Programming, Piracy, and Morale
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| I'm not convinced it's rationalizing. I genuinely don't think I'm doing anything morally wrong. |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| ... It's like I said before, morality is subjective. |
When you say "morality" you are using a relativist point of view. Moreover, you are expressing it as if it were the only point of view under discussion.
The reality is that the topic here is about the conflict in definition between your "morality" and normative morality -- what is actually right and wrong. This is very clearly indicated in the OP.
It's okay to state that you just don't care about taking stuff and think it's fine to do so.
I responded to the post because you state your POV as the only reasonable or acceptable one in fact. And you've basically ridiculed the OP for thinking otherwise.
And if you don't realize you've done that then you need to think really hard about your own POV. Or at least concede that you don't care enough about it but it is just your opinion -- and not anything wrong with the way the OP is looking at it.
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| My main problem with all madia is that they are essentually stealing from me. |
| Programming, Piracy, and Morale |
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but the title could use some editing.
Morale : the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
I was about to answer something along the lines of, "When you're out longer than expected at sea, or dug in at the office working overtime trying to meet a deadline, morale can be a big issue with your team. You might try passing out a few beers and singing a jolly song pirate song ...
The reality is that the topic here is about the conflict in definition between your "morality" and normative morality -- what is actually right and wrong. |
Who decides what is actually right and wrong? It's a matter of belief; like religion.
Last edited on
| LOL. I see that rational discussion is over. |
If you want to argue that not returning money for service which was not fully provided or was not of sufficient quality is not stealing... It is like promising a well-done steak, then giving you a piece of raw meat and telling you: you already paid, go away.
| ...and sod any actual laws about it. |
For example technically any road-blocking protest violates the law. Disrupting public services one. If police behaved like copyright holders, they would send army to the any > 5 people protest and steamroll them with tanks.
You decided to set up a caching proxy server to lessen network load and/or ability for offline browsing (I still remember times of dialup and Internet Cache Explorer) and watched Netflix? Congratulations. You are filthy pirate, because you now have an illegal copy of one of the movies on your hard drive.
You decided to record bird songs and then upoad them to youtube? You cannot! This is copyrighted material! http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html
Problem with media is lack of reliable distributor which won't block and wipe all of your bought content on a whim (that means to be able to store DRM-free copy in case distributor decides to close autorisation services).
Main reason for widespread movie/music/book piracy is than legal content is actually worse that illegal. And instead of changing they ways, and after miserably losing against distributors, now they resorted to demonstrative punishmnet of users and trying to make life of legit users even more miserable.
| Grey Wolf wrote: |
|---|
| ...and sod any actual laws about it. |
Pretty much, yeah.
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| When you say "morality" you are using a relativist point of view. Moreover, you are expressing it as if it were the only point of view under discussion. The reality is that the topic here is about the conflict in definition between your "morality" and normative morality -- what is actually right and wrong. This is very clearly indicated in the OP. |
Given how widespread internet piracy is, and how enforcement/punishment for it is practically nonexistent... I think the normative morality here is that piracy is no big deal.
It's like jaywalking. Yeah it's against the law -- and even for good reason. But nobody really cares and people do it anyway.
| I responded to the post because you state your POV as the only reasonable or acceptable one in fact. And you've basically ridiculed the OP for thinking otherwise. |
After re-reading my original reply I will admit I came off a little more "pushy" than I meant to. So you're right, and I apologize for that.
Though I don't think I ever ridiculed OP or his opinion. I certainly didn't intend to.
EDIT:
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| Who decides what is actually right and wrong? It's a matter of belief; like religion. |
Not to speak for Duoas, but he said "normative morality" -- as in, what our society in general considers to be normal morals.
The problem is, I think he might be confusing normative morality with the law.
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| Not all laws make sense. Not all laws should remain laws. |
Even though we're on the same side here, I'm going to cut in and say that I do think piracy should be against the law. In fact, I think how it's handled now is pretty much perfect: Technically against the law, but only really enforced in the most extreme cases.
Last edited on
| Not to speak for Duoas, but he said "normative morality" -- as in, what our society in general considers to be normal morals. |
But he also implicitly claimed that normative morality defines "what is actually right and wrong". I think it's just a case of him not knowing the meaning of the phrase. I believe I was responding to what he intended to say.
Anyways. I think the morality of pirating digital content is not black and white. Whether it's right or wrong depends both on the pirate, the content and the owner to it's rights, and the circumstances surrounding everything.
For example, consider poor kids in India or elsewhere who work all day in the fields and who barely make enough in a year to watch a few movies. Is it morally wrong for them to pirate some digital content that would otherwise be essentially completely out of their reach?
Last edited on
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I genuinely don't think I'm doing anything morally wrong. |
This way of thinking is obviously easy when you're the 'perpetrator'.
Suppose that one day you release a game as an indie developer, expecting to make money off it (now, judging by your quickgame challenge entry this day may not come any time soon, but I believe in your potential as a game developer and this is a hypothetical scenario anyway). What would your stance be regarding potential (guaranteed?) piracy of your game?
Would you...
1 ... take measures to prevent it?
2 ... do nothing?
3 ... actively encourage it?
And why?
Also, I would really like to know your opinion on Phil Fish, creator of FEZ.
( context (if necessary) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8fkNjXvJ1E )
PS: Relevant fun story-> http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/
| What would your stance be regarding potential (guaranteed?) piracy of your game? |
Well of course this is largely hypothetical as I would not pursue this avenue. But...
- The game would be free.
- I'd have a donation thing so if people wanted to pay, they could.
- If I was serious about making money, I'd have in-game/online purchase options (IE: buy gear with real money and/or buy new levels or packages online)
Piracy is guaranteed, and I would not really take steps to try and stop it. Frankly, those steps would be a waste of time.
These models have been effective in other places, and plenty of indie developers have gotten their feet wet with free-to-play projects (Cave Story and Minecraft come to mind)
| Also, I would really like to know your opinion on Phil Fish, creator of FEZ. ( context (if necessary) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8fkNjXvJ1E ) |
I don't know anything about him and that article was extremely one-sided so I'm not going to form an opinion after having watched that.
Fez was an awesome game, though.
| PS: Relevant fun story-> |
I've heard this before. They definitely took the wrong approach with that game if they were looking to make money off it. It sounds like it was more of an experiment.
But again -- it kind of shows my point. 93.6% of the users were playing pirated copies. So clearly most of them are OK with it. So the whole "normative morality" thing is quite clearly that piracy isn't a big deal.
Heh, I think this'll be my last post on this subject, since it's going to the dogs. At least Disch acts like a grown-up when he posts his opinion.
Way to restate the premise! Woot! You are aware that half of us are arguing that you're just stating your opinion of what you'd like things to be? (Because you are.)
I'll not argue no such thing. (And I haven't.)
But that's not all that you've argued using this (backwards) train of thought -- the argument you made that you ought to be able to take a preview before buying, and a simple analogy was drawn to things in the store. The analogy is flawed and does not support your premise.
But at this point, we're arguing words as if you all know what they mean.
Alas, that's not what it means.
Good question (even if implied). The answer is that I am not confusing them.
Law and right and wrong are not as tightly related as people would like to believe. Law forms a societal norm, with the typically given premise that it prescribes cooperative ("beneficial") behavior and proscribes behavior that is destructive. How well it does this varies and is of no use to my argument here, except to say (as Grey Wolf regularly repeats) that something that is illegal can be considered immoral for our purposes.
I think you don't have a clue because your head is too big. Try googling "normative morality" and see if you can figure out how it relates to what is actually right and wrong. Hint: it has nothing to do with sampling. Oh, and you drew the arrow backwards. Right and wrong imply normative morality, not the other way around.
I don't think your filters are turned down enough to have understood any part of what I've said in any conversation we've ever participated in.
Which is why I'm leaving now.
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| Who decides what is actually right and wrong? It's a matter of belief; like religion. |
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| If you want to argue that not returning money for service which was not fully provided or was not of sufficient quality is not stealing... It is like promising a well-done steak, then giving you a piece of raw meat and telling you: you already paid, go away. |
But that's not all that you've argued using this (backwards) train of thought -- the argument you made that you ought to be able to take a preview before buying, and a simple analogy was drawn to things in the store. The analogy is flawed and does not support your premise.
But at this point, we're arguing words as if you all know what they mean.
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Not to speak for Duoas, but he said "normative morality" -- as in, what our society in general considers to be normal morals. |
| The problem is, I think he might be confusing normative morality with the law. |
Law and right and wrong are not as tightly related as people would like to believe. Law forms a societal norm, with the typically given premise that it prescribes cooperative ("beneficial") behavior and proscribes behavior that is destructive. How well it does this varies and is of no use to my argument here, except to say (as Grey Wolf regularly repeats) that something that is illegal can be considered immoral for our purposes.
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| But he also implicitly claimed that normative morality defines "what is actually right and wrong". I think it's just a case of him not knowing the meaning of the phrase. |
| htirwin wrote: |
|---|
| I believe I was responding to what he intended to say. |
Which is why I'm leaving now.
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| Alas, that's not what it means. |
Then I'm afraid you've lost me. Doing a google search for normative morality brings up "normative ethics" which apparently is a school of philosophy... but the description is like 5 pages long which I'm too lazy to read right now.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| Not all laws make sense. Not all laws should remain laws. There are laws which are impossible to not break in certain circumstances. |
| and wrote: |
|---|
| For example technically any road-blocking protest violates the law. Disrupting public services one. If police behaved like copyright holders, they would send army to the any > 5 people protest and steamroll them with tanks. |
| and wrote: |
|---|
| You decided to set up a caching proxy server to lessen network load and/or ability for offline browsing (I still remember times of dialup and Internet Cache Explorer) and watched Netflix? Congratulations. You are filthy pirate, because you now have an illegal copy of one of the movies on your hard drive. |
| and wrote: |
|---|
| You decided to record bird songs and then upoad them to youtube? You cannot! This is copyrighted material! |
| You may not like the law but it is not impossible not to break them, it is choice. |
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| Counter-example: unreasonably short yellow lights in the middle of high speed roads. |
Let's say that it is. That doesn't change the fact that you can end up in a situation where your only choices are jumping a red light or braking dangerously. You can't retroactively choose not to accelerate five minutes earlier when the light is already changing.
Braking dangerously would be the reasonable thing to do, actually- if you get hit by the person behind you, it is their fault without debate- they should have kept more distance. Sure, there is risk of injury, but if you actually hit anyone in that intersection that you just sped through, you'd be both more likely to die and legally responsible.
That is, assuming you'd even be able to stop. You could brake hard and still go flying past the intersection and still get hit.
Also, assuming that both vehicles involved are cars. If either is a motorcycle, someone is probably going to get very seriously injured. Even worse, imagine getting rear-ended and squished against the car in front because some moron didn't think their maneuver through. I've actually found myself in that situation a couple times and let me tell you: it sucks.
IMO braking hard to avoid jumping a red light is probably the most idiotic thing a driver can do. Generally any kind of very sudden changes in velocity should be avoided for everyone's safety.
Also, assuming that both vehicles involved are cars. If either is a motorcycle, someone is probably going to get very seriously injured. Even worse, imagine getting rear-ended and squished against the car in front because some moron didn't think their maneuver through. I've actually found myself in that situation a couple times and let me tell you: it sucks.
IMO braking hard to avoid jumping a red light is probably the most idiotic thing a driver can do. Generally any kind of very sudden changes in velocity should be avoided for everyone's safety.
...honestly, if you're trying to compare piracy to an unavoidable car accident versus just running a red light, that is just idiocy. Piracy isn't a decision to save lives, damnit.
I think some basic facts should be laid down:
1) No matter how hard you try to prevent piracy, it will inevitably happen.
2) Removing DRM and lowering the price of a media does not prevent piracy... at all. Quite the opposite actually.
3) People who make such media must make money in order to live.
So, possible solutions would be:
1) Funding must come from something other than selling the actual software. Examples are microtransactions, selling support by term amounts, 3rd party funding for some reason.
2) Somehow encourage digital media pirates to stop being pirates.
3) Enhance the FUCK out of DRM.
Honestly, I hate DRM but it sadly works. Thousands upon thousands of people can pirate a media to the point of it taking a good chunk of change. Engulfing your media in DRM makes it complicated enough to either force the consumer to buy the product for a full experience or wait long enough (if at all) to work around the DRM. A company cannot assume that a consumer is not going to exploit their graces to the fullest extent.
I don't blame those who put money into DRM. It is unfortunately the statistically logical way to go now a days. Since people refuse to actively boycott products they don't care to pay for instead of pirating them, there's nothing else a company can assume is that people are not willing to pay for a product, no matter how great the value is for the cost.
I don't really care for analogies of the subject, but if I had to give one, it would be a wolf stealing the meal of another animal, where said animal eventually starved or at least had a hard time. While this may not be the case of every company subject to software pirating, you can't deny the smaller developers and musicians failing miserably due to pirating.
Another thing I've yet to figure out is if people think a musician is paid to much, why do they not protest or boycott their product instead of pirating it? If I were to post some software online for $5, regardless of how bad it is, how can you justify pirating the software because you don't want to pay for it?
Another thing is that most free software that instead rely on donations end up coming from 3rd party companies that use said software rather than general consumers. Because consumers don't know how to donate a dollar per month to a few projects they appreciate. Wikipedia, for instance, struggles to hell with this.
tldr; consumers really suck.
Back to Mario Kart 8.
1) No matter how hard you try to prevent piracy, it will inevitably happen.
2) Removing DRM and lowering the price of a media does not prevent piracy... at all. Quite the opposite actually.
3) People who make such media must make money in order to live.
So, possible solutions would be:
1) Funding must come from something other than selling the actual software. Examples are microtransactions, selling support by term amounts, 3rd party funding for some reason.
2) Somehow encourage digital media pirates to stop being pirates.
3) Enhance the FUCK out of DRM.
Honestly, I hate DRM but it sadly works. Thousands upon thousands of people can pirate a media to the point of it taking a good chunk of change. Engulfing your media in DRM makes it complicated enough to either force the consumer to buy the product for a full experience or wait long enough (if at all) to work around the DRM. A company cannot assume that a consumer is not going to exploit their graces to the fullest extent.
I don't blame those who put money into DRM. It is unfortunately the statistically logical way to go now a days. Since people refuse to actively boycott products they don't care to pay for instead of pirating them, there's nothing else a company can assume is that people are not willing to pay for a product, no matter how great the value is for the cost.
I don't really care for analogies of the subject, but if I had to give one, it would be a wolf stealing the meal of another animal, where said animal eventually starved or at least had a hard time. While this may not be the case of every company subject to software pirating, you can't deny the smaller developers and musicians failing miserably due to pirating.
Another thing I've yet to figure out is if people think a musician is paid to much, why do they not protest or boycott their product instead of pirating it? If I were to post some software online for $5, regardless of how bad it is, how can you justify pirating the software because you don't want to pay for it?
Another thing is that most free software that instead rely on donations end up coming from 3rd party companies that use said software rather than general consumers. Because consumers don't know how to donate a dollar per month to a few projects they appreciate. Wikipedia, for instance, struggles to hell with this.
tldr; consumers really suck.
Back to Mario Kart 8.
| Honestly, I hate DRM but it sadly works. |
, you will think twice. Or if by some chance your game is protected by Starfore which is notorious by fact that it is so paranoid that some people cannot run it at all. Or you already experienced false-positive triggering off DRM shutting you out from all your progress. Of you are waiting for autorisation servers to be avaliable again, when your pirating friends phones you and talk about how great game is. Or you really want to pay, but "this produce is not avaliable in your country" (in modern world region locking is the next level of retardeness, even below DRM).
Even if will buy every media you even casually access, you can still be a pirate. You decided to convert bought media to play it on your specific piece of hardware? You cannot, go buy compatible player like everyone else. You want to back-up your legally bought media in case if something happens to the original copy. You had one copy and now you have two, you stole one copy from us, pirate!. You want to go to the place where there is no Internet and want to access your games/media offline? There is usually no way but to become a pirate. (Well, modyfying program you own to make it run in specific conditions aka installing no-cd to make it run in the middle of nowhere is legal in my country. Still argument holds for media).
DRM makes legal owner life hell and does not affect pirates (because DRM have to be removed to distribute it). There should be basic copy protection facilities: more like safety railing against those who can attemp it out of law ignorance or accidently. When you will make content easier to access, more people will chose buying over pirating. Some people will still pirate, but they are not going to buy game anyway.
Last edited on
Did I ever say it was a comparison? I was merely showing that there are in fact some laws that aren't impossible not to break under certain conditions.