.g. Toyota doesn't want you to?
  - dorian-graph 14y ago
    Downloading and consuming some content removes the primary reason of purchasing something—to consume that content. Now, the ideas of people on here and in the tech world in general really can't be further than that of those in the 'outside world.' When people I know who aren't technical people speak of downloading stuff many often make note of how awesome it is to consume something without having to pay for it. Not paying. It's a big deal to a lot of people who pirate.

Agart 14y ago

How is it stealing if you're not taking anything away from anyone?

tomp 14y ago

I'm not hurting them - I would never have bought what they are selling. I'm just letting them benefit me, and thus increasing the level of happiness in this world.

notJim 14y ago
You're saying that if tomorrow you could no longer download movies, music and tv shows for free, you would simply stop consuming all of these things?
- tomp 14y ago
  Most, yes. We would still have YouTube, though. Actually, I bought 1 CD this year, Parov Stelar's Princess, that I would have bought regardless, but that's about it.
  - notJim 14y ago
    > Most, yes. Then the answer to my question is “no.” Even if you would stop, I don't think most pirates would. They'd probably consume less, and be a lot more discriminating, but I do think they would buy.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >you would simply stop consuming all of these things // If he continues to consume those things at the same level (ie spends the same amount of money on them) then the argument still stands IMO. I've seen articles saying that those who download a lot are often also ones who consume at higher levels; a movie buff can spend a huge amount of income on movies and still torrent. Removing the torrenting won't necessarily increase the amount spent, indeed it could decrease it under models that come readily to mind.
- yoasif_ 14y ago
  Libraries do still exist.
  - 14y ago

cncool 14y ago

It's clearly not stealing.

laughinghan 14y ago

You make one good point, but I think you overall misunderstand my stance. Firstly, You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if that makes it ok... I don't think not stealing makes piracy ok, and I didn't say so. What I mean, and what I tried to say, was that I haven't decided whether I think piracy is ethical or not, and I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the forseeable future. ...but you are stealing. It's a different form of stealing, but you do steal...and you are usually hurting the creators of that material in one way or another. ... You do steal, and you do hurt people. In my eyes (and maybe this is unreasonable of me, anyone else?), you lose credibility when you state, as fact, your own opinions that you know other people disagree on. The fact that everyone agrees on, is that you believe pirating is stealing, and that it hurts creators. Whether your belief is true or not, is not a fact that the participants of this discussion all agree on or stipulate too. ...you lack empathy for the act... Minor point, but I don't think this makes sense, as a statement. My understanding of empathy is that it's possible to have empathy and do harm, if you don't realize you're doing harm and hence even though you would empathize, you don't. So I'm not lacking empathy "for the act", whatever you mean by that, but rather I think you mean that I don't realize I'm hurting people, as you say in the next part of your sentence. Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble. I had trouble phrasing this, since I had two things to say about me saying "it's wrong": I wanted to both contrast with saying "clearly unethical", and explain how I would go further. To clarify, I definitely did not mean I would "go no further", in fact I later went further, and said I'd say it's wrong because it's hurtful, and I don't like being hurt. Now, the one good point you made: Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. [...] You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same. Well, yes and no. Would I ever beat and murder women if it were "socially acceptable" to? I want to think I wouldn't, but I don't know that, and you don't know that you wouldn't. A couple decades ago, in some of those United States, bus drivers made anyone who was visibly of African-American descent sit in the back. Was that unethical? I think we all agree it was. Was the bus driver an unethical person? Well, we sure don't punish everyone who ever engaged in acts that we now consider unethical but engaged in them simply because it was socially acceptable at the time, like these bus drivers. I want to believe that everything I do that's socially acceptable is ethical in some absolute sense, and that all those things that are socially acceptable that I don't think we should do (and don't do) are unethical in some absolute sense, but both of those things are almost certainly false. For those things that are unethical but I don't realize and do anyway because they're socially acceptable, how is "socially acceptable" not a justification? Surely it's unreasonable to expect me to know what is absolutely ethical and what isn't.