Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Thoughts on "Piracy".
Renegade:
That's rather odd. Usually SMF gives an update warning. Have we discovered a race condition? :)
Anyways, regarding your edit:
Arguments equating piracy with stealing physical items have never hit home with me.
-nosh (November 24, 2014, 03:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
Same. Because the argument there is just silly.
If you make something, let's say a movie, and I download it without paying you, you are no worse off than before I downloaded it. I have not inflicted any actual harm on you. I might be better off, but that's debatable - you might be a horrible film maker and I might lose an hour or 2 of my life. :P
-Renegade (November 24, 2014, 05:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
Seriously? That's such a sloppy bit of 'logic' (more like circular justification) that I'd think it was written by some government. ;D
(see attachment in previous post)
:Thmbsup:
-40hz (November 24, 2014, 06:55 AM)
--- End quote ---
How is it circular? Sloppy? Yes. But circular? No.
40hz:
How is it circular?
-Renegade (November 24, 2014, 07:12 AM)
--- End quote ---
Umm...
You are not harmed because I have said: I have not harmed you?
;)
Renegade:
How is it circular?
-Renegade (November 24, 2014, 07:12 AM)
--- End quote ---
Umm...
You are not harmed because I have said: I have not harmed you?
;)
-40hz (November 24, 2014, 07:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's not circular reasoning.
THIS is great circular reasoning ;)
Let's outline this with a fictitious example.
First, let's imagine Stephen and he's seen my software, Guitar & Drum Trainer. He's working on a particularly difficult piece, and figures that he could use some help with it, so he downloads the trial. He uses it, then it expires. He goes to The Pirate Bay and downloads it so he can continue to use it.
Stephen wasn't going to buy a license anyways, so in what way have I been harmed?
Pretty simple. I haven't.
I haven't suffered any harm at all. None. Zero. Nadda.
Stephen hasn't taken anything from me. I still have exactly what I had before he downloaded GDT, and I'm no worse off.
Now, I'd surely love for Stephen to buy a license, as I'd love for anyone to buy a license.
Second, let's imagine that instead, Stephen downloads the trial, it expires, he doesn't buy a license (which he wasn't going to anyways), and then he goes out and downloads Audacity where he can get a small amount of the functionality of GDT with a lot of effort.
In that case, I doubt there's anyone (sane) that would say that Stephen has harmed me.
But what is the difference between the first and second scenario?
In both cases I don't get anything. So, that's easy.
In the first case, Stephen gets to work with highly functional software that let's him focus more on his music than on farting around with software settings.
In the second case, Stephen has to fart around with software settings and deal with distractions that take away from his music.
Stephen is better off in scenario 1 compared to scenario 2.
But neither scenario makes a lick of difference to me.
Or does it??? ;)
Scenario 1 may provide enough of an advantage for Stephen that he goes on to produce something that he wouldn't have in scenario 2. That may positively affect other people, and in a tiny way, my life might be better because of that "butterfly effect". But, that's just wild speculation.
Stephen does not harm me by downloading my software from The Pirate Bay and then using it.
;)
wraith808:
Stephen and he's seen my software, Guitar & Drum Trainer. He's working on a particularly difficult piece, and figures that he could use some help with it, so he downloads the trial. He uses it, then it expires. He goes to The Pirate Bay and downloads it so he can continue to use it.
Stephen wasn't going to buy a license anyways, so in what way have I been harmed?
Pretty simple. I haven't.
I haven't suffered any harm at all. None. Zero. Nadda.
-Renegade (November 25, 2014, 10:09 AM)
--- End quote ---
I think that's where the circular reasoning comes in, and is left out in your equation. You say that you've not suffered any harm, which is correct from your perspective- but does Stephen have the right to determine that? Though he says he wasn't going to buy... future need can coerce someone into buying something that they were not going to, i.e. he doesn't get it from pirate bay, comes across a real need for it that he doesn't have right now... and purchases it.
Not saying that I agree with anything in regards to the viability of the argument, just pointing out a big argument that's ignored in many discussions.
Also, for pirating for 'preview', what's fair use? One of the arguments (and I've made it before) is that demos and such are *totally* different than gameplay. That's one of the reasons I stopped even trying demos- the amount of effort on my side to see a marketing version of the software wasn't worth it- demos should be IMO time limited or progression limited versions of the true software. But that's a different argument.... that doesn't speak to my root question... what's considered 'fair use'? I play the whole thing and decide I didn't like it? Or I didn't like the ending... and at that point, what real incentive do you have to pay after the fact?
I was a pirate in the old days... down to even cracking a few myself (though I never released them). I didn't see anything wrong with it... after all, I wasn't stealing anything. My change came because of getting into content creation when I realized more intimately that real effort was involved- this wasn't just some bits and bytes, but represented part of someone's life.
This isn't to say anything about piracy itself, other than I couldn't in good conscience continue the practice. And in all truth, I haven't missed it. I think that neither side has it completely right or completely wrong, truthfully. And that's just like most things in life, I suppose.
KynloStephen66515:
Further to what I said above:
Piracy, for me at least, is something I do. Yes I do pay for a lot of games, movies, music and software (I do enjoy having a physical collection) but (again, I can only speak for myself) 99% f those purchases have been made only after first pirating. Some would call listening to music via Youtube as piracy...because the content creator isn't selling you the music and isn't getting any income from it (AbBlocker = No Revenue for that person).
That brings me to another point...
If we use Ad Blockers...is that classified as piracy? I mean...These websites that serve ads see that as their primary form of income and a way of you paying them for seeing that content...but if I cannot see those ads...then am I technically stealing content?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version