Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

We're butting heads, so this will be the Last thing I say. Theft and murder are universal absolutes. The fact that some people and some cultures choose to ignore or redefine the terms to ease their concseince merely means those people and cultures are immoral.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

So now you are being an elitist. My culture is better than yours, huh? Why is that? Where do you get the right to judge other cultures? Why is your view so much better?

[ July 11, 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

So Geo. If morals are absolute, your opinion then is most just don't know what moral is?

I'm thinking of all the fun cultures that think women or "not us" races having equal rights is immoral here, for example..

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

We can talk of other cultures if you want to. If you want a good conversation for comparison let’s discuss Adultery / Infidelity / Cheating. Different cultures have very different takes on those. I fall into the Category: If you don’t have permission it is cheating. This carries over into any violation of my integrity. I was not always like this.

I am not a god and do not claim the right to judge others. Still, I ask, for those who believe it is right to violate the EULA, do you believe it is right to cheat on your girl friend / wife / etc….

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

People can make money off their software by offering a service that requires a fee. Software can be copied, the service cannot. Pay-per-turn games, monthly-subscription Online games and subscription-based antivirus software all operate on this model. I am not an expert but I'd say those kinds of media don't get pirated too often.

In a similar way, you can buy a pirate DVD, but if you want to watch it on the big screen you have to go to a movie theatre.

I won't go so far as to say that all copyable content should be free, but I believe it will ultimately become cheap enough to drive the pirates out of business. Notice I didn't say 'should', I said WILL. The pressure from the competition - illegal though it may be - is just too great.

I bought many of my games years after they were released, when their price had fallen to the $5-$8 range. The enjoyment is the same, I know I won't be throwing my money away and there are no moral issues involved. I am never the first guy on the block to have the latest game but I make up for that by being the ONLY guy on the block that owns some of the more obscure ones. Now I believe I'll see the day when games are released for $15 or even $10. Not all games - the ones made by big-name companies will still be expensive - but the potential is there for a different type of product. It's only a matter of time.

Gryphin : While I did violate the EULA, I do not defend my actions. I now understand that it was wrong and why.

[ July 11, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. I believe that EULA's are frequently unfair and unenforcable contracts which one side is trying to impose even if the other side hasn't read it, and are therefore invalid.

"By opening this paper envelope, you agree to a 10-page contract written in legalese which says any document you write with our word processor becomes our intellectual property. It doesn't matter that we can't possibly prove that anyone in particular opened the envelope, installed the software, or even knows this warning or the contract exist. We just own it all. Go hire a lawyer at $200/hour if you want to dispute this claim, otherwise, we ownz u, and anyone who might use our software under any circumstances."

B.S.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Norton Anti-Virus does because the 2002 Version allows you to get a free 1 year subscription and has 0 real identity checking, and it still works to this day! You can no longer get the program off of Norton's web site, but it can be found elsewhere.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they are universal absolutes. But, what is theft and what is murder is not absolute. What the view on the good/evil nature of these actions is not absoulte. This is where the relative nature of morality comes into play.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

They left a hole in their system and are suffering the consequence. This model needs identity checking, or you're back to square one.

I use McAfee. My bad luck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allright, I have to answer theese I suppose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am not talking about culture, I am talking about morals. As long as you culture doesn't violate morality there is nothing wrong with it. Even if it does I am not appointing myself judge jury and executioner here. I am not advocating some kind of forced adherance to my set of values. But I am also not going to simply click my teeth and say it's ok when it's not.

While we are at it Fyron though, you were the one who dreged up this whole discussion in the first place. You brought up the issue of morality. You asked if it was morally right. When I said it wasn't you started the tangent about what basis I have to say whose morals are right. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Once again I am not appointing myself the judge of all cultures. And I don't think most things that make up a culture fall into the Category of morals. But I would have to say that not treating all human beings as equals regardless of race or gender is immoral. Wouldn't you agree? Most reasonable people would.

Even in soceities where minorities are oppresed they redefine the terms as Fyron is attempting to do in order to justify it. They will also objectify the members of the oppresed class as a group. Almost universally though when dealing with an idnividual on a one on one basis they will instinctively have a realization that they are equals. This is why upper classes work so hard to keep the others "in their place", so that it's easier to avoid the damage to their own humanity that comes with relializing the person you are mistreating is a person just like you.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 22:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I have redefined no terms. I have only stated that the practices of morality in different cultures are not the same.

Also, I will have to repeat myself by saying that my original question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with US culture. Within a culture, morality is absolute. But outside of that culture, its moral values are not absolute, and they vary from culture to culture. I was never talking about oppressive cultures, but about morality in general. There are a near-infinite amounts of variations on moral issues that have nothing to do with oppression or killing.

The tangent I started was not related to the original question (as it was not asking about moral values in other cultures, just US culture), but to your statement that moraliy is absolutely static, which it is most certainly not.

[ July 11, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they are universal absolutes. But, what is theft and what is murder is not absolute. What the view on the good/evil nature of these actions is not absoulte. This is where the relative nature of morality comes into play.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, then. This is a deep comment and not one that is easily dismissed I will agree. However, you yourself in your original statment established your acceptance that the practice was illegal. You even defined it as piracy, a statment I wouldn't neccesarily so so far as to say.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You also later sought to keep the discussion on the issue of moarlity for our culture in the United States...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So by your own statements making copies and distributing them is illegal. If it is illegal is it not theft? Are you saying it's illegal by some other basis but it is not theft? Is that how it can be illegal and not immoral?

Or are you sayign that theft is not immoral according to broad US culture?

I am not that suprised you are having problems with this though. These are the sorts of conundrums you find yourself in when you don't have moral absolutes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Damn it... I guess you didn't see the "PLEASE WAIT" sign...

Geo, the very nature of your previous Posts directly implied that you were judging other cultural views and asserting that yours is absolutely superior (which you continue to do in the latter part of your Last post).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a prime example. Most moral issues have absolutely nothing to do with redefining terms or ignoring your specific (and relative) moral values, or with easing the conscience. Moral values are not absolute. You only think that their concseince needs easing because their views conflict with your own. I am sorry that everyone in the world does not think as you do.

In the past in European cultures, it was considered morally acceptable to marry at ages of around 14. In the US, this is generally found to be apprehensible (statutory rape and such applies here). Does that mean that those ancient European cultures were immoral? Did they redefine any terms? Did they attempt to ease their conscience? No, to all of the above. Going the other way, does that mean that we here in the US are immoral because we view it as wrong to marry under 18? Have we redefined any terms to attempt to ease our conscience? No. This is a good example of the relative nature of morality that directly contradicts your claims. Who is to say which view is the more morally correct one? You have made the claim that you have that right indirectly through the nature of your Posts. And then you attempt to backpeddle away from this by claiming you are not able to judge, but you already have done so.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.

But watch your tone in the future.I had started my second post before your had completed your post, much less put in your "edit in progress" comment. It wasn't there for me to see, "damn it". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

First off, note that I often play devil's advocate for the sake of debate. Not everything I post is actually a representation of my personal views. The relative nature of morality is, but not everything else is. This of course does not invalidate any post I have made, so please do not commit that fallacy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please note that I never once said whether making copies and distributing them is morally right or wrong. It is certainly illegal, but legal and moral are wholely unrelated concepts. They sometimes coincide, but that is more often than not coincidence, and is again all relative. Some laws are based on certain moral views, but those moral views are relative, and they change continuously with the passage of time. Actions that were immoral at one point are moral now, and vice versa. Right back to the relative nature of morality.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not saying either way. I am not talking about theft in general either, but a very specific action. The crux of the original question of the thread is whether it is immoral or not, which (like everything) is open to debate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have not had any problems, as I have not stated anything in regards to the morality of the action.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are having more conundrums than I am Geo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I am tired of going around and around with you on every single issue. You win.

But watch your tone in the future.I had started my second post before your had completed your post, much less put in your "edit in progress" comment. It wasn't there for me to see, "damn it". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I was writing a new post. I had posted the stuff I was going to edit in there as a new post, and got sidetracked from removing the "please wait" request. Don't be so impatient on ICQ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Also, there is nothing wrong with the tone of that sentence. I guess if you see something wrong with it that is from your particular view on ettiquite which, like morality, is entirely relative. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My view is that the word damn is not a wrong word to use. If you are offended by it, I am sorry, but it will remain.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bah. It was not my intention to "win", but to hold a debate.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Fyron, this time I actually followed you all the way through the argument. One of us is getting better at this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So now I'm curious, what ARE your views ? I knew you were playing devil's advocate back there with the 15000 copies post, but what is YOUR opinion ?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

EDIT:
As I was preparing my second post in this thread, (the one just before Geo’s), I realized this is not a matter of law or philosophy. It is a matter of morals
My first post came to the wrong conclusion.

I break rules all the time. I don’t violate persons intent that I have agreed to. Installing the game I agree to abide by the EULA.

-----------
This comes down to following the
Letter of the Law
Or
The intent of the Law

For the most part I have always followed the intent
The most important part I summarize on the Home page of my site:
“In my youth I was taught that first you must learn the rules, (and understand them), before you can break them. Later in life I developed the corollary, Sometimes you must break the rules before you can learn them, (and understand them)”

My understanding is the intent of the law would make Fyron’s concept legitimate.
In saying so I do not forget it is still ileagle.

[ July 11, 2003, 15:28: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bah. It was not my intention to "win", but to hold a debate.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL, heck Kazz, I'm in a mood tonight. What side of this do you want me to take.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

"There are probably thousands of possible alternate economic systems available to open-minded people, and economics is not my favorite subject. However my personal proposal would be that there would be a tax levied which would be somewhat less than the estimated average expenditure on the media which would be made free, based on the person's disposable income. Taxpayers could then voluntarily indicate which content creators they appreciated the most, and these creators would get compensated accordingly."

PvK, you've got to be kidding me. What you're proposing here is essentially taxing everyone so Joe Schmoe #41445 can watch his porn collection without having to pay for it first. I'll pass; we don't need yet ANOTHER level of government intervention (and there would be abuse of this system on that level as well)

The person who does nothing because he doesn't enjoy that kind of game, or whatever, shouldn't have to pay for those who do..

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Well, if I did not have a close connection with this 'friend' I would just direct them to the demo.

However if, for example, they lived with me and I could persuade, pester, and encourage them to purchase the game (on an almost daily basis), then I would probably make the loan. It all depends, really, on whether or not I think they will buy the game once they decide they like it.

Of course, this is an early morning interpretation of half-formed thoughts. Possibly more to follow...

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Perhaps the thread title should be changed ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correction, ettiquite unlike morality is entirely relative. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

You are free to believe how you wish. That may suprise you is one of the most important beliefs in my moral system. But just because you believe something does not change what is right and wrong. I said it before and I will repeat it because it is fundamental. Moraltiy is absolute. Morality has to be absolute by definition in order to be morality. Otherwise it is merely opinion and it is useless.

As a man of science I am sure you understand the need to have absolute points of referance in order to make any sort of measurments. Without them all your measurments are useless.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So by your definition morality is unaffected by upbringing and culture? I'm not sure i agree with you although i'm trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, in some cultures a man is allowed to have several wifes. It's not considered immoral. Here it is. So how can morality be absolute then?
I'm just trying to see your point of view here.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well there are plenty of variations and specifics to work out.

For the sake of simplicity, I was trying to express a way to support content creators without also proposing a change to the US tax system, which is awful in itself but seems quite off-topic. The current US system does all sorts of taxing for the purpose of providing services that not everyone uses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I didn't mean to directly endorse that specific system.

As an alternative model, the agency which disburses benefits to artists could be one which people Subscribe to voluntarily (e.g. A non-profit network which charges $200/year for DSL-type access to a huge network of content, and disburses the fees after infrastructure costs to content creators.). Or, it could be a tax, but one which only applies to Users of the media, by means of taxing equipment, network access, etc.). There are plenty of possible methods, as I said.

Even using the tax model I originally mentioned, however, it wouldn't be a case of people having to pay for items they didn't like. The appreciation voting would give people a great amount of control to reward the artists they actually liked, and not just the ones they used. Practically everyone would pay less annually for all media than they would under the current system, but their potential consumption of media would be nearly unlimited. You'd have to be someone who made more than you needed before you'd be paying media taxes, and then your taxes would support all media, which you and everyone could then enjoy without worrying about costs, so you could play all the games, listen to all the music, see all the films, read all the books, TV, radio, etc, that you wanted to, without specifically paying for any of it, and even if you were in a bracket to pay media tax, you'd be paying vastly less than you would if you had to pay for everything you used. Moreover, you could reward the artists you liked, and not get "fooled" by flashy marketting that turned out to be crap - they'd make enough not to starve, but not to roll in dough as they currently do.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps Pvk was right all along and it is merely a difference of definitions. When i say morality is absolute, I am not trying to say everything that anyone in the world says is moral or immoral is absolute. Not every facet of human behavior and interaction is something I would define as a moral issue. But I do believe there are certain fundamental issues of right and wrong that are moral issues. Stealing and murder are two of those. There are a few others, but not a lot. My moral code isn't exactly the Code of Hamurabi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The question at hand was not whether multiple wives is immoral or merely a cultural belief. The question was whether or not copying software was moral. I said it was not and then got roped into a discussion of whether or not anyone has the right to say whether anything is moral or not.

That is an evasive answer, but it's the best I can do. I am uncomfortable with the prospect of sitting in judgment of each and every possible rhetorical question about morals anyone wants to bring up.

Geoschmo

[ July 12, 2003, 02:14: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, you have missed my point entirely. Within a culture, moral values tend to be fairly stable, and thus approach absoluteness. The question was not whether it was morally correct or not in other cultures, but within the context of US culture. You made statements about wholely different issues on the relative/absolute nature of morality. This is an entirely separate issue from whether copying the game is morally correct or not. I did not ever once comment on your belief that copying it was immoral, just on the other parts of your post that made the (wrong) claim that morality is absolute.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a two-way street Geo. Just because you believe something does not make it right. Like your belief about morality being absolute.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it does not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Measurements of human nature tend to be rather useless.

[ July 12, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Geo,

now i know what you mean. I thought that was what you meant but wasn't sure. Oh, and you aren't being judged, it's just a discussion (wildly out of control http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )
It's all Fyrons fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take whatever side you want.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is what I said, you know (essentially). Whether stealing and murder are morally wrong or right is relative, depending on the culture in which you live. But, those are certainly absolutely moral issues in every culture. It is the specific value of them that is not absolute.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

OK a company sells CD burners. Same company sells recorded digital media. People use the recorders to copy and distribute the digital content. Said company now asks for protection from its customers who are purchasing burners to burn media. That’s kind of a strange situation IMHO. The company helped create the problem; shouldn’t they invest in a solution? Also, if a pier to pier provider makes it possible for people to easily break the law, would this come under the laws pertaining to public nuisance and disorderly enterprise. There is no threshold of intent to be met under these laws.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, should Microsloth discover that you possess 150,000 copies of your Windows CD they would probably sue, and argue that possession of so many copies indicates intent to distribute. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey there, I'm jumping in with a carefully snipped quote from Geo because it meshes well with my point of view.

Consider a "community" of hackers and software crackers, who've developed a "culture" of stealing software.

I think their culture is wrong. A bad culture. Bad. Bad. Bad. ... Bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I won't accept the premise that I have to respect that culture -- in my own mind.

I may not have any right to condemn it publicly, or act against it. After all myself or any group that holds similar convictions are as fallible as anyone other individual or group.

But I agree with Geo, the most basic fundamental rules of right and wrong shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I've said so before in a slightly different context. Link: Conceptually it is wrong.

I will agree that maybe stolen software registrations are hard to compare perfectly with a household burglary. And yes, the definition of killing gets messy when we consider warfare, government executions, and heck even the decision not to be a vegan.

But the Golden Rule works pretty good in many instances.

[ July 12, 2003, 03:20: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Technically, you are asking about ethics, not morality; ethics are rules of right and wrong (which is what you are asking); morals are how well those rules are followed. However, this distinction is seldom material, and more people don't get it than do get it, even in professional literature on the subject. I suppose then 'what exactly do those terms mean?' becomes a question of where language gets its meaning: from usage or from some concrete thing out there? I suppose it doesn't really matter - it's mostly a distinction without a difference.

As for what you are asking ... here's a little riddle to add fuel to the fire:

All ethics are absolute. All ethics are arbitrary. All ethics are applied universally.

These aren't actually contradictory, even though they first appear so.

An explanation:
Part 1) All ethics are absolute.
Ethics are rules, by definition. If the rules include a line saying that this situation or that situation or all situations are ethically fuzzy, then (for those rules) this situation or that situation or all situations are ethically fuzzy. Period. That's absolute, even though it leads to relative situations and variable conclusions about particular instances and general cases.

Part 2) All ethics are arbitrary.
If you take any ethic (any ethic at all - it doesn't matter which one or from what ethical system) and ask "why?" (and actually get a response, oc) you get an underlying principal of some kind (e.g. because of this other rule, because of these other rules, because of these principals, because X said so, because that's the way I feel, because that works the best, et cetera). If the response is one of the "because of X" where X is a principal or rule or principals or rules or any combination thereof (including X said so), you can ask "why" again (or an appropriet variant, such as "why should that be important?" for things that are obvious facts, as an example; "why should we follow what he/she/it/they said?" if an entity/group/person/being is referenced; or even "So why should logic matter?" if all else fails). You can repeat this process until one of several things happen: 1: Responses cease to be forthcoming. 2: The responses fall into a loop ("Why A?" "B" "Why B?" "C" "Why C?" "A"). 3: The response becomes one that is obviously arbitrary (e.g. "Because that's the way I feel" "It just is"). 4: The response becomes one of an emotional argument (e.g. "don't you feel that way?").
1 demonstrates that there isn't really a reason (no reason -> arbitrary), or that the responder has had enough of questions (no data one way or another; find a different respondant/starting question). 2 implies arbitrary as such loops are arbitrary (which loop to pick? There are theoretically an infinite number of such loops). 3 is obviously arbitrary by definition. With 4, it should be pointed out that different people/beings/Groups feel different ways; choosing which person's/being's/group's feelings is an arbitrary choice.
As long as case 1 doesn't happen, the ethic is arbitrary. If case 1 happens, there are a few sub-possibilities: a) there is no reason, thus it is arbitrary; b) the respondant doesn't know, and is trusting an arbitrary source; thus the ethic is arbitrary; c) the respondant is just tired of the questions/dead/gone/sleeping/whatever. 1c is just thrown in for completeness; it is rather immaterial. Cases of an eventual 1c are assumed to be arbitrary. I'll leave it up to a potential opponent to argue that it isn't.

Part 3: All ethics are applied universally.
Implicitly or explicitly, everyone has a system of ethics that they univerally apply. Note that an ethical system includes (implicitly or explicitly) how to deal with those who follow a different system (e.g. calling differences wrong or not).

Parts 1 and 2 aren't contradictory: arbitrary refers to the basis of the ethic while absolute refers to the ethic itself. Parts 2 and 3 aren't contradictory: arbitrary refers to the basis of the ethic while 'applied universally' refers to the judging actions and/or people.

Ethics are arbitrary, so when people disagree, debate doesn't cause agreement unless one side (A) can find something in the other side's (B's) ethics of more importance that supports A's Version (also requires that B's ethics include weighing contradictory ethics to rule one out for the situation in question; some ethical systems could allow for contradiction).
Barring that (also barring altering a person's stance by other means), agreement will not be reached on points of contention.

The original question was very clearly only to provoke comments, and so my absolute ruling on it is utterly unimportant, as I have now commented.

Perhaps I should have held off on the explanation in the interest of furthering discussion? Ahh well, it's done.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Ok, so I think when Geo says murder and stealing are wrong, that might translate to the "culturally correct" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif as "every human society defines some acts of killing and taking from others as wrong".

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Well, I'm jumping in a bit late, it seems...

So people don't have to read through six pages of stuff, like I just did, the original question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif :
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this specific situation, I don't really think it is immoral. From my view, to say otherwise is very close to saying it's immoral to letting the same friend play your copy, on YOUR computer. I don't think anyone would question the morality of bringing your computer to a friends' house to try out the game, with no copying issues. However, an option like that is not always feasible, so you bring the CD, install, try, uninstall.

I can't seem to find a copy of the SEIV EULA -- and I don't feel like digging out my CD and starting an install to read it -- but I will assume that it prohibits installing on someone else's computer without uninstalling on yours. So, yes, it's illegal. The morality of it, however, is different. Some have said that they already provide the demo, and that should provide for the trial instead of trying out someone else's complete copy, and it would be immoral to give something other than the demo to try out the game. But I wonder, when Shrapnel was at Origins, did the computer that had SEIV running have the Demo, or Gold? I would assume that since there was almost no risk of the copy on that computer going anywhere, that they would have put Gold on it; show off the full functionality of the product, and you have a better chance of getting a buyer. Letting my friend play the full Version has little chance of the game going anywhere else; if I had the slightest doubt that it would be distributed elsewhere, I would install, show off, and uninstall all in one sitting.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well it was the full Version. But as the publisher they have the right to make this decision. And regardless of whether your supposition is correct or not you really don't have the right to make that decision for you and your friends. I could agree with the suposition (I don't, but I could) that a fully enabled Version would generate more sales then a demo, but not being the developer or publisher I don't get the right to set their policies regarding the best way to gfenerate more sales.

The reason I don't agree with your suposition is that I believe that someone can tell in 100 turns if they like the game or not enough to buy the full Version. The reason for using the full Version at Origins is one of practicality. People didn't sit there at the convention and play 100+ turns. Richard played the game in between talking to people all weekend long and people would walk up and watch for a while, or do a few turns themselves. It would be a little inconveinent if someone walked up at turn 98 and wanted to watch a few turns and he had to restart right away. That's not an issue for someone playing the demo from the start.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Yes, the publisher can decide how their product is distributed, and with what limitations. However, in this case, it isn't really being distributed... the game is there for maybe an hour, and then it's gone, and the friend decides whether to buy or not. If you physically brought your system over to your friend's house to show of the game, is that still immoral? Or, the slightly easier route, bring your friend to your system to show off the game, is that immoral? How about uninstalling on your system, installing on your friend's, uninstalling on your friend's, then reinstalling on yours? All bring about essentially the same results, and in all situations, Malfador and Shrapnel aren't affected (except perhaps by getting a new buyer). To me, it all just seems like varying numbers of flaming hoops to jump through, when there really is no necessity for any hoops.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey there, I'm jumping in with a carefully snipped quote from Geo because it meshes well with my point of view.

Consider a "community" of hackers and software crackers, who've developed a "culture" of stealing software.

I think their culture is wrong. A bad culture. Bad. Bad. Bad. ... Bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I won't accept the premise that I have to respect that culture -- in my own mind.

I may not have any right to condemn it publicly, or act against it. After all myself or any group that holds similar convictions are as fallible as anyone other individual or group.

But I agree with Geo, the most basic fundamental rules of right and wrong shouldn't be lost on anyone. And I've said so before in a slightly different context. Link: Conceptually it is wrong.

I will agree that maybe stolen software registrations are hard to compare perfectly with a household burglary. And yes, the definition of killing gets messy when we consider warfare, government executions, and heck even the decision not to be a vegan.

But the Golden Rule works pretty good in many instances.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem with that is that you are bending the word culture to suit your purposes. That is a sub-culture at best (probably not even that).

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Personally I find EULAs to be slightly immoral.

Since the company has a monopoly on the product they are distributing in a sense they are coercing you into agreeing to the EULA. (admittedly a very very mild form of coercion, but a form of coercion nevertheless.) As an aside I believe this is why all the forms you have to sign in order to take a chemistry class waiving the school of any responsiblity should you get hurt are invalid. They wouldn't let you take the class without the form so they were coercing you into signing it. The end result is the same as if you hadn't signed the form, the school is liable if they were negligent and/or actively caused you harm and not liable if they weren't. Sorry I'm tired, it tends to cause more pointless asides...

Back on topic... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Since the EULA is basically forced upon you it is not valid. On the other hand one can't have uneforceable agreements because in a certain sense everything is coercion because if both sides didn't need what the other had, why were they deeling in the first place? So a compromise must be reached. The company can't ask you to agree to *anything* in order to use thier product and the customer must still follow certain agreements if they are considered to be reasonable requests.

Strangely enough this has come up before in history... I don't know the exact chain of historical events. But the long and the short of it was somebody tried to prevent libraries from loaning out books on similar legal grounds to what we are discussing. Understandably the libraries sued. The courts saw that this was silly and came up with the "doctrine of first sale". A copywrite owner has the right of first sale of their product. After that the new owner can do whatever they please with their purchase. Including loaning it to a friend. As far as I'm concerned, this is the appropriate moral ground for software sale as well. Liscensing is like "renting" a book. Not just renting a book, but forcing me to rent a book by not offering the reasonable opportunity to buy that book. (EULAs also often force you to read that book in only one certain location and with only one pair of glasses....)

Transactions involving copywrited materials can not work perfectly using free market ideals because they are inherently mini-monopolistic things. Since they are monopolies the consumer needs protection against the copywrite holder. The right of first sale is an important protection for the consumer and I, for one, am dissapointed to see it thrown out of the world in the digital age by the despicable legal trick of EULAs. Consequently I think it is the moral thing to do to continue to act as if the contracts governing the sale of books are in force with software as well.

So back to the original question posed by Fyron. Yes it is immoral to copy your SEIV game and give it to a friend (no matter how long or short they intend to use it). Because this is something that you could not do morally do with a book. On the other hand it would not be immoral to uninstall SEIV from your computer and loan it to your friend for a bit and then get it back.

There is a wrinkle here though. With a traditional boardgame you are not required to buy one copy for each player involved (not even such games as Magic:the gathering in which most players do just that). So why could you not set up your SEIV game on several different computers at once for simultaneus (or even PBW) play assuming (since this whole discussion is hypothetical anyways) that the players only played games with each other. I believe that you could do so and still remain morally in the right.

One more thing I just thought of. It is not immoral to make a mixed tape for your friend. I suppose this is because of the fair use provision. It is permissible to copy something when used for certain purposes and one of those is furthering the bonds of friendship by sharing something with your friends. How the fact that I want to say making a mixed tape is ok, but copying SEIV is not ok can be resolved I'm not sure... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif In any case I'm sure I have rambled enough...

Teal

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What other possible purpose could a question have than to provoke comments? A question is asked to get comments on the matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What other possible purpose could a question have than to provoke comments? A question is asked to get comments on the matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Get an answer; get a solution to a problem; teach someone else something; insult someone via sarcasm or irony; convince someone to take a particular course of action; debate tactic: a method of challenging a debate opponent on a potential flaw in their position ... there are a lot of reasons.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Note how every single one of those possibilities are comments on the question? They are comments that serve different purposes, but all comments nonetheless. Just pointing out that you made a vacuous statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Granted I'm commenting on the question when listing those possibilities; however, not all of the possible reasons listed for the original question require a responding comment to achieve the desired effect. Specifically, I listed three that don't:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A person being taught does not necessitate that person taught comment on the question. The purpose of the question is to teach in such cases; comments are only desireable as a method of confirming the learning. They are not directly relevant to the question, and are not truely part of the purpose for the question.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, no comment is necessary (on the part of the target or anyone else, for that matter) for the insult to occur (although it may require some words preceeding the question, we are specifically discussing responses to the question here, so that is immaterial).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If I ask you why you don't try something, then you try it, I have successfully convinced you to take a particular course of action, regardless of wether or not you comment on the question. For such cases, comments are irrelevant; it is the action that matters.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why the insult?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Insult? I see no insult. I merely labeled the sentence as what it is. Insulting would be if I called you vacuous, which I did not do. I guess if you want to take it personally it could be seen as an insult, but that is not how it was intended.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then you aren't too terribly perceptive. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So are you maintaining that all listed possibilites have comments as their goal, without addressing my expansion of what I meant? That's odd. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not directly - but in calling a statement someone makes vacuous, you are saying that that person makes vacuous statements, which in turn implies that they are vacuous people. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are saying it wasn't intended that way, but you aren't apoligizing either. Odd.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

So back to the regularly scheduled philosophizing...

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you neither defend nor rescind your statement that mine was vacuous when challenged. Odd. Nor do you apoligize when I explain how your statement was an insult. Also odd.

[ July 12, 2003, 09:02: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I disagree with this point of yours, Imperator, even more strongly than I disaggree with the originial point of this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I don't know what the most rigid definition of a culture is, but an ideology that's held by even a few can spread, like a cultural virus. Link:Dont cross the memes.

I'm oh so tempted to list a specific case ... but I want to keep this thread civil.

[ July 12, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: Arkcon ]