Philosophical Quandry: Piracy

[geoschmo]

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

[Fyron]

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 ]

[Phoenix-D]

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..

[Gryphin]

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….

[Erax]

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 ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
... 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….

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

[Fyron]

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.

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.

[Fyron]

Theft and murder are universal absolutes.

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.

[Erax]

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.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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?

Allright, I have to answer theese I suppose.

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.

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
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..

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 ]