Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[Fyron]

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.

[Erax]

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 ]

[Fyron]

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.

[Fyron]

Who knows, someday someone might invent a license model that is less restrictive without increasing the risk of piracy.

It is called the GNU public use liscense, used with open-source software packages.

[geoschmo]

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.

[Thermodyne]

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?

[Fyron]

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