Morality of Piracy - Yet another quality FuckedUp thread

I have zero moral/ethical issue with infringing the copyright of the megacorporations. The one thing I do that is legally grey is music downloading. I effectively curate my own "radio", sourced from various private music sharing communities. In so doing, I am providing visibility and persistence for the artists I download. When I find something I particularly like, I purchase it. My preference leans towards artists on Bandcamp, as that generally provides artists with the best margins.

I am absolutely compensating the artists I enjoy better than the rando who thinks that his Spotify membership compensates the artists it provides adequately. Popular music is manipulated by tastemakers to heaven and back, so I feel zero shame about any of these mechanics. I don't listen to music that's particularly popular at all anyhow (obscure electronic microgenres like skweee, breakcore, psydub, etc.).
 
Art should be free for viewing in one way or another, and artists should create art knowing this; same thing with information (within reason, obviously). So media made for art or information's sake can be pirated morally, while those made for entertainment should be purchased.
 
It's a service economy. If pirates offer better service, you suck as a business.
 
I make money and I pirate stuff all the time, like for example ea, I have played the sims since I was a kid, I have seen the prices sky rocket from like 20 a pack to almost 60 fucking dollars, if I were to pay actual retail pricing I'd be out a grand for for all packs update filled with shit tier bugs, and on top of that cc creators have charged almost triple for monthly subscriptions on patreon for the sake of a quicker cash grab, its one thing to pirate something that is offered at a fair and reasonable price, another when its a rip off, if you can find suppliers and companies producing quality games at a fair and reasonable price, then support them, so they can be rewarded for smart and good business practices but if were talking about ea and there entitled cc creators, bleed them dry, and pirate all you can because ea shouldn't get money for shit tier work. Yes some people legit are poor fags and pirate because again poor fags, but even still piracy should at the end of the day should be option and a weapon to stick it to bad business practices; people can argue its Marxist or entitled, but a good business values the customers investment ie buying the product, and should produce a product in a fair and reasonable price sufficient to the quality proved. not price gouge you and bleed you dry. (especially cc creators, bleed those fuckers dry, fifty dollars to convert meshes from sl or other games, yeah fuck that.)

I only pay for game companies and streaming services worth paying and pirate the rest, piracy is also not the same as irl stealing; simply because unlike stealing where you take a tangible object, most platforms states in tou that they can revoke your access to games because fuck you that's why. How can steal something that which you possibly while paying for don't tangibly own? unless its physical hard copies of the game, at a whim psn or ea can revoke your access, piracy circumvents that by but allowing you to copy the files, therefore allow to you technically own a game or file. alsoe some games now a day require to pirate because abandonware or not available for sale on steam or origin, you have to pirate the sims 2 to be able to please if you dont have a hard copy. all in yes it can ethically dubious if your ripping off someone who provides, I don't condone that, if the price is fair and reasonable, and the product quality reflects the price tag, then buy it but if it sucks, no pirate it;
 
Last edited:
I figure necroing this thread is probably better than starting my own. But I've tried to think about it from a Christian perspective as a type of thought experiment. I haven't read any arguments here, so if I repeat any points, I apologize, but here are my thoughts.

There is a common section of the bible that's referenced where Jesus finds a way to basically clone the same bread and fish multiple times to hand out among people. In a round about way that could be considered the closest thing to piracy in the bible to a more physical sense. Where people got the experience of eating the food without actually paying for it. It did not decrease the amount of fish the store owner had in his inventory; however he probably sold less fish as a result of it.

Another way that I also thought about it was in the way of honouring contracts. When you use a piece of software usually you have to agree to a set of terms and conditions. Violating a contract would be a way of going against your word and would at most be considered dishonest. However most software just say that by the act of using their product you automatically agree to their terms of service which I believe is a little disingenuous because it's like saying "by opening this book you are agreeing to that you will not duplicate the text written in here verbatim".

So TLDR the conclusion I came up with is I believe piracy is dishonest at most, but it's completely disingenuous to equate piracy to theft and anyone who does I consider is having a boomer moment.
 
There is a common section of the bible that's referenced where Jesus finds a way to basically clone the same bread and fish multiple times to hand out among people. In a round about way that could be considered the closest thing to piracy in the bible to a more physical sense. Where people got the experience of eating the food without actually paying for it. It did not decrease the amount of fish the store owner had in his inventory; however he probably sold less fish as a result of it.
This story is about Jesus performing a miracle, not about copyright infringement. Nobody in that story is claiming intellectual property rights over fish and bread. In fact, if anything, since God made the whole universe in His image, it would be His copyright and Jesus would be fully within his rights to copy this intellectual property all he wants. But that's clearly not the point.
So TLDR the conclusion I came up with is I believe piracy is dishonest at most, but it's completely disingenuous to equate piracy to theft and anyone who does I consider is having a boomer moment.
Intellectual property rights extend to far more than just media files you took from the internet, it extends to shit like new car designs, new inventions, new software and hardware, things which are competitive and innovative, things which improve living standards for regular people and have no incentive to be created unless they yield a profit to its creator. Copyright, patents and trademarks are the reason why innovation took off in the United States and stagnated in other places.

This is the reason why music and movies are shit these days, because the boomers who consume it are the demographics funding it, and they prefer the content you think is shit. You don't get the good shit unless you pay money for it. No money = no good shit. You just get cape shit and Jack and Jill style (alleged) money laundering instead.
 
Art should be free for viewing in one way or another, and artists should create art knowing this; same thing with information (within reason, obviously). So media made for art or information's sake can be pirated morally, while those made for entertainment should be purchased.
What a crock, art is so commercial it's used for money laundering.
 
This story is about Jesus performing a miracle, not about copyright infringement. Nobody in that story is claiming intellectual property rights over fish and bread. In fact, if anything, since God made the whole universe in His image, it would be His copyright and Jesus would be fully within his rights to copy this intellectual property all he wants. But that's clearly not the point.
My original point about the Jesus thought wasn't really about focusing on the IP rights about the fish, but rather taking the "you wouldn't download a car" meme to a more physical sense. I was pointing out what if you could infinitely reproduce a physical item without affecting the original. The merchant selling the fish would probably sell much less if there was reduced demand for it because there was an alternative way to get it. Therefore he is negatively affected despite nothing being taken from him.

Intellectual property rights extend to far more than just media files you took from the internet, it extends to shit like new car designs, new inventions, new software and hardware, things which are competitive and innovative, things which improve living standards for regular people and have no incentive to be created unless they yield a profit to its creator. Copyright, patents and trademarks are the reason why innovation took off in the United States and stagnated in other places.

This is the reason why music and movies are shit these days, because the boomers who consume it are the demographics funding it, and they prefer the content you think is shit. You don't get the good shit unless you pay money for it. No money = no good shit. You just get cape shit and Jack and Jill style (alleged) money laundering instead.
I wasn't really trying to argue whether or not piracy leads to a net positive in society. If that was the point being debated, I agree with you that it really doesn't help innovation or productivity (in fact more likely it does the opposite). The point was whether or not someone should have the ability, from a universal standpoint (disregarding written laws), to redistribute something non-tangible in their possession, like art, a book or an idea.

It comes down to the limitations of ideas and media being non-physical in nature. A farmer and an author can both work hard to produce something; however only the farmer is able to physically monetize it in a way that's sort of fool proof. The author can chose to sell their book; however it can also be reproduced without their knowledge or immediate negative consequence (the author would probably have less demand for their book, but the farmer's property would be noticeably gone immediately).

I still hold to my belief I think piracy is ethically dishonest, but I still cannot reasonably fully equate it to theft.
 
and they prefer the content you think is shit. You don't get the good shit unless you pay money for it. No money = no good shit.
The most pirated content just so happens to be those same high budget mainstream products you are mentioning. It is not because piracy that those are shit and the people making those shitty movies and shitty music have never lost money due to people pirating it en masse, on the contrary the profit margins have exploded over the same last couple of decades at the same time piracy has.

There's also the question of who gets the money, i am pretty sure if i paid for a Chunchyroll my money would not be going to any of the artists making those shows and what i feel about the quality wouldn't matter anyways even if i pay. Not even mentioning the woke corporate culture that you are indeed funding by giving money to some of these corporations.

Spotify has a good deal, it really is a lot of music for little money monthly, When its convenient and cheap theres no point pirating. Netflix had a good deal too but its going down the shitter too now that there are so many streaming platforms competing and all their original content is trash i would not want to help subsidize.

If you're going to hoard IPs you do absolutely nothing with, you deserve to have that stuff pirated. Looking at you, EA.
if you wanted to play say, Xenogears or Panzer Dragoon Saga which are games that have not gotten any re-release on modern consoles you either emulate a rom or would have to go on the second hand market and pay exorbitant inflated prices for an used copy, which would still not be money going to artists and creators of the product, the monet wouldn't even go to the IP holder.

On the opposite side, all the remasters that Square and other companies have put up on steam have sold well despite those games being able to be emulated for years.


1661920521548.png
 
Last edited:
I think piracy is a moral imperative, considering the "people" who run media companies. See how HBO Max virtually dissolved the entire western animation industry practically overnight, if you think it matters if I'm LITERALLY taking food out of the creators' mouths. If I can't watch everything I want to watch in one place then you aren't competing with free, and deserve to fail. Media Congolmerates do not fail, despite it being what they deserve, and I'm doing my part by making sure they miss out on revenue. I pay money for things that I feel deserve money, which is like one video game, movie, or book, per year. That isn't necessarily down to the quality of work, but rather who I'd choose to support. Also, copying isn't theft.

Morality is absolute
Stopped reading there. What an absolutely pitifully dumbfuck thing to say, and everything else you said is now invalid.
 
Last edited:
By what basis do you justify such an aggressive response?
Because if morality was absolute then all human beings on earth would agree on what is right and wrong. It's such a fantastically retarded statement that it deserves that kind of response.
 
I think the morality of piracy depends on a lot of factors. Have you poured a lot of money into an IP /franchise? Are its creators offering an upgraded version of the material for more money? Then you may feel entitled to pirate since you've already bought the intellectual property - you just don't want to shell out extra for the change in medium.

Did you buy a series only to see the company release it in a cheaper or free form months / years later? Then you may feel like a sucker for shelling out money for it when it first came out.

Do you only want to watch a series, not own it? Then watching it on a pirate site might seem a viable option, since paying a fee just to have access to it once will get costly if you do that with everything you want to watch.

If you're a moralfag who feels it's wrong to pirate, then don't pirate. Pat yourself on the head and feel good about yourself because you're a rare breed. If you're poor and you want to watch a lot, and buy only the things that you really want to support, then go ahead and do that. You'll be doing some good in the world, which is better than no good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Xenu
Piracy is a service issue not to do with the product itself
 
It's stealing, but I can understand the reasons behind some instances of it. Archiving old media being one, or simply living in a country where legal rights prevent a show or movie from even being available. I also don't really think it's a problem that merits much attention.
 
This is the reason why music and movies are shit these days, because the boomers who consume it are the demographics funding it, and they prefer the content you think is shit. You don't get the good shit unless you pay money for it. No money = no good shit. You just get cape shit and Jack and Jill style (alleged) money laundering instead.
Boomers and the chinese. I haven't seen a Marvel movie since Avengers 2 and they still keep pumping them out. For my one ticket they miss out on they get 50 tickets from china.

Another example is Battlerite, an indie game I love to death. I bought a copy and 3 more to gift to friends. The game still undersold and the devs stopped supporting it.

Vote with your wallet is a neat concept, but like everything in life it's ruined by the chinese. Nowadays I buy what I like, avoid what I don't and pirate games from the Epic Games Store like SIFU. Fuck Epic Games. They get billions from Fortnite so my $50 worth of occassional piracy make no difference, but at least I know I am not contributing.

TL;DR: Nothing you do matters because of the chinese. Pirate all you want. No one cares. Pay for stuff you like to feel better.
 
Back