Azrael the cat
Arcane
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.
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.