Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Here is a philosophical quandry for you all:

Suppose you make a copy of SE4 for a friend. Your friend will play the game for a bit and decide if he likes it or not. If he likes it, he will buy it. If not, he will uninstall it and be done with it. Just him forever playing on this copy is not an option to be considered in this thread.

Yes, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt illegal piracy. I am not asking about legality, but about morality. Is it wrong to do this? Why or why not? Please, if your gut reaction is "pirate SE4 = bad period", please do not post yet. Think about it for a bit. Consider the possibilities. Then post. If your answer is still the same, go ahead and post it now. Just do not post without giving this some real thought. The same also applies to having the gut reaction that it is perfectly ok. Think about that in depth too. Thank you.

And before you ask, no, this is not a situation that has come up in my life. It is a hypothetical situation. I shall not post my opinion on the matter for a while.

This really applies to any game, but I just picked one we all know and love. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 11, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

i see pirating as putting into image file or burning to a cd and then distributing it outside. giving it to a friend to try is not pirating because your not copying your game and giving it off to him - your sharing your CD. And your getting it back later.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, this is the crucial bit. You can't really guarantee this in real life, so the whole issue becomes hypothetical.

However, even in this hypothetical case,it would still (technically) be morally wrong. Even if you argue that you're doing shrapnel/ malfador a favour by encouraging a new player by means of a limited trial, the right to issue such a trial still rests exclusively with them.

Of course, that's kind of a rigid approach, and it's really not the way ppl do things these days...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except that your friend could easily just install the game and not uninstall it- SE4 doesn't require a CD to run, you know.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

In general piracy is when you make a profit from others work. If you don't make profit, so what kind of pirate you are? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

And now comes the lawer and messes everything up...

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

IMO if the developer (of any software) intends for the user to "try before you buy", they will provide a demo. SEIV has said demo so IMO, the act of "loaning" the game is wrong for both parties; the one asking for the loan and the one doing the loaning. (It would be wrong even if they didn't have a demo.)

Normally EULA state that you don't own the s/w; you just own a license to use it. One solution around the question is you could invite the freind over for a "hot seat" game - then you don't have to worry about breaking the EULA.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Fyron, I have done exactly what you described, twice. In both cases, my friends installed the game and returned the CD, but they haven't played yet. It's been sitting unplayed on their HD's for weeks now.

Why did I do it ? That's just the way our crowd does things. We play all sorts of games - RPGs, boardgames, card games, miniatures games. We trade games with each other, we sell each other our old games, we give them as gifts, we loan them. We don't treat computer games any different.

I didn't think it was, for lack of a better word, 'wrong' when I did it. Reading some of the piracy threads on this forum, I now understand that some people may have a different opinion. All I can say is that I acted within the standards of my RL community, when perhaps I should have questioned some of them.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

According to the law it's piracy. Yet, the situation you describe is probably more common than you think. I've gotten some games from friends like this and i must say that most of the time i just don't like it (hey i'm playing SEIV over here, leave me alone) or i buy it.

I read an article here in a magazine this week. If they could reduce software piracy with only a few percent, then it would create around 5000 IT jobs (here in Belgium which is a lot). So it's unbelievable what impact it has. I never realised that before.

If it generates more income for the game makers and producers, i couldn't see the harm in it since then it's kind of promotional stuff. But in real life, it would happen all to often that the receiving party just makes a copy and returns the cd.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Fyron,
I note you have not posted your positon on this.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Some more thoughts
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”
This may seem off topic but:
If you will violate the EULA in an attempt to get a friend to buy a copy what other rules will you break in your life?
Action - Intent (the greater good)
Break the EULA - Sell more copies
Buy a Term Paper - Graduate from Colledge
Cheat on your wife, (instead of ending the marrage)-For the sake of the children
Falsify your expense account – < insert plausible excuse >

You get the picture

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Absolutly is wrong. Whether or not it's enough of a violation to warrant some kind of legal ramifications is something for the lawyers to dicker over. But I am fully 100% confident in saying it's absolutly morally wrong. It's not even a valid topic for dicsussion.

To loan something to a friend you have to own it. You don't own the copy you made. The purchase of your copy doesn't give you the right to make copies of it.

Loser was right on when he said the try before you buy is the purpose of the demo. If you can't see someting you like in the game in 100 turns of the demo, you won't buy it.

So Fyron, what sort of car do you drive? Maybe my friend is thinking of buying one. I will "borrow" yours without permission and let him drive it around for a bit. You don't like that?

So it's not a perfect analogy since you aren't selling your car. What if you owned a car dealership? Would you be ok with people taking the cars off the lot without asking (I'm not talking about test drives here.} and trying them before buying them? Some of those people might end up buying afterall. You don't want to upset the customer now.

No, you have no moral right to decide for Malfador the best way for them to get new customers. That is their decision. If you don't like the way they do it make your own game and release it shareware.

So legally it may be a grey area since you aren't profiting from it. But it's not even an issue for discussion morally. It's wrong, no question about it.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

The hypothetical situation Fyron has put forward is illegal under English law (and I believe under the international copyright conventions).

Whether any action would be taken by the relevant games company is another question. It would have to prove loss in order to bring any effective action.

For example, Fyron's hypothetical situation would be highly unlikely (in the UK at any rate) to result in any legal action. The most a games company would do is send you a letter saying "dont do it again". You are loaning a game to a chum, not for profit and on the understanding that it is a temporary loan only.

If you were burning the CD and selling copies, then that is obviously more serious, and the act of making the copies for profit is the piracy definition employed by the courts in the UK. Lending your copy on is illegal under the copyright laws, but it is not piracy.

So, technically, the action is illegal. Is is not piracy. Is it immoral? I personally dont think so if you can control the ability of your chum to delete the game if he doesn't like it. If you are lending it so he takes a copy, then yes, I consider that that is immoral.

Arguments please?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Well, I was all set to type a simply wonderful reply with all sorts of colorful analagies (but Geo beat me to the punch by 2 Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ).

I think he's said it best so far. Every company spends quite a bit of time deciding the limits of their EULA, marketing, demos (and how restricted), and how best to sell the product. My Adobe Photoshop EULA is more relaxed than my Jasc Paint Shop Pro (hope I'm remembering the correct 2 apps). One allows me to have it installed in 2 places as long as they are not used at the same time. The other permits a second installation but only on a laptop. A very tiny difference. But used as an example of how detailed companies can get when deciding these things. They balance what is good for the owner of the license against potential sales (and sale losses).

In the case of SE4 (or ANY other piece of software), it's the company's decision. If they think a demo is needed, they'll make one available. If it's restrictive, that's their decision. If they wanted purchasers to act as advertisers on their behalf (and loan their game out to potential buyers), then they would have written it into the EULA.

So, you know what side of the fence I'm sitting on.

Piracy? Not piracy because a person didn't make a profit? That's BS. Piracy is defined at Dictionary.com as (paraphrasing) the unauthorized reproduction or use of copyrighted or patented material (like software piracy). Didn't say one had to make money off it.

In summary, whenever "consumers" take the position that they have the write to draw a line in the sand of copyright violation, believe me, it will be a line that favors themselves not the companies. (and they'll always find a nice twist that satisfies their moral conscience)

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Is it piracy by strict definition...yes, whether you profit or not.

But personally I see nothiing wrong with it, if the person likes the game and goes out and buys a copy, if they don't it is erased.

I cannot count how many times I wasted money on lame-*** games even after reading the reviews. I would much rather test play a game and if I like it purchase it, even if it is on another person's computer. Problem with games like SEIV is that you cannot just sit down for a few minutes to see if you like the game.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Would not demo games be available that only run for a limit? That would be better, oh yeah they make those already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I think honestly that is what serves the community best a limited Demo product, Piracy is more of a deliberate act of gaining funds by selling and distributing and not being the owner.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Is it morally wrong? I say emphatically Yes!!

Have I done piracy? Absolutely Yes!!

Am I proud? Absolutely NOT!!

I still don't know why I think it's okay to do... I certainly think it's wrong of me to do, I mean, heck I don't go running red lights or anything. I guess it's just so darned convenient and I let that over rule my concience. At least I've stopped trying to justify it - Microsoft may be evil and big and wealthy, but I've stopped believing that it's alright to have a pirate copy of office on my machine....

just my thoughts

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anytime you are 100% postively absolutely sure about anything, so sure that you don't even want to talk about it, you are probably wrong.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not saying it can't be talked about. I was a little unclear there. Sorry. Anybody is free to discuss whatever they want. But there is no need to debate whether or it's right or wrong. It simply isn't.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 18:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

This was not loaning them your CD, it was copying it and giving them the copy.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything is a valid topic for discussion Geo. Having a bad day?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, everything is open for discussion.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:10: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Legally, it's wrong. Give them the demo.

Morally, when you've been used and abused by an industry, time after time, people (and especially the more commonly abused) will tend to break the rules.

I am definitely the "try before you buy" kind of person. I have supported the industry, and been *scammed* out of my money time and time again.

So I've "adapted".

If I didn't, "try before I buy" I would be suckered by advertising and gimics, and I would flat out WASTE 3/4 of my purchasing power.

The day that PC games are "rentable" is the day that a good portion of piracy will disappear. (IMHO)

Now, we also have another alternative. Fortunately, we have "Electronics Boutique" in the U.S. For the most part, you can buy anything you want there, and if it SUCKS they will take it back. You don't need a reason. This is the only "legal release" that I've been able to find, to relieve the above quandary.

--Ed

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, missed that. It was early.

No, no giving them a copy.

Piracy is wrong. Piracy is theft. Theft is the first sin against Almighty Capitalism (the second being vandalism and the third being devaluation of markets).

That being said I have had a good deal of pirated software on my system over the years. I don't think, offhand, I have any pirated software on my system right now. I have made a point of purchasing games I have 'borrowed' and liked (Diablo II, Homeworld, Shogun, Majesty in the past few years). There are times when you purchase a product and times when you patronize an artist, after all.

I tend to treat any piece of software as though it were governed by the 'book' model that Borland used to follow: "if it's not being use in two places at once it's okay". But you can't police that, so I don't take much advantage of this advantage I intend to take.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything is a valid topic for discussion Geo. Having a bad day?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I said in my subsequent post, I was not really clear on what I meant by that. Of course anyone is free to discuss whatever they want. What I meant was there is no question that it is wrong. There is no reason to debate whether morally it is ok to copy software without permission and give it away when there is no question from a moral standpoint it is not ok.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I had this dilemma myself earlier this year. I wanted to introduce a new friend to the most compelling and addictive 4x game that has been developed to date -- IMHO. Fortunately, I had both SE4 AND Gold. I never play non-Gold anymore, so I loaned that to him. He has now purchased Gold AND SE3 (he loves older games), I have my non-Gold CD back, and I was (hypothetically) legal the entire time having long ago uninstalled non-Gold. Certainly not applicable in all situations, but it was a simple and elegant solution for me. I work in IT and spent MONTHS getting the small firm I previously worked for completely legal,license- wise a couple of years back.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Again, everything is open to discussion. Your view is not necessarily the view of everyone else on the planet, you know.

Remember, morality is relative.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, legality is relative. Morality is absolute. If morality is not absolute it is not morality at all, it's just opinion.

And again I didn't say you couldn't discuss it. But you can talk about it all you want and it won't change what's right and wrong.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

On a sub-set of the issue: EULAs can go ! me as far as I'm concered. It says I can only have it on one computer at once? Too frigging bad. I only -use- one at a time, and no one else uses my laptop, so that's a reasonable use.

My opinion is that true piracy (copying a game you would buy, then NOT buying it) is bad. ROMs, burning copies, transfering to other media- all stuff the companies often try to stop- isn't. Why should Nintendo care if I play Earthbound on my PC instead of my SNES? I own the cartridge and the system anyway.

Same with music CDs. If I can't burn, I don't buy, because all my music is in MP3 form in playlists. Mostly because most of it is (legally) free downloaded anyway.

Most of the "piracy prevention software" out there does anything but. It just impedes the legal user- Morrowind's, for example, was hacked before the game was released, and it cuts the framerate by 10-15 FPS for most people. Or Windows XP's activation; that was broken too.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

No, Geo, morality is indeed relative. Different cultures view things differently. The values judged are the same, but the (moral) judgement is not the same. Is it wrong to sacrifice 1000+ prisoners of war when dedicating a new temple? Not if you are an Aztec! This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point, which is valid on all moral issues, no matter how minor.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

OK, now I understand why some of you believe such a move would be wrong. I'd say Slynky's post was the clearest. Even if you cover all the 'nots' - you're not making a profit, you're not making a permanent copy, you're not harming the company's profit or potential profit - it's still wrong, because you accepted the EULA when you got your copy and you're not abiding by it. In other words, you had an agreement with the software company, which you have broken without their consent.

That being said, there are some things we take for granted. One of them is that EULAs are immutable and non-negotiable. Now if a user comes up with a use for the software which ultimately benefits the company, he should get in touch with them (assuming they're the kind of company that listens to its customers). Who knows, someday someone might invent a license model that is less restrictive without increasing the risk of piracy.

Edit : I agree with Fyron, morality is relative and culture-dependent. The world is working towards having a unified moral code - probably that of the West - but we are not there yet.

Here's a well-known example : Suicide in modern society -> immoral and cowardly. Suicide in feudal Japan -> honorable.

[ July 11, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Erax ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

EULAs are not actually legally enforceable. You can make as many copies of any CD as you want. As long as you do not distribute the copies, it is 100% legal, as they are backup copies. If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is called the GNU public use liscense, used with open-source software packages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

So Fyron, why even bother asking the question? What does it matter whether anyone here thinks it's ok if you burn a copy of Se4 and give it away. Since the Aztecs killed people without giving it a second thought you have permission to do whatever you want. Why stop at piracy. Why not get a gun go steal a copy from someone else. It will save you the trouble of copying it.

You can do whatever you want and no one can say you are wrong for it because the Aztecs killed people. With no moral absoltues you can do absolutly whatever you want.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

It is wrong, anyway you look at it. If they want to test drive it, DL the demo or try it on your system. But let’s look at both sides of the coin. The license is a contract. When the game in question is bought and paid for, then installed on your system only, you have done your part, But then you find that it is damaged and in need of repair. Then after several free patches you get to buy an upgrade which is still damaged. And after several patches there are still some problems. Does the agreement still stand? I for one feel that I should be able to return my original SE4 CD and get my money back. Or that SE4 classic should be fixed once and for all. As should Gold. It’s a two way street. With anything except software, defective merchandise is a breach of contract. Why is software different?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Geo, I was talking about on a cultural level, not an individual level.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

It comes down to:
You agree to the EULA
If you violate the EULA you have gone against your word.
Going against your word is _____
(Fill in the blank. I am not going to say it for you).

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Fyron and Geo : see my edit a couple of Posts back.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

"If you really want, you can go make 150000 copies of your Windows CD. As long as you keep every Last one, Microsoft can not do anything to you."

But! The windows CD is a special case, since it has no copy protection. You're allowed to make backups, but not allowed to break the copy protection in order to -make- those backups. If that isn't a stupid legal problem I don't know what is.

And no, I don't consider violating EULAs to be breaking my word. Especially with the IMO immoral restrictions some have tried to sneak in- like "by opening this package you agree to the liscence agreement inside" Hello? I think not. Also, a few have tried to put "You may not give this product bad reviews" in their EULA..

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

I always have random strangers press the "I agree" buttons on my software. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

What about the software that came with your name brand computer. You follow the agreement and one day the system gets old and dies. So you get a new one. You wipe the old systems drive and give the whole thing to the GW. Then you try to install YOUR software on the new system only to find that it can not be installed. This is called a restricted license. I for one feel that you should be allowed to exchange that Version of the software for an open license unless you agreed in writing to the restricted license.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Maybe the "morality" discussion is suffering from different ideas of what the term means... or something.

I don't think Fryon meant that because human sacrifice was not immoral to many cultures, that that means it (or any "lesser" offence) isn't immoral for all cultures. Quite the opposite, it seems to me he was saying that each culture has different definitions of morality. In countries like the modern United States, there are many cultures at the same location, with very different convictions about what is right and what is wrong. Also in the US, some of us assert the right to decide for ourselves what we think is right or wrong, and to disagree with others about it.

The mistake, in my opinion, is to try to force everyone to live by the same culturally-based rules. Not that there shouldn't be such rules, but sometimes it's unwise to try to force all cultures to live by the same rules. Separation into countries with different laws and customs serves many purposes, and makes the world a much more interesting and hospitable place as a whole. Fortunately there is often enough common ground to agree on things like human sacrifice, however, though not always. I was told recently that killing unwanted daughters is still legal in India, for example.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROFLMAO ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Precisely.

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

As for the actual topic of the thread...

in my opinion, cassette recorders and xerox machines were the beginning of the obsolescence of legal control of public media duplication. Affordable CD writers, the Internet, and contemporary computers, as well as audio/visual encoding devices, have made it entirely practical to share almost all forms of media freely with everyone on the planet. The service of location, distribution, and duplication of almost all media can now be trivially and extremely inexpensively performed by computers.

The world's economic and legal systems [are] quite obsolete and extremely counter-productive, compared to technical realities. We've got these megacorporations invested in the old system of ownership desperately trying to keep us from using computers to do what they do naturally - copy data. Our culture as a whole hasn't really figured out what has happened yet, and has no consensus on what to do about it.

However, this situation is an ocean that can't be held back forever by an artificial dam. Or at least, humans will be an even sillier race than they already are if they try to keep themselves from being able to copy data forever.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

True. Change will come. But it may not be a good change. If a good distribution model, one that compensates the artists, is not developed, certain forms of art (ones that are not valued for Live Performances, the way musicians really make their money) may fall back to the sate in which they existed before the birth of Free Artistry in the Renascence.

[broad generalization]

Change will come. Men to not make history. History makes men.

[/broad generalization]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

And, PvK, how would you propose people make -money- off this sharing of data? You know, that funny little concept they need to pay for food or avoid getting a job they don't want, just because others can't be bothered to compensate them for their work.

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.

People creating media would register their works, and there would be a body responsible for validating claims and approval votes, and catching liars. Personally, I would scale the system so that people working steadily creating original content would at least earn enough to support themselves, even without many appreciation votes.

PvK

[ July 11, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As we all know, there was never any form of free astristry before then. Nope, not even in non-European cultures or before the European Dark Ages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And humans, apparently unable to control themselves, will naturally "steal" something if it's easy to do. Sad commentary, isn't it?

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Precisely.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You guys are talking about different cultures, not morality. It's all well and good to have a deep philisophical discusion about various cultures and their own particular way's of doing things. But certain things are basic. They fall under the right and wrong that defines a sense of absolute morality. Find me a culture in today's enlightened world that believes it's acceptable to steal or murder? Even soceities where it happens all the time it's acknowledged that it's wrong.

Fyron asked the question: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If he didn't want an answer, or now he says it's impossible to answer since there is no single definition of morality, why ask the question to begin with? Is it simpy to provoke a semantic discussion about the definition of morality?

If that is what you want Fyron why not be honest and say what you mean? But you asked if it's morally right to copy software without permission and give it away. The answer I give you is that no it is not. If you don't like that answer then do what you want with it.

I have a strong sense of what is right and wrong. For me morality is an absolute issue by definition. Stealing is one of the things my sense of morality says is wrong. Call me archaic, call me whatever you want but I believe what I believe. I can acknoledge that some people don't agree with me and even be civil towards them, but I am not going to accept that stealing is ok just because their "definition" of morality doesn't have a problem with it.

I am all for respecting other cultures. If someones culture says don't eat the meat of animals with split hooves, or they have to build their houses with the door facing west, or they can't wear green on tuesday I have no problem with that. As long as they don't get in my face about doing it I won't object to what they do either. But if someones culture says it's ok to steal or murder then I will unapoogetically say their culture is immoral.

Geoschmo

[ July 11, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

Theft and murder are not universal absolutes. Taking something and killing someone are. Different laws, different lawyers, different judges, different cultures, and different people, may have different opinions about whether any specific act of taking or killing is theft or murder.

Examples:

Some people consider many actions of the US government to be theft (tax, seizures, etc).

Warring nations often call each others' soldiers murderers.

In India, killing unwanted daughters isn't defined as murder.

Different people, laws, judges, etc in the US disagree about whether acts of euthanasia or abortion are murder or not, or wrong on not.

Discussions of software piracy and fair use of media.

Etc.

PvK

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

There are a lot of shades of gray out there, yes with stealing and even causing another person's death. That is why laws are interpreted by people. And legal decisions from two officials may be different depending on their views and mood and the facts of the situation and the person in question.

I think it is wise and healthy to have a strong sense of morality and right and wrong, but it is good to relax, too.

A person holding themselves to a standard of obeying all rules at all times would have quite an absurd challenging life.

[edit] Pvk- right on, dude. [/edit]

[ July 11, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Stone Mill ]

Re: Philosophical Quandry: Piracy
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Different cultures have different morality.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said it was impossible to answer. My question had nothing to do with other cultures, but with the culture in which we live (broad US culture). You seem to be reading things that have not been typed. Again, are you having a bad day today or what?

[ July 11, 2003, 21:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]