The MORALITY of piracy

[Azrael the cat]

I know that there are a few other threads on piracy at the moment, but this is slightly different. Those threats largely concern whether piracy is good or bad for the gaming community. This topic is concerned with the morality of piracy as an act - not about whether it is legit to blame piracy for the loss (or success) of gaming companies..

What bothers me is that out of those who have thus far defended the morality of piracy (in related threads) have either done so on the basis of purely consequentialist justifications, with a few extremely weak deontological exceptions.

The problem with the consequentialist justifications (i.e. those that show that the gaming company is better off with piracy, or piracy boosts sales etc) is that a lot of morality doesn't work in that manner. Usually if something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of whether it causes a bad outcome for the victim. Take assault and attempted murder as an example. Say that KingComrade sneaks into VD's house with a knife in hand, and creeps into his bedroom with the intent of stabbing, raping and then killing VD. KC succeeds in stabbing VD, but VD then throws him out the window. Upon following KC outside, VD manages to catch a lottery ticket flying through the air, which he later cashes for $20,000,000. There is no way that VD could have found the lotto ticket without KC trying to murder him. However, despite benefiting VD to the tune of $20,000,000, most of us would still take KC's attempted rape and murder (and actual assault) as immoral.

Some might argue that the problem is the disconnect between the good fortune and the immoral act - that no-one could have predicted the lotto ticket flying past. But we can change the example so that isn't a problem - now rather than finding a lotto ticket, VD becomes a local celebrity in the paper and makes $5,000,000 from compensation and media deals.

So consequences by themselves aren't a good enough justification. The fact that piracy might HELP gaming companies on some occasions doesn't make it morally right.

So what IS relevant. Many people think that INTENTION is relevant. Let's say that KC carried out the whole plan, intending to bungle the rape and murder, so that VD could get a whole lot of compensation cash. Of course VD had no say in this - he never consented to earning money in this way. And despite being better off, he still might not appreciate the stab wound he received. But it DOES seem at least LESS immoral than the first case - particularly because KC didn't really intend any overall harm to VD. So arguably if someone pirates software BECAUSE they are trying to assist the company via viral marketing, and are not motivated by any greedy concept of playing the game for free, then it is certainly less immoral, and might even give some grounds for calling it moral.

But that's a bit far-fetched, isn't it. Much more likely that the pirate has no intentions regarding the victim's wellbeing either way. The pirate doesn't WANT the company to lose money, but at the same time the pirate doesn't really care about the consequences of his actions regardless. So let's get a different example to suit it. Let's say that now KC doesn't want to stab or kill VD, but just has some messed up sexual fetish that involves tying VD down and ejaculating on his face. He isn't intending to HARM VD in any way, he's just trying to get some free entertainment and isn't bothered by the consequences that may or may not occur to VD. Still, most of us would consider that immoral. Recklessness, in situations where you are (a) gaining a benefit and (b) knowingly risking harm to someone else, is usually considered immoral.

There is another type of argument that sometimes get's raised. Consequentialist arguments, it says, are usually flawed because the morality of an action is determined AT THE TIME OF ACTING - i.e. if you do something immoral, it is IMMEDIATELY immoral, it doesn't stay neutral until its consequences become clear. And yet we don't usually know the consequences of a specific action until some time later. Instead, some people (most famously Kant) suggest that if you are wondering whether an action is immoral, you should ask whether you would approve of EVERYONE doing it. That way, rather than looking at what random events flow on from your particular crime, you are looking at whether the action is wrong 'in principle' - i.e. whether or not a society should have a rule against that kind of conduct. That's pretty damning for piracy. If EVERYONE pirated, and NO-ONE paid up, then the gaming industry couldn't exist. You wouldn't even have the gaming tools for making indie RPGs.

So as a starting point, piracy is looking pretty darn immoral. Now some people do believe in things like 'lesser evil', or 'excuses' for otherwise immoral conduct. I have to say - most of those raised in this particular issue haven't impressed me. Saying that it's ok because the company produces shit products isn't good enough - you don't need to buy those shit products, they are pure luxury items, and frankly taste is relevant. I don't get to steal your car just because I think it sucks. If you do think that is a good excuse, then please let me know where you live and I'll ransack your house for anything that I consider to be substandard.

Company producing insane system requirements. Yep that's shitty business practice and obviously encourages piracy, but again - you're under no obligation to buy the product. Many sports cars are outrageously overpriced, but that doesn't justify theft. In a 'need' situation it might - arguably African nations would be justified in sending raiding parties to steal research formula from european/US drug companies so that they can manufacture their own cheap AIDS drugs, but that is a 'need' situation, not a mere luxury.

Companies engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Usually most people don't agree that someone else's immorality permits others to act immorally towards the original offender, except in a self-defence situation. If you jaywalk that doesn't mean I can beat you over the head with a mallet. If you kill someone, that doesn't mean I can kick you in the groin while you are unconscious (i.e. in a non-self-defence scenario). If a company's practices are illegal than report them to trade authorities. Most countries have some fairly vigorous prosecution authorities. You don't just take your personal view of what 'illegal' is, or otherwise you get a bunch of morons each with their own interpretation (or utter ignorance) of the law. That's like me claiming I have property rights to your house - if I do then I should go through the courts, if that isn't an option then it's because I don't ACTUALLY have property rights to your house.

Now I'm certainly open to suggestions. Intellectual property is not a traditional form of property, but a modern invention designed to encourage innovation and assist market growth. Hence the old call of 'you're stealing' has little weight. On the other hand, there are some excellent reasons why it is immoral aside from traditional views of stealing. Any takers on this? Remember - I'm looking at piracy's morality, not whether it helps or hurts the gaming industry.

 

[Fez]

Sini Plenis Piscis?

 

[mirrorshades]

You have to assume a couple things for your question to be answered --

1) The existence of absolutes, of "good" and "evil" or at least "right" and "wrong".

2) The existence of some sort of capitalist-based free market system, where goods are bought and sold, or traded for something else of value.

Given the above two things, I think that most people would be hard-pressed *not* to consider software piracy wrong or immoral. If you have something (non-essential, entertainment-related) that you want someone to pay money for, and someone comes and takes it, that is "wrong". Wrong in the higher sense, and wrong because it breaks the idea of our free market system.

The realm of open-source software kind of flies in the face of our normal expectations of commerce; "here's something I've spent my time creating; you can just take it and do what you like with it". In this case, downloading a program without paying for it is *not* immoral, as it is permitted by the author's design.

Thus, the morality is determined by the desire or intent of the supplier. (If you intend to mug someone, but they hand you all their money before you get the chance, you have done no wrong.)

Another related question may deal with the mindset of the person doing the pirating. Sure, I'm downloading a game I didn't pay for. But do I really care? Probably not.

 

[cardtrick]

You have to assume a couple things for your question to be answered --

1) The existence of absolutes, of "good" and "evil" or at least "right" and "wrong".

2) The existence of some sort of capitalist-based free market system, where goods are bought and sold, or traded for something else of value.

The second half of 1 is required -- the existence of meaningful concepts of right and wrong, or good and evil -- and it cannot be proved, but most of us accept it a priori, and those who don't have much more serious problems than software piracy, I think. There's definitely no requirement in his argument for "absolute" good and evil -- everything holds together fine with relativistic morality, too.

And there's no need to assume 2 -- a capitalist-based free market system does exist, so why assume it?

Anyway, yeah, I think pirating is morally wrong and cannot be justified. I've still done it, and will continue to do it (primarily for things I've already bought, though) because the magnitude of the perceived immorality for me, combined with my perceived risk of being caught and punished, aren't nearly enough to outweigh the benefits I gain.

 

[WalterKinde]

What do you mean by piracy?
Thats the key.
Are we talking the commerce making ones like the flea markets in China where you can get perfectly crystal clear dvd movies that have just been released in cinema, or those pressed copies of applications and Operating systems in those same places?

Or is it casual p2p use, the folks who download an episode of lost off some torrent tracker instead of buying it on Itunes because they came home late and missed said episode some people do forget to Tivo or don't have one or a vcr.
Or the kind that the gaming industry laments?

There are different spectrums of it, the most common one these days is of the tv show variety do you see that as wrong?
I miss an episode or 3 wks worth of episodes of show X, i have the channel whether cable or local already, i just didn't record it with my vcr or have Tivo, what harm am i doing?
I will eventually get the dvd box set but right now i need to catch up and the stupid site where the tv station offers free streams is damn slow, locks up my browser or the episode i need to see is missing from their collection and on top of all this because i live outside the u.s. or u.k. not accessible and the quality aint that great as well.

With the flea markets of china etc. thats piracy that they continue to ignore and which most of us will never get to unless you live in those areas.

Now onto the great white whale, PC gaming piracy, game X gets released with all the hype and hoopla you imagine, costs around 50 dollars for the regular version and 65 dollars for the collector's , you have pre-ordered it , but it won't be at your door until next week meanwhile with that super broadband connection and your bookmark to that bay of pirates you see the "special" version is already up for download what do you do? You already bought it whats the harm? Who are you hurting?
Maybe you are of the other type just curious about why this game is getting 10/10 from gamespot but do you dare waste good money on it? The demo is 6gb but as a seasoned pc gamer you know demos these days are short and most times aren't what is in the final game. What could it hurt to get the "special" version see if its worth 50 dollars?
Finally the other end of the spectrum to which all devs seem to think p2p users aka those evil pirates belong to,you don't give a fuck, fuck all the justifications you just want Game X and will not pay, fuck that development house their last two games were just as hyped but shitty, you get a thrill out of downloading it for free, so you do it, you probably won't even finish the game but so what you got it for free while all those other suckers were lined up since midnight the night before outside the store.

 

[RK47]

Currently, what's happening in my country is a distributor company responsible for subtitling TV shows(to distribute on DVD & VCDs) are going after P2P users for downloading off independent fan-subs (higher quality than theirs too).

So, what sort of morality am I looking at here?

 

[Section8]

We're not talking about freakish occurances like the "lottery ticket" example you've provided. We're talking about something that that theoretically has quantifiable statistics than we could draw conclusions from, and the degree of the negative/positive effect is being applied to a single party primarily on a single scale (revenue) so it can be reasonably considered on the merits of the net effect, as opposed to say, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

That said, you can't argue that piracy is anything but immoral, but you still have to ask the question of whether that immorality is worth concerning yourself over. It's immoral to steal from the rich, even if you're giving it to the poor. The "greater good" dictates that it's an immorality that can be forgiven.

Of course, software piracy isn't stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. It boils down to - it's immoral to deprive the rich of potential revenue, even if the broader product recognition potentially delivers more revenue than was lost.

So really, the question of morality doesn't really mean anything without proper context.

 

[Slylandro]

What do you mean by piracy?
Thats the key. [more stuff follows]

No that's not the key. We all know what piracy is. Yes, there are some cases which are minor, and others where things are ambiguous. That's how all things are. It doesn't mean that people get a free ticket to doing whatever they want with music, games, etc, if that's what you're arguing. If you're not, I don't see its relevance. We're not talking about Joe Blow downloading an episode of Pokemon because his kid didn't see it and is throwing a hissy fit. In this thread and the others recently we've been talking nearly exclusively about acts that are acknowledged as black and white cases of piracy (regardless of whether someone feels it's moral). The whole "that depends on what you mean by ___insert word____" thing has got to stop. It's pretty obvious what is being discussed and setting up a smokescreen isn't an argument.

@Azrael, yeah that's much the way Xi put it. Basically the consequentialist view chickens out of the morality debate altogether and instead rests entirely on the assumption that there will always be enough customers. It's naive, wishful thinking at its best.

What will keep it true? Stupidity? Unlikely, there's no technical knowledge necessary in using peer to peer software or using a crack and the number of people who can do either will only increase.

Loyalty? That only applies to people who have already actually bought significant amounts of software in the first place. To be loyal to a company-- for example Blizzard-- implies that you already purchased one of their products.

You are unlikely to ever be loyal if, like much of the newer generation, you started out with no income and were exposed to an environment where you could get anything you wanted, absolutely free. Someone who has pirated software since he's had a computer isn't going to suddenly turn around, abandon his sense of entitlement, and decide to be a 'loyal' customer.

Loyalty is more of a factor for the older generations, who out of necessity had to use their hard earned cash at one point whether they wanted to or not. These people could choose between loyalty or abandonment. The newer generations who are coming face a much more difficult decision, between their own natural sense of entitlement and fairness to those who should've reaped the rewards of their labor.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

In before categorical imperative.

 

[Xi]

I believe piracy is "evil" because it is an act that leads to the destruction of what the pirates enjoy, games. Piracy is no different than a virus infecting and eventually using up and destroying a system. I do not believe we can ever consider it a "good" thing because pretending that it is good is like pretending that having AIDS is a good thing. It's a viral train of thought that results in the destruction of a system based on the ease of being able to take advantage of said system. Piracy is partially to blame for the slow downfall of the PC gaming industry.

In before categorical imperative.

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

 

[sqeecoo]

Piracy is by no means right (although it's sometimes almost justified, when the companies are stupid/you don't have money etc.), but it's not a big sin either. All there is to it. I wouldn't get upset about it. Buy games if you can afford them and if that's what your conscience dictates - that's the right thing to do. But you're not going to hell or whatever for pirating a game.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right? Not to mention the fact that his metaethics is convoluted, circular, and silly.

 

[Slylandro]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right?

What a relevant thing to add. Now that we know Kant was religious, he's clearly wrong about everything and can't be trusted. In after secularist bait.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right?

What a relevant thing to add. Now that we know Kant was religious, he's clearly wrong about everything and can't be trusted. In after secularist bait.

Oh ho ho. I don't think you can read very well.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Lol @ this thread.

Do you not see the inherant flaw in asking people who directly benefit from a thing if they think it is good or bad? Thats like asking government officials who will financially benefit from a deal whether they think the deal is good for the country in general. You think you're going to get unbiased opinions here, for the most part?

Don't make the mistake I did and spend a bunch of your time arguing about it. Seems like you have a good understanding already.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Lol @ this thread.

Do you not see the inherant flaw in asking people who directly benefit from a thing if they think it is good or bad? Thats like asking government officials who will financially benefit from a deal whether they think the deal is good for the country in general. You think you're going to get unbiased opinions here, for the most part?

Don't make the mistake I did and spend a bunch of your time arguing about it. Seems like you have a good understanding already.

But my dear, when done right, piracy benefits everyone, while no one loses. Instead of game/dvd/music/book collection X, you can have game/dvd/music/book collection X + everything ever made. This includes game designers, film makers, musicians and writers, too; and with unlimited access to everything their craft can benefit as well. If you choose not to partake in all this due to your own silly mental hangups, that's your problem.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Lol, sure mate. And lets all go skipping off to the end of the rainbow to find the pot of gold at the end. :D

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Lol, sure mate. And lets all go skipping off to the end of the rainbow to find the pot of gold at the end. :D

I accept your capitulation, precious.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right?

What a relevant thing to add. Now that we know Kant was religious, he's clearly wrong about everything and can't be trusted. In after secularist bait.

Oh ho ho. I don't think you can read very well.

On the other hand, a lot of people who don't agree with Kant's reasoning, meta-ethics, notion of rationality etc still agree with the idea that the effect of universal application of a particular conduct is more relevant than the consequences of any one example of that conduct. I'm not arguing fundamentals of ethics or meta-ethics here, that's why I'm quite happy to include or take into account multiple understandings of what matters morally rather than taking any one rule as the true imperative. Almost all theories of morality, whether they are from religion, utilitarianism, Kantian philosophy, 'common sense' morality seem to have some intuitive appeal - arguments are usually over just how that appeal should be stipulated and what it applies to. Now that's not really an argument that I think can be productively had over the internet, and anyway it would bore the hell out of most of us, myself included. What I AM interested in is whether there are arguments in favour of morality being moral - putting meta-ethics aside (there isn't even anything CLOSE to the kind of agreement about meta-ethics as there is about most ethical issues) and allowing that most popular tests of morality have at least some truth to them (including stuff like 'love thy neighbour').

As some guy above mentioned, taking into the account the enormous wealth of some gaming companies compared to their customers doesn't seem irrelevant - the thing that gets me (and I think I mentioned this in one of the other threads) is that games are such a total luxury item. Now I've pirated myself, I'm certainly not taking the moral high ground. In trying to justify it though, I just can't get past the fact that it isn't exactly something I 'need.'

 

[Slylandro]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right?

What a relevant thing to add. Now that we know Kant was religious, he's clearly wrong about everything and can't be trusted. In after secularist bait.

Oh ho ho. I don't think you can read very well.

Epic fail at bait followed by a sheepish, rather cheesy retort. Try again. Oh, and the OP already talked about Kant's categorical imperative in the first post. Sounds like you can't read well either.

@ Naked Ninja
Yeah I know, I was just bored. Hadn't visited the Codex for a while so I felt compelled to say something but now I remember why I don't usually bother writing. It doesn't really get through to anyone.

 

[Naked Ninja]

now I remember why I don't usually bother writing. It doesn't really get through to anyone.

@Sylandro : Yeah, know that feeling.

 

[Section8]

I believe piracy is "evil" because it is an act that leads to the destruction of what the pirates enjoy, games.

Does it? Have libraries destroyed literature? If tobacco companies could give out free packs of cigarettes at schools, would they?

Piracy is no different than a virus infecting and eventually using up and destroying a system.

It's very different.

I do not believe we can ever consider it a "good" thing because pretending that it is good is like pretending that having AIDS is a good thing.

I bet Hitler was a software pirate.

It's a viral train of thought that results in the destruction of a system based on the ease of being able to take advantage of said system. Piracy is partially to blame for the slow downfall of the PC gaming industry.

So is the internet. EEEEEEEeeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiillllllllll!!!!

Two can play the hyperbole game.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Doh!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

You do realise that Kant himself thought his theory of morality necessitated (a) God, right?

What a relevant thing to add. Now that we know Kant was religious, he's clearly wrong about everything and can't be trusted. In after secularist bait.

Oh ho ho. I don't think you can read very well.

On the other hand, a lot of people who don't agree with Kant's reasoning, meta-ethics, notion of rationality etc still agree with the idea that the effect of universal application of a particular conduct is more relevant than the consequences of any one example of that conduct. I'm not arguing fundamentals of ethics or meta-ethics here, that's why I'm quite happy to include or take into account multiple understandings of what matters morally rather than taking any one rule as the true imperative. Almost all theories of morality, whether they are from religion, utilitarianism, Kantian philosophy, 'common sense' morality seem to have some intuitive appeal - arguments are usually over just how that appeal should be stipulated and what it applies to. Now that's not really an argument that I think can be productively had over the internet, and anyway it would bore the hell out of most of us, myself included. What I AM interested in is whether there are arguments in favour of morality being moral - putting meta-ethics aside (there isn't even anything CLOSE to the kind of agreement about meta-ethics as there is about most ethical issues) and allowing that most popular tests of morality have at least some truth to them (including stuff like 'love thy neighbour').

As some guy above mentioned, taking into the account the enormous wealth of some gaming companies compared to their customers doesn't seem irrelevant - the thing that gets me (and I think I mentioned this in one of the other threads) is that games are such a total luxury item. Now I've pirated myself, I'm certainly not taking the moral high ground. In trying to justify it though, I just can't get past the fact that it isn't exactly something I 'need.'

My post was a slight dig at an earlier thread in which Xi (most notably) attempted to use the categorical imperative ad nauseam, and it was filled with all kinds of metaethical shenanigans and related silliness (categorical imperative is my pet name for Xi, if you must know).

You do not need to justify piracy on the basis of need, not to mention the fact that need itself is a vague term -- do you mean physiological needs? Why look at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs alone, when we're not exactly starving Ethiopians? Of course, if you consider only physiological needs as "true" needs, and everything else a want -- that is fine too. What exactly is the problem with fulfilling wants? Fulfilling wants is a goddam good thing, we do it day in day out. In fact, most of us civilised folk have the right to fulfill our wants as long as it harms no one else. From where I'm standing, fulfilling wants is a perfectly moral thing to do -- but that's the problem with morality, it is a purely personal intuition for the justification of which you do in fact need metaethics, which as you have already mentioned no one can agree upon. This is also why I think it's silly to argue about "piracy", simply because it isn't a monolith. Lots of people pirate for lots of different reasons and go about it in different ways.

It is a pity, by the way, that there are now what, five or six threads on the subject. Makes things rather difficult.

Slylandro, you goddam cretin -- which part of my post was "bait"? If you are irreligious, as plenty here are, then a theory which necessitates a deity is at the very least questionable and this fact alone warrants a second look at its assumptions. This has fuck all to do with Kant himself being religious, and not a single part of that post was a (veiled) ad hominem. And yes, you should return to lurking, it will benefit everybody.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

I bet Hitler was a software pirate.

Does it count as a Godwin if it's meant to be jocular?

 

[vrok]

I'm sorry but why the fuck should I care if piracy is immoral to most people or not? Most people in the western world are sheep who believe alcohol is a gift from god, doping yourself with caffeine to get through a work day is nothing strange, but smoking pot is immoral. Fuck off. Rap music and jaywalking is immoral too.

The other threads > this one.