Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Software piracy part XXIV

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Xi said:
Besides, the Kantianist Universal Maxim is not relativism. It was, and still is, my stance on this debate because it clearly shows how piracy is amoral and illogical. If you pirate, other people pirate, and if we all pirate the system doesn't work. (This is the Universal Maxim applied in terms of piracy) Therefore it is wrong!
I fail to see (having read nothing of Kant, but following your "logic" I think) how this isn't total garbage.

Where is the departure from this?:
KUM applied to accountancy:
If you become an accountant, other people become accountants, and if we all become accountants the system doesn't work. (accountants don't produce food, and we'll all starve)

It seems to be patently idiotic tosh. Either it's a non-argument as above, or it gets weaselled into vacuity after enough "Well - I'm only advocating accountancy in these circumstances..." - after which a pirate can simply say that it's fine for anyone to pirate, so long as they're in absolutely identical circumstances to his own (never true, of course).
If it's actually a more complex maxim than you've made clear, please explain where the parallel breaks down.


If moral philosophy weren't such daft nonsense, perhaps it'd attract enough thinkers to make it plain that it's daft nonsense.


On the whole piracy issue, I'd rather discuss potential solutions than debate its morality. Does anyone have any suggestions on piracy-reduction methods which don't infuriate the consumer? Does anyone have any guiding principles they'd like to see in piracy-reduction methods?
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
galsiah said:

Becoming an accountant isn't a moral question. You apply the Maxim to moral decisions. That's how it works, not as you have described. This is also why we can apply it to piracy because piracy truly is a simple moral question, becoming an accountant is not.

Here's the original quote for context:


“Always act so that you can will that your maxim can become a universal law.”
-Immanuel Kant

A universal law being something that everyone follows.

While undertaking a moral decision, if all involved individuals cannot perform the same action without a societal breakdown, then it must be amoral. I apply this to video game piracy as: If all individuals cannot pirate video games without an industry breakdown, then it must be wrong.

It's a matter of context. While piracy is debatably "theft" it works in much the same way as the result is the same, loss. That's why I apply the example via physical theft because it is a similar action.

Edit: I'm probably simplifying it too much though Galsiah. I can understand why it's difficult to understand. It's hard to define a booklet of ideas in a summary of one sentence. In fact, Kant's ethical philosophy goes beyond this maxim idea in his deontology. I'm, however, not that well versed in all of his material. I'm just a novice at this stuff and am trying to apply it the best I can.

Lumpy said:
I love how you failed to misinterpret everything I said. Fuck you.

I love you too.
 

Lord Chambers

Erudite
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
1,018
DarkUnderlord said:
It really does help to read. I know you want to remain some-what aloof because you're subconsciously aware your points would be torn apart if you actually got involved but really, staying out of it and making the esoteric argument doesn't work.
Haha, careful, don't knock the wind out of your chest, you big bad debate gorilla.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Xi said:
Becoming an accountant isn't a moral question.
Yes it is. I'd say that every action is a moral decision if any is. Certainly decisions which have huge implications for your personal future (and therefore your influence on the world) must be moral, if any are.

...piracy truly is a simple moral question, becoming an accountant is not.
And who on earth decides this?? Are we into "The maxim applies only where it doesn't have undesirable implications." territory? Why need it be a "simple" moral question in any case?
It still sounds like crap.

“Always act so that you can will that your maxim can become a universal law.” -Immanuel Kant
Ok - so your "maxim" would have to be something as vacuous as "always do the right thing", or it wouldn't stand up to being universal law. Any maxim with significant content will be right in some circumstances, for some people, and not in others.

While undertaking a moral decision, if all involved individuals cannot perform the same action without a societal breakdown, then it must be amoral.
This is totally daft unless you define "moral decisions" to be "only those where Kant's maxim works out ok".
Almost any universally applied rule will cause societal breakdown - since many of society's fundamentals are based on an assumption of diversity, rather than universality.

Can I become a footballer? No.
Can I spend my life in Chad helping the poor? No.
Can I adopt a regime of using public toilets at 3 every day? No.
...

Kant has no stronger argument against piracy than against accountancy. It's a rather pathetic principle if the only way to deal with problems is to say "That's not a moral question" when it throws up absurdity after absurdity. Assuming that the maxim derived from an action only deals with the parts which don't cause problems is equally weak [[e.g. clearly "helping the poor" is the important part - the "in Chad" bit is just a detail; clearly "using public toilets" is the important part - the "at 3 every day" bit is just a detail. Both of these rest on the dire "Oh come on, it's obvious" argument - and neither allows me to become a footballer or accountant.]]

It just seems a daft rule which will inevitably result in much weaselling and/or vacuity.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
galsiah said:

That's why there are lots of different trains of thought in ethical philosophy.(None of them are perfect) Still, go read a book on his deontology and decide if it makes sense to you or not. You could even write your own book with your own ideas explaining why his ethical philosophy fails. I'm sure after you read it, you'll change your mind partly on how you've perceived it thus far. It's a broad scope of knowledge that requires a lot of personal investment before one understands. I would argue that a person spends their life defining morality. Religion often attempts to judge people with this in mind. Even without religion, it's an important question because it defines a human being. What they will and won't do. Seems important to me anyway. I've tried to explain it as much as I can and applied it within reasonable terms. It works well if you ask me. It uses logic from a moral position and I like that.

Also, who decides that murder is wrong? Or physical theft? etc... This is why ethical philosophy is interesting. It tries to define ways to understand these moral issues and how to make the best decisions in terms of morality.

Who says piracy is wrong? Me, and I've provided lots of typed info for you to understand why. I'm not alone in this either. That's the basis for any debate. How you get someone to understand this, or how they fail to, is beyond me. Still, ethics is taught in most high level courses of education because it's important not to abuse a situation because you can easily get away with it. There's a lot more going on that needs to be understood. Anyway, I'm being vague now because the debate is turning into one of "what is ethics?"

Start a new thread and do your research. I'm sure it would be interesting.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Xi said:
Also, who decides that murder is wrong? Or physical theft? etc... This is why ethical philosophy is interesting. It tries to define ways to understand these moral issues and how to make the best decisions in terms of morality.
Perhaps - I'd say that the search for any "right" answer/explanation is so clearly doomed to failure as to make the issue philosophically uninteresting. I can see that it's very interesting in a sociological/societal/evolutionary context - I just wouldn't call it "philosophy", since any absolute notion of "right", "good" or "morality" seems obviously absent.

Who says piracy is wrong? Me...
Me too - I just don't pretend that there's some neat philosophical justification for that standpoint: there isn't. I'd say that it's wrong in most circumstances - but only according to my own personal "morality"/"beliefs".

How you get someone to understand this, or how they fail to, is beyond me.
Most often they fail to when their fundamental beliefs / "morality" are different from your own. There's not much you can do about this - just note that it's unlikely that you'll always understand each other, and move on.

There's a lot more going on that needs to be understood....Start a new thread and do your research. I'm sure it would be interesting.
Perhaps. I'm just not too interested in moral "philosophy" though - since it isn't philosophy in my view. Philosophically, I've reached the end of my thinking on the subject - i.e. that there aren't moral absolutes/universals. Once that's conceded, the question has most of the merits/drawbacks of other sociological/political/evolutionary/anthropological/economic... questions.
I'm interested in philosophy where it transcends all the usual gubbins. Moral "philosophy" gets nowhere without huge amounts of gubbins. If I'm dealing with gubbins, I'd rather it be in areas where I consider real progress likely and worthwhile.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
I'm not going to read all the kantian-related stuff because it's late here and I'm going to bed, which probably renders my contribution useless, but it's that simple: if someone wants more games by studio X to appear, by pirating a game by studio X he violates the cathegorical imperative, since if his behaviour became universal, no new games would be made by studio X.
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Elwro said:
categorical imperative
I'd find that argument convincing, but for the fact that the categorical imperative seems to vilify accountancy, football and Chadian benevolence - not to mention fanatically regular public toilet usage.
It seems to be bollocks.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
galsiah said:
Perhaps. I'm just not too interested in moral "philosophy" though - since it isn't philosophy in my view. Philosophically, I've reached the end of my thinking on the subject - i.e. that there aren't moral absolutes/universals.

This is the foundation of most ethical philosophy. This is generally where it all starts and then ideology springs out of this. If you are religious you'd probably believe in Absolute Hard Universal truths as God made them and they cannot be undone. If you are a realist you'll realize that morality is extremely gray and defining it across the board is difficult if not counter intuitive at times. It's still extremely important as a topic because it affects us all the same. The better our understanding the better the entire system of co-existence works. This is why so many people try to define it. Certainly it's difficult to find anything that is absolute and works every time, but that does not mean that we should stop trying. There is some great ethical philosophy out there. It may even leave you somewhat enlightened when you're done researching it. Some of the ideas are mind boggling and will leave you scratching your head. /shrug

Anyway, this debate appears to have run its course. The pirates are still pirates and the anti-pirates are still anti-pirates. What's new in the world anyway?

galsiah said:
Me too - I just don't pretend that there's some neat philosophical justification for that standpoint: there isn't. I'd say that it's wrong in most circumstances - but only according to my own personal "morality"/"beliefs".

Some science is completely theoretical and it requires "belief" just like a religious belief. We cannot test it, even though a large body of evidence supports and gets close to a truth about it. We don't stop calling this science though. It's just how it all works. We hypothesize and then apply our hypothesis to logical testing. In terms of ethical philosophy it is more difficult as most evidence is purely theoretical by nature. We assume something will happen and our assumptions may be historically based(backed by a large body of evidence) but we still never really know. Still, in terms of ethics, the more direct a specific well thought piece of philosophy is integrated the smoother the entire system works. That does not mean that the ethical idea was perfect, just that it was the closest thing we could come up with. Does that not leave some room for improvement? I think it does, but does that mean we should just abandon the idea because there is no direct way to make it perfect and portrayed as absolute truth?

Truth is merely a belief. You do not test every aspect of life to verify the validity of specific claims. Instead you might logically interpret these things and the truths that have the least amount of faults when put under scrutiny are the ones that you would hold onto. Or at least that is how I would do it. Sounds kind of religious I know, but it all works that way! You merely believe something if you have not tested the outcome of a belief first hand. So, this is why I think logic is a great way to narrow down truths. /shrug Anyway we're pretty much off-topic and I could write multiple pages on this topic, but that doesn't mean it will be worth reading. hehe

It's not about the absolute truth, but the most accurate truth. Take that for what you will...
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
galsiah said:
KUM applied to accountancy:
If you become an accountant, other people become accountants, and if we all become accountants the system doesn't work. (accountants don't produce food, and we'll all starve)

That would hold true though, if everyone became an accountant we'd be screwed. Fortunately that is impossible, because there's no inherent benefit to becoming an accountant. The more people that become accountants, the less valuable they are and the less motivation there is to be one.

That prevents everyone from becoming an accountant. Unfortunately, there is no negative to pirating games so everyone becoming a pirate is a lot more likely.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
DarkUnderlord said:
Some humans take great pleasure in killing people. For various reasons which I hope I don't have to explain, we deny them that pleasure because it would cause an awful lot of harm to society as a whole.

I am not in the least interested in killing people - But i won't deny the murderers their right to try and murder me if he doesn't deny me my right to try and blow their brains all over the wall. Whatever happens after that is the consequence of our respective choices and their interactions.

DarkUnderlord said:
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

You made the comment about the line where i said i was not a relativist. I will explain you why i am not, explanation that doesn't include "Because i say it."

"Competition is good while inside the context of the free market." equals "The morality of competition is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Therefore, we are talking about Relativism. Another one: "Killing is good while inside the context of War or Law." equals "The morality of killing is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Again, we are talking relativism: It is either "Killing is good, always" or "Killing is bad, always" - Those are absolute moral values.

I say: "Competition is good not matter what, period." In wich way am i a relativist?

DarkUnderlord said:
Well guess what? We won. You lost. We've made laws that result in death for a lot of what could be justified under your "individual morals" position.

There is something i will never understand, maybe because i read way too much Paradise Lost (Lost Paradise? Wich is the correct spelling in english?) as a kid - Were is the fun of winning by means of being a bunch of coward sheep hiding behind laws and faceless power instead of lossing like an individual or a loose group of individuals? I would get the later one every single time, even if it means bitter defeat each single time.

And since the debate is still raging, crime is as healthy as ever, and post-modernist selfish nihilism is all the rage talking about victory seems a bit premature.

DarkUnderlord said:
How is a developer who makes a game which is enjoyed by potentially hundreds of thousands of people "selfish gratification"?

The developer wants money. The developer likes making games. The developer likes the feeling that comes with making a great and popular game. If at least one of those variables were not true he would not be making games to begin with but by being a masochist, in wich case doing games because he does NOT like to make games would give him pleasure. Therefore, Selfish Gratification. He does not makes games for YOU to feel good but if by doing so he makes HIMSELF feel good - By means of money, popularity, or being recognized while doing something he likes or loves.

DarkUnderlord said:
So you admit then that piracy harms the industry, even going so far as to destroy it? Which is against pretty much what most of the others here are trying to argue (which is "piracy harm the industry? Nonsense and piffle-swat! My piracy is only the good kind!").

You are misunderstanding me. I never argued it could hurt the industry - I argued that piracy was acceptable even if the entire industry was reduced to ashes in it's wake. About the ideological excuses for piracy i am on the same side with you: They should stop making stupid excuses and ideologies to feel justified and accept they care only for themselves - And find pleasure in such realization. The same goes for the other camp.

DarkUnderlord said:
By the way, you also completely failed to actually demonstrate either side as "right" or "wrong" in the argument.

Both sides are right, since they are defending their own interests in a culture built around protecting one's own interests and progressing towards personal ambition or pleasure. I am arguing against those who claim one side is "Wrong" while the other is "Right."

As i said, i am not a relativist: If selfish gratification is good for A, it is good for B too. If not, you are the relativist - Not i.

DarkUnderlord said:
Adaptation (or survival) in this instance would have to result in the end of piracy.

Film, music, and books still survive and piracy on those mediums was not exterminated. I and my friends usually see movies before they hit cinemas, but movies are still being made and those talentless idiots who call themselves "Actors" nowadays are still making big money. Just like there has been piracy (either as "Download" or "Buying games on the park") since the XT days and the industry grew all the same.

DarkUnderlord said:
So according to your argument, we can start killing them then?

"As brothers fight" - I would guess that means "Yes" :P

But the problem of being on the side of numberless sheep is that most of them would not be up for that kind of thing. See? By being on their side you are also renouncing to the pleasure killing pirates, in gory clive-barkerish ways, would give you.

And Thanks for the link.

Xi said:
We recognize that piracy causes the industry to break down and therefore we shouldn't do it. That is not relativism, that is simple logic.

That would be logical if pirates were interested in the industry not breaking down. At least my kind of pirate does not, so it is not logical for us to even care.

Xi said:
See how that fits the pirates? Again, they apply their own moral principals relative to this specific amoral activity.

Again, a misunderstanding. Are most pirates idiots looking for excuses? Yes, they are. Does that make piracy inherently wrong? No, it doesn`t. You must demonstrate piracy is WRONG in and out of itself with DEMONSTRABLE evidence not requiring a moral judgement or a relative consideration (it will destroy the industry is a relative consideration, since i, for an example, do not fucking care - And as such it does not demonstrate the "Wrongness" of piracy) for your argument to be LOGICAL. otherwise it is your opinion, not that there is nothing wrong with that.

Xi said:
If you pirate, other people pirate, and if we all pirate the system doesn't work.

Why should i care for the system instead of exploit it in my own benefit? I care for me, you care for you, they care for them, and if the system does not survive it means the system was not the most fit - Nor the most Logical, given it failed to consider the nature of the individuals it tried to catter to. Time to get another one.

Müg said:
Relativism my ass, that's out right satanism.

(protip: LaVeyan Satanism (the Church of Satan, Satanic Bible, etc) has little to do with Satan)

Cool, i thought no one would get the vibe.

Both LaVeyan Satanism and Crowley`s Thelema are based around the works of those philosophers i mentioned and others, if expanded to include sorcery and lot more glamour - Something LaVey happily accepted at times. All four are part of the same philosophical current, even if later Crowley began contradicting his own Book Of Law and LaVey tried to turn his church into a political correct one (not to harm children? WTF?) - Mistake solved by The First Church Of Satan (those were the "Be like the Reaper, kill everyone and let whatever sits in heaven sort them out" ones?) and later groups.

Normally the current is called Hedonist Egoism just to simplify, named around the way some guy or another called the works of Stirner back then. It sounds more serious and presentable than "Might Makes Right" and "The Left Hand of Philosophy" at least.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
The Rambling Sage said:
Again, a misunderstanding. Are most pirates idiots looking for excuses? Yes, they are. Does that make piracy inherently wrong? No, it doesn`t. You must demonstrate piracy is WRONG in and out of itself with DEMONSTRABLE evidence not requiring a moral judgement or a relative consideration (it will destroy the industry is a relative consideration, since i, for an example, do not fucking care - And as such it does not demonstrate the "Wrongness" of piracy) for your argument to be LOGICAL. otherwise it is your opinion, not that there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem with your approach is that you are always the problem given your lack of reason and illogical mentality for complete selfishness without regards to anything else. I have demonstrated why doing so is utterly retarded, but it is beyond you to understand.

Any doctrine that does not propose a means to sustain the system it integrates with will fail to begin with. You rely on "good" folks to purchase and support the developers for you. That makes you a worthless leech of a soul. A despicable sack of human bones conceived of a weak sperm. When a Virus enters a human body, it does not do anything but consume and destroy its host. Your ethical approach is that of a virus as you just use your host "video game industry" until it dies. It's just utterly stupid. I don't think I have anything else to say to you other then "you just don't get it."
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
Xi said:
The problem with your approach is that you are always the problem given your lack of reason and illogical mentality for complete selfishness without regards to anything else.

Blah, blah. Now you show your true colors, eh? Okay, my mistake. I thought you were truly interested in Logic and Pure, Mathematical Reason. Now, my mentality is not Ilogical - You are the one mixing abstract concepts of Goodness with logical processes of Truth, while i am being purely materialist.

There is not evidence of the existence of a Right of Live or Exist other than by the Might to make such Right be respected - Actually all of nature is evidence of such reality, while only the mussings of some crazy thinkers denied it. Who i must believe from a LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC standpoint? Objetive reality, or subjetive mussings?To talk about the right of something not to be leeched to oblivion fails by means of Occam's Razor.

My thesis, or tesis, or whatever: The industry has no higher right to live other than by means of his own strenght, and this is self evident by looking the universe around us. It requires NOT A SINGLE jump in Logic, since it is so in all of "creation." Occam is happy with my proposition.

Your Thesis, tesis, or whatever: The industry has the right to exist and progress without being endangered or destroyed by horrible, amoral beings even if it is unable to fend them off by itself. What evidence have you shown? None. What evidence is in the universe around us? None. So, it requires at least one more logical jump (to assume as "True" the existence of something undemonstrated, in this case the existence of "rights" other than by "Might") than mine - Occam is not happy, and your claim of Logical Prowess is making him cry.

So: Give evidence on the tangible existence of such a right (in fact, proving beyond the shadow of doubt it's objective existence) or shut the fuck up about logic. It is quite simple. Thought experiments are nice and all, but they are not evidence that we can measure, touch, or subject to tests. So there.

Up until you do that, you are not talking "Truth" but "Opinion" - In this case "opinion" being a Thesis, Tesis, or whatever with a big bad hole by means of wich the evil forces of intangible pseudo-rationalism are invading the world.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
Lumpy said:
The obvious difference is that the store selling a plasma TV already paid $3000 on it, and the other $1000 go into wages, transport, etc. So if I stole the TV and left $3500 behind, I'd be hurting them.
What if you stole it direct from the manufacturer? Say it costs $500 to manufacture as we said before and you took it right off the end of the production line and left $500 behind. Thanks to your $500 gift, the company has the funds to manufacture another television to replace the one you took and you enjoy a television without having to pay the middle-man. The only thing you're denying them in this instance is the profit they could've made on the television you acquired, which in the case of piracy, is also what you're doing. You're denying them the profit they could've made had you purchased the product. Would that scenario be justified?

Lumpy said:
If I bought MotB from a store and stole NWN2 from the same store, I'd be hurting them as well.
But if I buy MotB and pirate NWN2, nobody loses, and pretty much everybody wins.
Yet once again you're denying the developer the income from the copy you pirated. You clearly want to play the game, meaning if you had the funds, you likely would've purchased it. Pirate's state that they "wouldn't have bought it anyway", therefore the developer has really lost nothing but if that is the truth, why are you playing it?

Lumpy said:
Furthermore, I'm not repricing it as I like. It's not like MotB itself is 60$, but rather MotB and a game I have no interest in playing.
... but you are. You clearly value it on some level as you've gone out of your way and spent time to acquire it. However you've decided that you'll pay what you think it is worth, rather than what the developer is asking for it. You do so, seemingly to send them a message that "well, it's not worth that" but if that really is true, wouldn't not buying or pirating the product at all, send them a clearer message? How is the developer to know that if they lowered their prices, they might sell more games and make more money, as opposed to thinking that if they lowered the price, the pirates "will just pirate it anyway"?

Lumpy said:
DarkUnderlord said:
If you don't value the game enough to purchase it for the price that's being asked, and you clearly lack the stamina to wait another 6 - 18 months for it to drop in price and appear in the bargain bin, why are you even playing it in the first place? What's wrong with waiting for the price to come down (assuming it does) and possibly buying a game you can afford in the mean-time?
Okay, so explain to me how that helps anyone?
Case 1: I play MotB when I want, I'm happy.
Obsidian sees another sale for MotB, that style of game is encouraged.
Obsidian gets money now.
Case 2: I wait until the bundle drops to 30$ - I play later than I want.
Obsidian sees another sale for NWN2 and MotB long after release. No style is particularily encouraged.
Obsidian gets the same 30$ later - they are worse off.
Win-win-win versus loss-loss-loss. Why should I choose the latter?
... because the latter clearly indicates to them that if they drop their prices, more people will see the gameas being worth that price and purchase it. Therefore sending them the message that maybe, their next game should be sold for less, thus bringing prices of games down for everyone's benefit. By purchasing MotB at full price, the developer will only assume that the purchaser has also purchased NWN2 (likely at full price) and will not receive any encouragement to lower prices. Your need for instant gratification has only served to send them the message that more full-priced expansion packs, coupled with NWN2 at full price, is the way to go.

Kraszu said:
Now you've already stated you don't care about the industry.
What do you mean? I buy games that I care for.
Sorry, my bad. That was one of the others.

Kraszu said:
As for system change as I said optional for software would be voluntary donations, maybe extra service for them like official server to access to nodding forums by cd key piracy will not be stopped whithout regulating of internet and I don't want that for more important reasons then piracy itself. I think that voluntary donations could work out since industry didn't collapse despite that pretty much everybody can download games, and direct donations means that developer gets 100% or close to it.
Why should the software industry work that way when no other product does? Why should software developers hope that there are enough honest citizens out there willing to send them cash to support their next game? Especially when places like Wikipedia, which is clearly enjoyed by millions, is constantly struggling to raise the funds it needs through that same system? If a developer is asking a price to be paid for their product and you don't think that product is worth that price, can't you just, not play it at all? If you're not willing to pay the price that is being asked, why should you get it for free?

Gnidrologist said:
Having said that, movie industry seems to be getting along just fine, especially in USofA. Even too well for my liking, which is why i probably will never buy holywood movie on removable media.
So whether you pay for something or not is based on your own personal judgement as to how well they're doing?

Lumpy said:
Also, you can pay for it because you think it deserves the money it costs. I don't pay for it simply because I don't want to play it.
You are playing it though. NWN2 contains all the mechanics of the gameplay, the combat and magic systems and everything else. There is more to the games you play then just the content. You seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding for anything that is intangible or cannot be seen or held physically.

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Some humans take great pleasure in killing people. For various reasons which I hope I don't have to explain, we deny them that pleasure because it would cause an awful lot of harm to society as a whole.
I am not in the least interested in killing people - But i won't deny the murderers their right to try and murder me if he doesn't deny me my right to try and blow their brains all over the wall. Whatever happens after that is the consequence of our respective choices and their interactions.
Your argument appears to be that piracy is neither right nor wrong, it just exists because a few would want it. By the same token, you accept that others will do what they can to prevent or halt piracy and that their actions too are neither right nor wrong. The result of that position is that the competition between pirates and those who would thwart them will always be ongoing until such time as one or the other would falter. By that argument, you accept "our" (and I'll use "us and them" in terms of pirates and those against piracy) right to do what we can to stop the pirates. Which means you also accept both sides "right" to make their position against the other... And yet here you are, seemingly complaining about it? If you accept each side has the right to fight and that one side, should they win, has the right to enforce their worldview, why would you care?

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.
You made the comment about the line where i said i was not a relativist. I will explain you why i am not, explanation that doesn't include "Because i say it."

"Competition is good while inside the context of the free market." equals "The morality of competition is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Therefore, we are talking about Relativism. Another one: "Killing is good while inside the context of War or Law." equals "The morality of killing is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Again, we are talking relativism: It is either "Killing is good, always" or "Killing is bad, always" - Those are absolute moral values.
Who's been talking about "moral absolutes"? We've been talking about whether piracy does or doesn't cause harm. So far, everyone appears to be agreeing that it does.

The Rambling Sage said:
I say: "Competition is good not matter what, period." In wich way am i a relativist?

DarkUnderlord said:
Well guess what? We won. You lost. We've made laws that result in death for a lot of what could be justified under your "individual morals" position.
There is something i will never understand, maybe because i read way too much Paradise Lost (Lost Paradise? Wich is the correct spelling in english?) as a kid - Were is the fun of winning by means of being a bunch of coward sheep hiding behind laws and faceless power instead of lossing like an individual or a loose group of individuals? I would get the later one every single time, even if it means bitter defeat each single time.
In what way is the strength of numbers being cowards? Pirates group together just as we would group together to stop them. Just because they haven't written anything down (although in many cases, they have), doesn't make them any less of a group. Our numbers are stronger and we have the capability to track, hunt pirates down and deal with them as we would choose. After your own statements (we exist and we have organised, therefore it must be okay), don't tell me you suddenly have a problem with our "right" to do so?

... and whatever happened to "Competition is good not matter what, period."? Suddenly we're back to "oh but you're all cowards and you hide behind faceless power". Relativist much? Your statements appear to belie your true nature.

The Rambling Sage said:
And since the debate is still raging, crime is as healthy as ever, and post-modernist selfish nihilism is all the rage talking about victory seems a bit premature.
I spoke of victory not in terms of "victory against the pirates" but in terms of "we established law and order" (victory against disorder or your "every man for himself", "law of the jungle" approach). This is our jungle.

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
How is a developer who makes a game which is enjoyed by potentially hundreds of thousands of people "selfish gratification"?
The developer wants money. The developer likes making games. The developer likes the feeling that comes with making a great and popular game. If at least one of those variables were not true he would not be making games to begin with but by being a masochist, in wich case doing games because he does NOT like to make games would give him pleasure. Therefore, Selfish Gratification. He does not makes games for YOU to feel good but if by doing so he makes HIMSELF feel good - By means of money, popularity, or being recognized while doing something he likes or loves.
I accept that argument. However, did you stop to notice the difference between the actions of the developer and the actions of the pirate? The developer, through self-gratification, brings joy to many and harms none. The pirate, through his self-gratification, brings joy only to himself and in fact harms others in the process. The developer's actions cause no harm. The pirate's actions do.

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
So you admit then that piracy harms the industry, even going so far as to destroy it? Which is against pretty much what most of the others here are trying to argue (which is "piracy harm the industry? Nonsense and piffle-swat! My piracy is only the good kind!").
You are misunderstanding me. I never argued it could hurt the industry - I argued that piracy was acceptable even if the entire industry was reduced to ashes in it's wake.
Only acceptable to you. You've already established that we who you claim hide behind our "faceless" power and "cowardly" laws, would find that unacceptable. As you state we have the "right" to exist and the force to uphold such existence, our position is therefore equally as viable.

Also:
The Rambling Sage said:
Yes, the consequences of piracy can be horrible - Global Warming, Zombie Apocalypse, The Fourth Reich, whatever.
Assuming the references to Global Warming etc.. were a joke, your intent appears to be quite clear, "piracy can be horrible". I assume that "horror" includes "harm" to the industry, which would mean quite clearly that you've admitted "piracy harms the industry". Otherwise, of what horror do you speak?

The Rambling Sage said:
About the ideological excuses for piracy i am on the same side with you: They should stop making stupid excuses and ideologies to feel justified and accept they care only for themselves - And find pleasure in such realization. The same goes for the other camp.
Yes, you stated in your first reply that "we assume pirates care". Well, all throughout this debate, the pirates have been telling us that they do. Now either that is the truth and they do, in which case your entire argument is meaningless or they don't, in which case they are wrong, untruthful and nothing but liars. I think you and I both agree that the latter is the case.

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
By the way, you also completely failed to actually demonstrate either side as "right" or "wrong" in the argument.
Both sides are right, since they are defending their own interests in a culture built around protecting one's own interests and progressing towards personal ambition or pleasure. I am arguing against those who claim one side is "Wrong" while the other is "Right."
For the most part, "right and wrong" has been a side argument. My position since page one as been that "piracy harms the industry, therefore it should not be done". It's not just "being wrong" it's about destroying something which very few of us would want to see destroyed. Both sides have stated that they don't wish the industry to be destroyed (though some have since said they "don't care", which of course only serves to confuse the debate). However, if pirates are deliberatey going out of their way to ensure that they don't cause harm (by purchasing games they like), then they obviously care about "right and wrong" on some level. Why else would they defend their position? If they truly did not care, why waste their time on it?

The Rambling Sage said:
As i said, i am not a relativist: If selfish gratification is good for A, it is good for B too. If not, you are the relativist - Not i.
Then you've added nothing to the debate as by your own standards, both sides have the "right" to do what they see fit.

The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Adaptation (or survival) in this instance would have to result in the end of piracy.
Film, music, and books still survive and piracy on those mediums was not exterminated. I and my friends usually see movies before they hit cinemas, but movies are still being made and those talentless idiots who call themselves "Actors" nowadays are still making big money.
... and pirates are still watching those movies with talentless actors again and again and playing those "shitty games" while arguing to themselves they're "not worth the purchase". "Talentless idiots". Do I sense yet another attempt to morally justify the actions of a pirate? Interesting coming from one would appear to argue that such things aren't necessary.

The Rambling Sage said:
Just like there has been piracy (either as "Download" or "Buying games on the park") since the XT days and the industry grew all the same.
... and yet through-out this period, piracy has been fought.

The Rambling Sage said:
But the problem of being on the side of numberless sheep is that most of them would not be up for that kind of thing. See? By being on their side you are also renouncing to the pleasure killing pirates, in gory clive-barkerish ways, would give you.
"Numberless sheep"? Once again your turn of phrase belie's your true nature.

The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
We recognize that piracy causes the industry to break down and therefore we shouldn't do it. That is not relativism, that is simple logic.
That would be logical if pirates were interested in the industry not breaking down. At least my kind of pirate does not, so it is not logical for us to even care.
Your pirate, who would take pleasure in "talentless actors" and ruing the actions of those "faceless powers" while at the same time stating they "don't care", actually appear to care quite an awful lot. It is not logical for you to care, and yet you do? Why is that? Do I sense a need to justify one's actions?

The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
See how that fits the pirates? Again, they apply their own moral principals relative to this specific amoral activity.
Again, a misunderstanding. Are most pirates idiots looking for excuses? Yes, they are. Does that make piracy inherently wrong? No, it doesn`t. You must demonstrate piracy is WRONG in and out of itself with DEMONSTRABLE evidence not requiring a moral judgement or a relative consideration (it will destroy the industry is a relative consideration, since i, for an example, do not fucking care - And as such it does not demonstrate the "Wrongness" of piracy) for your argument to be LOGICAL. otherwise it is your opinion, not that there is nothing wrong with that.
You do care though, that's the problem. Again and again you state you don't and yet again and again, you deride those who would oppose you. Seemingly solely out of a sense of caring. By your own statement, nothing can ever be proven "right" or "wrong" simple because one side, somewhere, probably says they don't care about the other. And so if nothing can be proven right or wrong, why should we bother proving piracy is wrong? Unless of course, you care about it.

The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
If you pirate, other people pirate, and if we all pirate the system doesn't work.
Why should i care for the system instead of exploit it in my own benefit?
... because your exploitation destroys it. You clearly care about the games you play, otherwise you would not pirate them. You clearly care about movies, otherwise you would not download and watch them. You clearly care about a great deal of things, otherwise your very actions would not be what they are. If you truly did not care for computer games (and therefore, the industry of computer games), you wouldn't even bother playing them. You simply, wouldn't care.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Lumpy said:
Having ignored this thread since like 3 pages ago,
MORAL QUESTION:
Is it moral if I downloaded NWN2 and bought MotB?
Facts:
- MotB costs as much as NWN2.
- MotB has a shorter campaign than NWN2.
- I do not intend to play the OC, but rather only MotB and mods.

Moral? Not too sure on that. It could be argued that price tying is rather immoral because it forces goods a consumer does not necessarily want in with goods a consumer does want. However, I'd rather avoid the morality territory for now.

Is it "fair" (and I use the term lightly)? Possibly so. They chose to use the wonderful idea of price tying and you came up with a great compromise in exercising your right as a consumer to pay for only what you want.

Now, my knowledge of Kant is a little sketchy at best, but if one applies that whole categorical imperative to the situation here, and that one must consider their actions being repeated universally to determine moral standing of said action, things get a little interesting. Sure, revenue is being stolen from the companies and the ill effects of this are sure to hit the developers, whether directly or through trickling down. But this gives a dedicated base of consumers the ability to signal to the company what is absolute and utter rubbish, and what is a good product. We would have an end result in this little hypothetical situation of everyone pirating the crap game, buying the good game, and the market being restored to the rightful balance that it would be at without PR, hype, lies, idiots, and all that other wonderful stuff. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly doesn't seem wrong. I'll leave the Kantian moral battleground before I look like a total fool though.

Of course, I would like to make one last moral point here and that's about how certain things become a lot more "moral" depending on the situation. For instance the atomic bomb. It is a weapon of unparalleled destructive power. Yet it could be argued that the United States' use of it, twice no less, to kill scores of people at the end of the second World War was morally justified in that a mainland invasion would have produced much higher casualties. Point being, the use of something can't be universally immoral or universally moral. It's all in how it is used and the situation. Apply this to piracy, and moral arguments against it start to seem a little weak. Sure, it's easy to lambaste someone for pirating just because they don't want to spend money. But would it be easy to demonize a bunch of, say, hardcore Fallout fans pirating Fallout 3 en masse and distributing pirated copies to anyone interested in purchasing it, with the intent of depriving Bethesda of revenue as a form of aggressive consumer protest for being arrogant and pushing a little too far? Not that I'm advocating something like this and saying it is right and just, but it could be argued as such. And finally, just the fact that there is an argument at all over the morality of piracy is proof of the weakness in the argument. I'm not sure if it was Kant, or another proponent of natural law who believed that morals should be intuitive to all sane and rational (in before ad hominem) people universally. The fact that there is debate would cast a shadow of doubt on the idea of it being a universal moral.

Away from the morality arguments now. Fact is, morals are pretty weak when it comes to determining piracy. I like to consider myself a moral enough person (of course I can't prove this in any way....), but even I find the morality argument against piracy pretty weak, between the way the publisher/developer relationship is among other factors. Of course, why I find it weak doesn't matter. What matters is that a rather moral person thinks so and there are plenty of arguments towards piracy. For one, it's economically beneficial to the users. Not only that, but it is accessible.

The point I'm trying to make here, is not that piracy is right, or always a good thing. I'm trying to point out that morals don't work as an argument against it. And with almost no ability to influence the market with a single purchase, coupled with the fact that you are unsure if fellow consumers will buy or pirate the game you are looking in to, that pretty much nullifies the piracy kills good games argument as well.

I guess the question I'm trying to dig up is this...what does a single person gain from not partaking in piracy? Because I know that I gain the ability to control the flow of time games have over my life by not pirating and that is what keeps me from utilizing piracy, in addition to some general empathy towards the creators (Like I said, the moral argument is pretty weak to me, but it is sort of there, but nowhere near the primary reason.). But what does a person without beliefs and disciplines like my own have as a tangible and solid reason not to pirate? What does the individual gain from abstaining from pirating when they don't give a damn about the morality of it all?
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
The Rambling Sage said:
Blah, blah. Now you show your true colors, eh? Okay, my mistake. I thought you were truly interested in Logic and Pure, Mathematical Reason. Now, my mentality is not Ilogical - You are the one mixing abstract concepts of Goodness with logical processes of Truth, while i am being purely materialist.

There is not evidence of the existence of a Right of Live or Exist other than by the Might to make such Right be respected - Actually all of nature is evidence of such reality, while only the mussings of some crazy thinkers denied it. Who i must believe from a LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC standpoint? Objetive reality, or subjetive mussings?To talk about the right of something not to be leeched to oblivion fails by means of Occam's Razor.

My thesis, or tesis, or whatever: The industry has no higher right to live other than by means of his own strenght, and this is self evident by looking the universe around us. It requires NOT A SINGLE jump in Logic, since it is so in all of "creation." Occam is happy with my proposition.

Your Thesis, tesis, or whatever: The industry has the right to exist and progress without being endangered or destroyed by horrible, amoral beings even if it is unable to fend them off by itself. What evidence have you shown? None. What evidence is in the universe around us? None. So, it requires at least one more logical jump (to assume as "True" the existence of something undemonstrated, in this case the existence of "rights" other than by "Might") than mine - Occam is not happy, and your claim of Logical Prowess is making him cry.

So: Give evidence on the tangible existence of such a right (in fact, proving beyond the shadow of doubt it's objective existence) or shut the fuck up about logic. It is quite simple. Thought experiments are nice and all, but they are not evidence that we can measure, touch, or subject to tests. So there.

Up until you do that, you are not talking "Truth" but "Opinion" - In this case "opinion" being a Thesis, Tesis, or whatever with a big bad hole by means of wich the evil forces of intangible pseudo-rationalism are invading the world.

Edit: (I'll just stick with a small response as I'm tired of correcting you.)

So I'll stick with DU's simple analogy on this one, that way we don't violate Occam's precious Razor:

Piracy harms the software industry that gamers enjoy, therefore it is bad and we should not participate if we want to continue to enjoy gaming.

There you go, Occam's Razor applied so that you can understand the debate in simplest terms. But you don't care about the industry and don't have to care about the fact that piracy harms PC gaming right? /sigh If it's illogical to you then it becomes purely a moral question. But it doesn't matter right? Morality is whatever you want it to be, just like the definition of role-playing.

Edward_R_Murrow said:
What does the individual gain from abstaining from pirating when they don't give a damn about the morality of it all?

A functional software development system.

"I do not believe that laws are important to maintaining crime rates, therefore what do I stand to gain abstaining from breaking these laws?"

A functional society.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
A functional software development system.

How is that a gain for the individual who decides not to pirate, when one takes none of the actions of others into consideration?

And second off, I don't pirate games, and I sure as hell believe that game development is as messed up as can be, relying on shiny blockbusters with a media blitzkrieg to entice the masses. So I especially don't understand how the individual benefits in today's society. Fact is, piracy isn't what seems to be harming software developers; it's ignorance of the masses and the ability of the big publishers/developers to capitalize upon it, making it hard for the smaller developers who focus on quality to survive.

"I do not believe that laws are important to maintaining crime rates, therefore what do I stand to gain from abstaining from breaking these laws?"

Poor analogy. If I perform a physical (read: not digital) felony, I would be very likely to be apprehended and face severe penalties. This is almost the opposite of piracy, where there is no real risk inherent in performing it (due to the absolutely impossible task of policing it). Basically, I gain freedom from prison and/or execution for obeying most basic laws as an individual, no other private citizens concerned.

Maybe it's because I tend to look at the small picture and the short run, because as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead".

I guess what I'm asking is, where's the guarantee that if I don't pirate, nobody else will? What if mass piracy is inevitable? What does the individual gain from not participating? Because they sure lose out on money (read: time in their lives spent working converted to currency) as well as the overall benefit if everyone else decides to pirate.
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
Edward_R_Murrow said:

Yep you rely on consequences to dictate morality. This is where the murder analogy comes in. If you stood to "gain" as you've worded it, and there were no consequences, what would stop you from performing the activity? I don't think this idea is getting through though. Ahh well...

Would you believe that if there was no such thing as consequence(much like in modern RPGs) that there would also be no such thing as morality? See "Ring of Gyges" as it attempts to explore this question.

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
— Plato's Republic, book 2

Written roughly 3000 years ago, go figure.

Edit: In a relationship, is sex, good times, and "gains" the only aspect of what keeps two people together? Or is there something else like love involved? (Simple moral question that is difficult to answer.)
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Xi said:
Edward_R_Murrow said:

Yep you rely on consequences to dictate morality. This is where the murder analogy comes in. If you stood to "gain" as you've worded it, and there were no consequences, what would stop you from performing the activity? I don't think this idea is getting through though. Ahh well...

You're trying to imply that this act is only stopped by morality, but if there were absolutely no consequences, one could argue it is in fact possibly a moral act. Because no one will hold enmity towards you, no one will punish you, no one will look upon you badly for it. Basically, this situation sounds like killing a person who is universally hated, loathed, and feared. In essence, killing an evil person.

Besides that, murder for gain is on a completely different plane than piracy and supposedly destroying (or more likely forcing the adaptation of) a human created industry. One snuffs out the life of a person, taking from them the highest necessity of existence and the choice rests solely on the individual. Compare to piracy, where there are many people involved who may contribute to the destabilization of the industry and it's "destruction" to everyone. Not to mention, it's a leisure activity, not a necessity of life being taken. And seeing as it involves others, you are unable to fully weigh the options, as the other people are unpredictable.
 

k_bits

Scholar
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
210
Everyone's talking ethics and no one is talking psychology

Piracy is going to occur until manufactures realize that consumers aren't willing to pay the prices they're asking.


If games cost under $10 and could be downloaded off the net (and were somehow hard coded to your machine, as with WinXP activation), would piracy dry up?

As for movies -

At least a part of the revenue raised for big hollywood films comes from product placement and subliminal love branding. Pay for it or not, the average teen still knows all the 'cool kids' listen to ipods and guzzle coke.

Another thing I never understood:

Let's say you broadcast an episode of Heroes or Lost or something. You literally push it to my tv. I miss the episode, then go online and download it. Am I now a pirate?

Same logic applies to movies. Just recently Shrek 2 was televised. If I record it for later viewing, am I now a pirate? Similarly, recording freely aired radio music?

Xi

You piss me off, mang, so maybe there's something to what you say. What's your take on Abandonware?
 

Xi

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
6,101
Location
Twilight Zone
Edward_R_Murrow said:
You're trying to imply that this act is only stopped by morality, but if there were absolutely no consequences, one could argue it is in fact possibly a moral act. Because no one will hold enmity towards you, no one will punish you, no one will look upon you badly for it. Basically, this situation sounds like killing a person who is universally hated, loathed, and feared. In essence, killing an evil person.

No, there is a logical reason and a moral reason. We've covered that.

Edward_R_Murrow said:
Besides that, murder for gain is on a completely different plane than piracy and supposedly destroying (or more likely forcing the adaptation of) a human created industry. One snuffs out the life of a person, taking from them the highest necessity of existence and the choice rests solely on the individual. Compare to piracy, where there are many people involved who may contribute to the destabilization of the industry and it's "destruction" to everyone. Not to mention, it's a leisure activity, not a necessity of life being taken. And seeing as it involves others, you are unable to fully weigh the options, as the other people are unpredictable.

You're a consequentialist so none of it is making much sense, but the truth is that murder is wrong because someone told you it was, and because it would bring immediate negative consequence. It is not wrong because "it just is" or for any other honorable reason. Also, this is where Kant's Universal Maxim comes in. It is the reason to act in a specific way. You cannot directly control others around you, but you should be a shining example of how you want them to act.

You're also giving each activity a relative level of "Wrongness" by indicating that murder is worse then piracy. Sure it is, but they are both amoral so why justify either?

k_bits said:
Xi

You piss me off, mang, so maybe there's something to what you say. What's your take on Abandonware?

I don't see a problem with downloading abandon ware. It is not piracy in my eyes as the software is no longer available on the free market. Obviously, this can be a difficult thing to decide though. Some games on those sites may still be available for purchase from some outlets, so it becomes gray.

Edit: http://plato.thefreelibrary.com/Republic/2-12 Here's another interesting read. It's hardly dry as someone else put it earlier.
 

k_bits

Scholar
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
210
Another thing I never understood:

Let's say you broadcast an episode of Heroes or Lost or something. You literally push it to my tv. I miss the episode, then go online and download it. Am I now a pirate?

Same logic applies to movies. Just recently Shrek 2 was televised. If I record it for later viewing, am I now a pirate? Similarly, recording freely aired radio music?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom