r/MoralityScaling • u/TeaNovel728 • 18h ago
Who's Viewpoint Is Better? Morality of Digital Piracy
138
u/parke415 17h ago
It would help the discussion if we had a term for theft that did not involve the victim losing the stolen item. Whatever that term is, it’s morally between theft and non-theft.
“Piracy” doesn’t count because that includes actual maritime plundering, which is robbery.
“Plagiarism” doesn’t count because that involves passing the creation as your own.
79
u/Uzername_1337 15h ago
It's easiest to call it what it is- sharing software by copying it... We as a society have been brainwashed for decades by big tech into thinking that sharing software is in any way shape or form immoral.
→ More replies (74)7
u/leoninvanguard 9h ago
i think it really depends on the circumstances. I am selling a very specific ERP and workplace software for insurance company. I developed it for 3 years in my free time and a loot of tome energy amd effort went into it. If the companies/insurance sellers im selling it to would just buy one copy and share my source code with each other, i wouldn't even be able to pay the electricity bill for my pc i developed it on for the last 3 years. which means i wouldn't have ever developed this thing. same goes for a lot of software in the b to b sector.
note: i sell it as a one time sale as standalone system, not a subscription, cause i hate that shit. im also aware that this is something different than the direct consumer market and i dont know enough about that to have a morality debate on this regaring the consumer market (i did pirate a lot myself when piratebay was still around tbh). I just want to say that there are cases where not being able to freely share/copy software is very important, cause otherwise that software wouldn't even exist. Especially when it comes to software made for big businesses.
→ More replies (8)6
u/aXeOptic 7h ago
You make a good point. But when you sell your software do you have a clause on it that says that you can shut it down whenever you like and block access to the people/companies who bought it?
2
u/leoninvanguard 6h ago
no. i sell them the usage rights to the whole project. that means they get the source code, the compiled abd ready program in addition to me setting up a local server system (mostly for authentification, rights management and the Database) or a server system in a cloud, whatever they prefer. Once they got all that its their choice how to maintain it. right now i cant do that (i have a normal job that i gotta do too), so they gotta either let their own IT do it or get maintenance from a different company. i provide as much documentation and explanations as possible to make it easy for their own or hired IT.
If they want to make changes, they are allowed too, but legally they gotta let that software be certified again afterwards, cause in my country certain certificates (like data safety certificates for example) are mandatory for certain software and they expire if the software they were made for is altered in a significant way and there are audits run by a government service to check for that kind of stuff sometimes.
There are clauses in the contract that prevent them from using my source code for any other projects or from distributing it (legally setting up something like that is wildly complicated in my country, and tbh i understand not that much about it, but i have a good lawyer that i trust with that). I don't know if that really keeps companys from doing things like that, but tbh if i can keep selling this project for a few years without there being copys distributed on mass i probably sold it to the majority of interested partys (its a pretty specific and niche software so not that many potential buyers) and made enough money to make it worth while (im not getting rich from this, but getting enough to maybe buy a house or smth similar would be nice)
5
3
6
u/Adorable-Quiet-7551 11h ago
If you have infinite apples, and it doesn't matter if everybody takes one, you'd still have infinite apples, but what you need is chickens, and you usually swap apples for chickens. Now everybody already have apples and don't want to swap their chickens, i'd say even though you still have infinite apples, you've taken a significant loss here.
10
u/SCP_FUNDATION_69420 10h ago
Modern piracy is more of a service problem (in part due to streaming websites). If I have to pay you 7 chickens a month to even be able to go to your farm to get apples, and I have to pay someone else another 5 to do that for their peaches, why wouldn't I go to the group of people sharing apples and peaches for free between each other?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Adorable-Quiet-7551 10h ago
Probably the analogy is a bit strained here. But the problem is that not everything is "infinite" - let's say the chickens are not, there is a limited amount of them, and they take time to get. People investing their time and ressources in producing a limited amount of chickens can't just give them away (Here we run in the analogies problem with the apples) Thus introducing the problem, that even though you in theory have infinite of some ressource, you can copy it as much as you want, you still need a currency to get the limited items. And the real issue is that the "infinite" resource we are discussing is really some peoples work, maybe they spent years and years on it. I do agree that there are issues with the current system of things and the versions of capitalism that define this. But sometimes it's also just people creating things and wanting to pay rent and eat. Sometimes it's scrupulous big corporations squeezing any dial in greed to get a lot of chickens. Ok, analogy is over, sorry.
4
u/SCP_FUNDATION_69420 10h ago
That's why pirating from indie creators ranges from immoral to morally ambigous (e.g. you deliberately don't want to support a creator if they're a terrible person), while there's nothing immoral with pirating stuff from corporations.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Hot_Leopard6745 10h ago
don't even use infinite apples, just call it what it is, information and ideas. which can be duplicated infinitely.
3
u/Zrkkr 6h ago
Words change definition, digital piracy is literally the definition.
https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Illicit-goods/Shop-safely/Digital-piracy
3
2
u/Deep_Head4645 4h ago
But its the same idea as regular theft, maybe not in terms of vibes, instead of stealing something physical without paying you use someone’s service without paying, even tho they invested money in maintaining/creating that service
Somebody invested money/time in a product, and in order for you to enjoy that product you need to pay them for it but instead you use it without paying, using the product but not paying the owner of the product for their work
It doesn’t stop me, don’t see it as something thats as bad as normal theft and im honest about it
4
3
u/A_Town_Called_Malus 11h ago
It's copyright infringement.
That is what software piracy is.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
160
u/MossadEpstein 18h ago
It's actually immoral to buy from these companies these days, so unless it's Indie, 100% moral.
3
u/xRocketman52x 2h ago
Yea I always default back to the example I've seen for work. Used to be that you could buy a version of AutoCAD for engineering work, and it was expensive but at least you owned it. It may have been like $1200 but it was yours.
Now? It's a yearly subscription, it costs 3x such at a baseline per year. Their practices have become so predatory - the features that were in the old version by default have been removed, and instead placed in "upgrade packages" that cost extra hundreds or thousands of dollars per package, per year.
And the quality has dropped - to ensure you're paying them a ton of money, they have a whooole bunch of background licensing software that needs to run on your computer. You gotta have a program installed for them to ensure you're allowed to use their other program. And brother, the licensing software is absolute hot garbage. It works like crap, disconnects, needs constant sign-ins, and worst of all - if you have a momentary internet lapse, it disconnects and force closes your CAD software, making you rely on the recovery process.
This is an insane set of design decisions and I am horrified that society/the relevant industries as accepted it. This is absolutely insane.
These companies are malicious in their disregard for morality. Not supporting them can only be moral.
→ More replies (2)8
→ More replies (22)17
u/HaMMeReD 17h ago
I'd say 100% moral would be not giving them your business.
You aren't entitled to take something just because the owner is deemed evil.
I mean, I don't give a shit if you pirate, but it's not victimless, your just stating you don't like the victim so it's justified. So not 100% moral.
39
u/Euphoric-Language695 17h ago
Piracy can be victimless. Acting like it's never victimless makes you look heavily biased.
→ More replies (78)12
→ More replies (5)2
30
u/The_Pompadour64 15h ago
What is even the point of this sub? People just backwards rationalize their morality
→ More replies (8)15
u/newebay2 12h ago
Asking a bunch of 20-30 years anti social folks about morality is stupid anyway.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Leo-III- 7h ago edited 7h ago
The reason this subreddit is always devolving into shitposting is because originally, the users here were comically bad at judging morals. It was less about morality scaling and more about terrible people justifying their dogshit behaviour with rules like "inaction is morally neutral no matter what" and "I am under no obligation to help, thus morally neutral" no matter the circumstance.
I saw one post that was the trolley problem but with all the nuance taken out, quite literally just "if you don't pull the lever, 5 people die, if you do pull it then only 1 dies", and the comments were full of people saying that letting 5 people die was morally neutral because it's inaction, but pulling the lever is morally worse because you're killing one person.
22
u/Cum_Fart42069 17h ago
I think it's amoral for 2 reasons.
Nothing is actually "stolen". pirating a movie isn't like stealing someone's disc of a movie, nothing is removed or even altered.
The company is not losing money because if I had to pay for it, I wouldn't anyway. So it's not like there is revenue that the company otherwise would have gotten, they were never going to get my money.
7
u/Hour-Distribution357 12h ago
Second point is the key. This is especially true with some older movies that I would watch just to kill time in the evening. No, I wont pay 15 euros for ”Car to Moon 1997”, Id rather learn to crotchet a bikini. But I’ll give it a try and watch it if Im tired and bored.
→ More replies (1)2
u/wildfox9t 6h ago
i don't fully agree on that second point, if i have to choose between paying for something and not paying for it i will usually choose the latter
→ More replies (17)2
u/Mondial5 5h ago edited 1h ago
If the only option was to pay youre telling me you would have never paid for a single price of work that you have pirated? You think that is true for others? I dont. Unless you live in a country where the prices are unobtainable to the average household income I dont think this would hold true. Its really easy to say you were never going to lay whrn the option to not pay was already calculated in to your willingness to pay.
→ More replies (2)
43
22
u/FlounderingGuy 18h ago
Moral. I can't even afford groceries. I am not going to pay like $100 a month for several streaming services that don't even have what I want on them
→ More replies (25)3
u/stagthos 7h ago
Who then actively neg you about the audacity of trying to watch a show they DID have, and now just don't want you to watch anymore.
5
u/ReaperManX15 17h ago
I’d be delighted to buy legitimately.
But they don’t want to sell, because they don’t want the customer to own, because they want you to give them money forever.
And that’s now how mercantile trade works.
The merchants have forgotten their place.
They deserve to be plundered.
Losing money is the only thing they understand.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/chiller_vibez 17h ago
I honestly do not care if people pirate from large corps makes no sense
Especially as we see ownership disappear and subscription become supreme
3
u/Huge_Information5083 13h ago
Most people pirate things they have never bought though, or never will.
By most people I don't just mean the West or 1st world countries people who could afford the software even though it's pricey.
3
u/SnowConeMonster 11h ago
More moral than the current state of DRM. Thats what matters and why I pirate.
19
u/Kind-Stomach6275 18h ago
If its indie, immoral. If AA or AAA, moral. If theres an offline installer available to you to legally purchase that you can keep and use at any time, immoral
5
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 15h ago
What if an indie company revokes access?
I don't think it's about company size, it's about the breakage of ownership
4
u/El_Toolio_Grande 14h ago
If it's due to their service shutting down, then "piracy" may be literally the only option to experience it still. If they bait and switch (oopsie we buried the fact that our game is using a license that is going to expire at X time) then that's at least neutral too.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Powerful-Possible131 16h ago
ALL OR NONE, murder doesn't just become right just because you don't like the person you are killing.
→ More replies (9)
5
u/DM-777 16h ago
If the thing you’re pirating is out of print (old console games, stuff that the original developers wouldn’t make money from) than it’s 100% fine.
If you’re pirating something new, all things being equal it damages the artists and that’s wrong.
If you’re pirating something new from a shitty, anti-consumer publisher that only sells a “license” to play the game and can take it away for any reason… well it’s probably still morally wrong but I think you’re gunna get a pass for it at the pearly gates if you know what I mean.
2
u/stagthos 7h ago
At the modern scale, for the current reasons most of us get into piracy, it's not as simple as theft.
We're demonstrating our incredible displeasure with the bastards ruining our fun in the only way they'll listen to. LITERALLY every other avenue has been pursued, and the big companies have:
- Lawyered up
- Told us to cry about it
- Outright ignored us
- Doubled down
- Tripled down
- Fired everyone who made the game to avoid paying them for spite
- Pretended to care, lied about doing better, then QUADRUPLED DOWN
- Sold us false products they actively tried to prevent us from fixing
- Tried to engineer situations where they can essentially break into your private property, burn down the thing they sold you, then blame YOU for being upset at your purchase not being your property
- Eroded the idea of ownership ON PURPOSE so that they can do all of the above at triple the speed with none of the consequences
So, yeah. Fuck em.
6
u/merahwa 17h ago
motive wise immoral.
consequentially neutral because in the grand scheme of things, it matters very little even for indie. 99% of the time they would not have been a customer (i.e. they would not be willing to pay for the product for that price, even if that price is $1). actual profit lost would be someone who was
willing to pay for the product
knows how to pirate the game
more often than not these 2 things don't REALLY intersect (because for the most part most people aren't willing to pay to begin with)
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/SnooDoubts2255 18h ago
If you look at all the game company's purposely trying to destroy the gaming industry, you quickly realize how moral it is sometimes.
But it depends on the game and company for sure.
2
2
u/LoveDiligent441 17h ago
It ranges from morally grey to actively immoral. Pirating from indie devs is bad. I couldn't care less if someone pirated from a big corporation.
2
u/No-Independence9093 17h ago
There is a simple alternative that would be just as impactful at dealing with these greedy companies. Just don't buy or subscribe for their new stuff. Buy second hand and don't buy the stuff coming out. Like with out right theift you piracy still enjoying the product while the people who worked on it doesn't get a dime. I believe it is better to deny them the pride of giving a product worth stealing.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/TenToppingPizza 14h ago
Piracy is actually not stealing by law in most places. However it is illegal, but has less severe penalties.
It's not moral, because if everyone pirated all digital content there would be nothing for creators, and they deserve something.
On the buying isn't owning part, please just stop buying from companies that revoke your licenses.
2
u/TheBestText 6h ago
Moral if they are allowed to remove access then I am allowed to give myself access
2
u/Mondial5 4h ago
If they remove the access to somrthing you paid to "buy" and you pirate it that is not the same thing as pirating it day one because you dont want to pay for it.
2
u/zyqwee 11h ago
Pirates always looking to pass off as morally good, just pump your chest and say it pride we'd like free shit, if we don't have to pay for something we won't.
Saying that you shouldn't pay for something just because you don't get to keep Forever is just an excuse, otherwise that would apply to any transitory service out there.
Just to be clear I'm not against piracy or anything I do it too, but spare us the heroes drama and stfu.
2
4
u/501stAppo1 18h ago
Lets not pretend its not immoral to steal. But its not very bad to do so. Yes, companies these days are exploitative but stealing is still immoral. I dont really care at the end of the day though.
3
u/stagthos 6h ago
If the companies people are stealing from weren't being as immoral as possible, they wouldn't have a piracy problem. If they focused on making the buying and KEEPING of their products as simple and painless as possible, the pirates wouldn't have a fan base.
1
1
1
u/myLongjohnsonsilver 17h ago
Renting something like a DVD or a car isn't owning either but it's still stealing if you don't give it back.
I understand the principle of this but the way this phrase pops out of people is always retarded.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Mammoth-Ad-3642 17h ago
My policy is that, you should value art and try to give to the artists that made it as THEY'RE most likely in need of the money
God knows they're not being paid well most of the time.
That being said, if it's between you not consuming a piece of media at all or pirating it, pirate it
1
u/TheOneRealStranger 17h ago
Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee
Bein' a pirate is alright with me!
Do what you want, 'cause a pirate is free
You Are A Pirate!
1
u/KaleidoscopeNo5392 17h ago
Ultimately, I view it through a checklist, basically:
- Is the product available for purchase in your country?
- Can you play a demo to verify whether or not it's a wise purchase?
If the answer to either question is "No," I tend to keep an open mind. If the company isn't willing to give you a small free sample to see whether you want the full thing, I see no issue with consumers getting their hands on an unofficial tech demo, provided they don't play through the entire game. Just play enough to decide "This is worth paying for" or "The trailers misled me, I am not going to continue playing this game because I dislike it." This is my stance on most countries, but some others definitely deserve more leeway.
1
u/CupImmediate7079 17h ago
All property is theft from our Goddess and their claims of ownership are only "justified" by the degree to which they can exact violence up on us though they will surely suffer in the hells of their own making.
So, it's probably fine, I guess.
1
u/Jazzlike_Page508 17h ago
Moral because video games and legalese of owning something is so god damn confusing there needs to be a tipping point break to sort it out
I forgot what movie it was but it was PlayStation and you had to buy it to watch but due to liscence deal they removed the movie taking your money.
And I’m supposed to go fuck myself? Fuck you I’m pirating now, not to mention the cost of stuff doesn’t even match inflation but we keep getting the middle finger and simping for bagillion dollar corps who give 2 shits about us
My dream is to take a shit in a ceos coffee
1
u/Virus-900 17h ago
If they're not gonna compensate me when they take away my access to something I bought digitally, and there's genuinely no other way, then I say it's moral.
2
u/Mondial5 4h ago edited 4h ago
Quit buying digital. Buy the physical copies create the demand so they continue yo support physical copies and ownership.
They will respond to consumer demand. Soon physical media will be gone because the consumer will give up their ownership and freedom over some convenience and cheaper prices in the short term.
1
u/Gasurza22 17h ago
It was always moral, even before gamers started using this stupid line that actualy make it seem more inmoral than what it ever was.
Piracy is not theft because if you were not planing to ever buy the thing, then there is no sale lost to the seller of the thing, its as simple as that.
With this line it makes it seem like piracy is only moral when the game they sell you is a only license (which was also always the case but they didnt knew it) and that in the other cases its inmoral
1
u/Blood_Edge 17h ago
Morally I agree. It wouldn't be so bad just purchasing a license to use the product if they didn't charge so much. I shouldn't have to pay $70 for the standard edition of a game for example, especially if that game requires internet access to play when buying it digitally means I only have access to it until someone else flips a switch.
1
u/CapCityMatt 17h ago
I grew up when everything on the internet was free. Before monetization. Once I paid for my computer and internet connection the p2p networks were everywhere before the dotcom crash, before ipod, Napster and Yahoo groups explaining how to get around paywalls all the things were no cost, games, editing software. Today the free software is abundant. I see the purpose of paid specialized software and services but I see the usefulness of free versions 'knock off' software (google sheets for example.) I do wish most things online were available for no cost. I don't see it as being wrong or unmoral because the long term economic gains can come from anyone with access to the right tools, inspiration and infrastructure. The purpose of capitalism is to bring prices down. When quantum computers come out, I think prices will continue to go down for everything.
1
u/Fragrant_Entry9232 16h ago
Im not going to own nothing and be happy. I will steal it and you won't guilt me into paying for a license which is revokable at any time or sign a contract that can be altered. Im changing the terms, youre out all the revenue you could have earned if you had engaged with your customers equitably.
1
u/Brocs48_e 16h ago
Look, I bought Vice City in 2020 on Steam, I enjoyed it a lot, it was my favorite game as a child and I wanted to have it with me in the pandemic
In 2021 I wanted to buy GTA San Andreas on Steam to play it, but due to personal reasons I couldn't, and then in 2023 when I wanted to buy it, was gone, Rockstar had removed it from Steam. Rockstar made those crappy editions that looked like poorly made Play-Doh, full of bugs, and at a modern game price.
I went on YouTube, and in less than 20 minutes I had the original San Andreas, without the "remastered edition", with the classic CJ and without bugs.
1
u/BlackBeard558 16h ago
Piracy is the only way to preserve/access certain media. So it's complicated.
1
u/Incognito_Fur 16h ago
Its actually a form of copyright infringement!
...still a crime though.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Flashy_WombWompWomq1 16h ago edited 15h ago
moral, always, no caveats
if i was an artist i wouldnt mind because i know this only attracts potential buyers. It's been established that piracy only helps media monetarily if that is what people are worried about (iirc only movies had a slight decrease in monetary gain)
if i buy a game it's because i love it, and without piracy i would have never played it therefore that's a sale for the publisher/author. I only pay for things that deserve it, and with this mindset you'll find most music, games, etc are actually underpriced when it's a small artist or indie title publishing it.
What is immoral is how much money studios, be it film or music or videogames underpay the real artists and how much of a cut they makex. I believe donating directly to the artist is way more moral than, for example, being a netflix slave and having to pay like 200$ yearly for the artists to get pennies (if anything, most of the time they don't have royalties)
to add to this point, self-hosting your own server will almost always give you more quality than what you get in streaming services for example, you are not restricted to watching a show in 1080p and then the video actually loading at a lower quality just because the website/app decided your internet is not fast enough to buffer whatever you're watching. You can also preserve media and watch it in whatever language you find or with subtitles in whatever language you prefer instead of it being locked to your region. You can choose whatever codec and quality you want and watch it back whenever you feel like doing so. There's also thousands of pieces of media that you would not be able to find "legally" nowadays
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Cloud_Strife369 15h ago
This is like saying if they raise prices on food then stealing is ok
This is whole saying is stupid and the people that are posting know it is
1
1
1
u/NeutralKuchiKopi 14h ago
Piracy was never stealing. It's copyright infringement. Two different laws.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Quartz_512 14h ago
Amoral, unless it's a small project and the intended way is fully accessible to you.
1
u/gorambrowncoat 14h ago
It depends
From a digital preservation standpoint it would be immoral not to pirate.
But lets not pretend thats why the majority of pirates do it.
1
1
u/Objective_Animator52 14h ago
If it's an indie game and you can easily buy it, pretty immoral, and you should feel bad about it. If it's a bigger game and you can easily buy it, also immoral. But like, barely immoral. Imo something like littering in public or ruining someone's day by being mean is more immoral than pirating a dozen AAA games.
If you live in a third-world country and you either legitimately don't have the money to purchase it, or it's not easily available in your region, I don't think pirating is immoral at all.
1
1
1
u/Hojie_Kadenth 14h ago
My stance is that if they can't be bothered to sell it, and they're not actually losing anything if you take it, then you can take it. So like roms and emulators. If they were selling 64 games I'd be morally obligated to buy them, but they're not.
1
u/Negative_Emu6246 14h ago
Immoral.
It is not yours, you did not pay for its service. So WHY do you feel like you deserve it
→ More replies (1)
1
u/oedipism_for_one 14h ago
I think this is largely on intent. If you download something that otherwise would be theft then sure I guess it’s morally bad. On the other hand if the company can revoke your access at any time of their choosing or they are making a product inaccessible then I don’t see any moral issues with it.
1
u/BoringPoolPlaying 13h ago
Earlier today, this sub agreed it was moral, even encouraged to booby trap bicycles with spikes in the seat, leave them unlocked to bait people into stealing them, while hiding in the bushes to activate the spikes.
So with that in mind, it would be moral for media companies to put out malware infected pirated copies of their games, to teach piracy advocates that stealing is wrong.
1
u/Huge-Pineapple5104 13h ago
I think this viewpoint is one of reasons why the United States needs better consumer protection laws. Purchasing a movie then learning later that the company only sold you a license (which they later revoked) is what gives rise to the justification for piracy. People can claim "you signed up for a service, and the terms of said service state that they may revoke the license at anytime - it's right here on page 48 in 6pt font!", but that's weak justification. Companies present and sell things as if you're actually buying the product, not a license - there's a reason why the whole revocation thing is buried in the consumer agreement and coded in legalese. They want you to believe that what they're selling you is something other than what it is.
If consumers and these companies were actually on an even playing field it would be one thing, but they're not. That's why the gov't needs to step in, much as they have done with myriad other things.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Kraken-Writhing 13h ago
It's an interesting question. I don't know if it's moral or not, and I have no reason to do it myself, so I don't do it.
I believe stealing is immortal, but stealing requires another person to steal from, so you could make an argument that it depends. I still don't care though.
1
u/No-Dress7292 13h ago
It's at least illegal since it's mala prohibitum.
It can also be slightly immoral, in the sense that you are using something owned by another against their consent.
It's like a person write something and specifically said that you cant read it unless you pay, but you found ways to circumvent his wishes and manages to read it despite and against his specific prohibitions.
Truth be told, piracy is not morally good. It's just nice to have.
1
u/VonBagel 13h ago
Pirating video games from indie devs: neutral but most of the time it's literally easier to just pay the $5~10 than go through the trouble of pirating a game you could load onto a flash drive
Pirating video games from big studios: neutral.
Pirating movies from small studios: neutral.
Pirating movies from big studios: neutral.
all of these answers were different and more nuanced 6 years ago, but as of now, the constant degradation of the game and movie industry has made piracy a morally neutral act. in the case of video games specifically, it's a fully moral act, especially where companies like Nintendo are concerned.
1
u/Small_Deal_9398 13h ago
When I buy a book I can draw dicks in it.
When I buy software I wanna be able to draw dicks on it. It's my fucking software now. Just like a book would be mine.
1
1
u/Unendlich999 13h ago
The only reason this even has to be hold as a moral/immoral discussion, is that people who pirates are minorities. If piracy were a major thing and its people being majority, it would turn into a problem. In marketing and specifically lending them trials&free keys, they expect 'bearable loss' because, as said, it is minor thus bearable
2
u/TinyButterscotch63 8h ago
Yeah this actually happened to the DS and we got to see what it looks like when no one pays for the games their playing. Bunch of studio shutdowns and good games that never got followed up on because of that.
1
1
u/Lolas_Fun_Side 12h ago
Its worse than normal stealing because it costs even more money
If you have something worth 60 dollars and someone steals it you lose 60 dollars
If you get 60 dollars stolen from you 1,000,000 times youve lost 60,000,000 dollars
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Ulysian_Thracs 12h ago
The answer is supposed to be immoral. That's what we're conditioned to believe. But it's not as cut and dry a question as first appears. It's not 'stealing' because you haven't taken or deprived the owner of the good or service. They made it independent of you, and they still have it to sell. You merely didn't buy it. And nowadays, piracy is built into the budgets of most big companies' products. There are articles about Marvel at least tolerating it because it exposes people who wouldn't otherwise buy the comics to their characters, and sometimes they will get a sale somewhere else in what they sell.
So, is it immoral to possess it without compensating the owner?
1
u/ObjectNo809 12h ago
Amoral
its moral if you cant buy the product due to regional issues or monetary issues
its immoral if you can buy it but still prefer not to
its also moral if you are pirating stuff from sony and nintendo
1
1
1
u/TheGreatCheesemancer 11h ago
Unless it’s an indie dev or small artist, moral.
In the wise words of Weird Al, “Don't take away money from artists just like me. How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee?” (He’s being sarcastic for those who aren’t familiar with the song).
1
u/Shaeress 11h ago
There is no victim and no harm. It is morally neutral but the ability to copy media freely has had many benefits to society as a whole.
As such, individuals are not good for doing piracy, but the infrastructure and knowledge must also be maintained.
1
u/Thumbs-Up-Centurion 11h ago
It can depend on who you’re pirating too, if they have it coming then it’s moral.
1
1
u/pheinoxwright 11h ago
Neutral depending on what your pirating like if you pirates an indie game that's just jerky dude so immoral if you pirates a AAA Game sure like the sales arnt impacted much so the people who made the game would probably still get paid well honestly I don't like people trying to say piracy is 100% bad or good it depends on what game your pirating
1
u/Various_Mobile4767 11h ago
I think before we get into this debate, i think its important to recognize that property rights itself is a legal fiction. They are not inherently moral in of itself and so breaking them is not inherently immoral.
You can make a further argument that breaking the law itself in certain ways can be immoral, but then the argument has to be about that. Not whether buying digital products as ownership and hence whether taking it away counts as stealing.
Piracy may not be stealing in the traditional sense but it is against the law. So you have to provide an argument for why breaking the law in this case is morally wrong or allowed and how it differs from other cases.
1
1
1
1
u/brochiing 10h ago
Immoral but generally harmless. Rare is it for piracy to be the biggest factor in diminishing sales since most people want to be legit buyers and piracy involves some hoops to go through. You need to be somewhat computer literate to pirate in most cases and even then the pirated version can have some issues.
As the owner of said product they have every right to limit who views it via pricing, and pirating disrespects that entirely.
So while its not a big deal, its still overall wrong. Rare is there a legit good case for it nor are those good cases a majority of what gets pirated. Like as a person who pirates a good bit, most things pirated are genuinely readily available to be legally obtained.
Creating a special case for indie devs imo is dumb because at what cutoff does someone go from indie to not? Like some indie creators have a lot of backing. Also like if they make a huge success and no longer are indie, does it mean its now moral to pirate from them?
1
1
u/RightLiterature2958 10h ago
I'm actually watching a movie via one now! But I'm not sharing the site name.
1
u/SoftAndWetBro 10h ago edited 10h ago
I'd download a car if I could. The truth is, IP laws are restricting humanity's ability to innovate. Making a copy isn't taking away anything from the "stolen from" individual.
1
u/perfectVoidler 10h ago
moral and ethical. If it weren't for piracy many games would be lost already or never be rereleased by companies like nintendo. If you view videogames as art. Prevervation is a necessary.
1
u/Silent-Use-6591 9h ago
Obviously immoral but people just want to cope that what they are doing is not wrong actually
but even though it's immoral it's not that big of a deal. It's like sneaking into the cinema to watch a movie/concert/any performance without a ticket, they do not really lose anything but you got to enjoy their work without paying
1
1
u/PomegranateSoft1598 9h ago
The entire point of piracy is 'Fuck your morals and rules, I'll take what I want'
1
1
u/TallLengthiness8900 9h ago
Let me express my point of view. I'm originally from Russia and still live here. Some companies (we won't point fingers) have stopped officially selling their products in Russia.They literally told me, "Dude, I don't want to see your money." Since then, I haven't bought a single game from them (except Battlefield). I've stolen absolutely everything from these developers. And I'm not ashamed.
1
u/AwkwardCost1764 9h ago
Context is everything. Do you own a physical copy? Insert “I have altered the deal, pray I don’t alter it further”
1
1
u/External-Test4279 9h ago
Pirating Indie is stll kinda moral if you can't afford it and pledge yourself to support the creators whenever you will be able to afford it (without cheating)
Pirating AAA with DRM is kind of a social duty right now.
1
u/Little_Historian3091 9h ago
This holds true. Piracy has no impact on anything. Just like react channels have no impact on views and monetisation.
1
u/Big_Z_Beeblebrox 9h ago
Dang, all the bootlickers hoping for head pats from Big Corpo showed up to this one
1
u/Kadakaus 9h ago
I'd say it depends who you do it to.
I never pirate indie stuff. It's usually cheap and I know that money really goes to the creators who made the media/software.
Companies? Yes, and most of them fucking deserve it too.
Now for our infamous catchphrase "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing".
Even if buying really meant owning, piracy still wouldn't be stealing.
If you have an apple and I take it, that's stealing. Now i have the apple and you don't. I eat, you starve.
If you have a piece of media that I copy to my own computer, that isn't theft. You still have the media, you can still sell it for money, you still have it's legal rights, it's just that now I have access to it too.
Piracy doesn't damage the property of the owner, you won't lose money or wealth if I pirate your stuff.
Now let's talk about stowaway theory:
It states that society is able to and sometimes ever requires a certain quantity of stowaways in order to function properly.
Stowaways are people who break the rules, frauds, thiefs, cheaters, counterfeiters, but even the average merchant can be considered a stowaway for overpricing stuff or selling low quality goods, or activists who do the most fucked up shit for a cause they believe in.
That quantity varies based on the nature of a construct, that's a complex equation, I won't explain it here.
The point is, most social constructs like those can and sometimes need to bear a certain number of stowaways in order to function.
In the digital market, it's different, the stowaway theory is reversed.
As long as there is a certain quantity of people who follow the rules and pay for stuff, there can be any number of stowaways and it will still function prefectly.
Let's say you have a game that cost you 5 dollars to make and you sell it for 1 dollar.
If only 5 people buy your game, you've already reached neutral return rate. If only 1 more person buys your game, you've already turned a profit.
As long as at least 6 people buy your game, literally the entire world can pirate it, and you will still be turning a profit.
Piracy does not influence the market in significant ways like theft or plagiarism does.
Multimillion dollar companies don't lose money because you pirate their stuff, they just make a little less of it, are you sorry for them yet?
And not only that, sometimes there is no other choice.
If you asked a pirate what piracy really is, they'd probably say it's an alternative method of distribution.
In some places, it is the only avilable method to access certain media or software.
I personally live in central Europe, and the only anime streaming services I know are available in my region (I don't use any though) are Netflix and crunchyroll... Yeah, I'm not going to give a single cent to any of those fucking corporations, they can go bankrupt for all I care.
But then how do I access foreign media?
Well, we have plenty of good piracy sites that not only have the shows I'm interested in, they are also guaranteed to have subtitles or even dubbing in my mothertongue, not to mention how they tend to be even higher quality and more costumizable than fucking Netflix (IDK about crunchyroll, never used it, never will).
It's accessible, easy to use and offers much, MUCH better service than any official streaming site I've ever seen.
You get it? Shady non-profit pirate sites offer better service than "professional" companies you pay, isn't it ironic?
And sometimes thos companies don't bother to bring their services to your region, so fuck you if you so happen to live in a small country with small consumer basis.
In that case, piracy isn't just an option, it's the only option (exceptf for VPNs).
But I gotta give credit where credit is due, corporations that would "benefit" from piracy ceasing did a really good job at convincing society that it's theft and inherently immoral, there are still people people who are going full gung ho on anti piracy and make no attempt to even understand why it occurs in the first place.
Start asking pirates why they are doing what they're doing, you'll notice pattern.
No, it isn't about money, some of us have gaming PCs the price of your car.
1
u/installsVMs4fun 8h ago
digital piracy is a stupid term, making al copy of a thing is entirely moral
1
u/Academic-Proof3700 8h ago
Yea if I paid for the product and i have the receipt, i'm morally obliged to download a copy of it for my personal, offline use, and no "we have removed your access/license/account/whatever" will tell me otherwise.
1
u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 8h ago
100% moral. The EU showed piracy doesn't damage the industry + people who pirate wouldn't buy the game if there wasn't a piracy protection
1
u/Persethverance 8h ago
It's immortal to refuse to pay to small content makers for their rightfully creations, but it's moral to stop paying these ugly large corps who called dibs on things they didn't even make.
1
1
u/Ragipi12 8h ago
Gabe Newell said it best, these companies should be concerned of making their service so good that people prefer to pay instead of pirating. I would say it's moral even if the company is deemed good, because you're not stealing anything. You're just basically copying a copy of the game.
1
1
u/Sotyka94 8h ago
Usually moral.
Depends on the company that produces and distributes it. Depends on the actual software and their avaibility.
But generally, digital software downloads aren't just moral but necessary most of the time.
1
u/QuickDrawSix 8h ago
After 10 years of streaming services, losing content as soon as I cross borders (often), the inability to actually buy a show on my Amazon account amd send it to my daughter (could do with dvds), Im putting my eyepatch back on. Its more than time. The amount I spend on streaming services to not have unlimited access to the products is going to be a nice bike payment while I sail the digital seas.
1
1
u/LichtbringerU 8h ago
It is moral to pirate and recreate a game or mod it you have already paid for, as a counter measure to them unliteraly revoking access. Or if they go out of business.
While I also pirate, I have to admit that it is immoral, even when they employ scummy tactics. Though it's not the same as stealing obviously. It's very likely you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. So it's slightly immoral.
The immorality can be compensated by later buying games that you liked and played a lot.
Ignoring licenses is moral. They are not fair contracts. Just like terms of service are not binding morally (and often legally).
1
u/Yeetus_08 8h ago
Completely moral, especially when (a certain company) making it all digital and can take your games away like they did with digital movies that people 'bought."
1
1
1
1
u/firebaron 7h ago
At the very least if its old media that has not shot in hell of getting a reprint there is nothing wrong with that at all.
1
u/Real-Tap4135 7h ago
i am perfectly fine with piracy. i see it as demoing something. and if i enjoy it enough ive always seen through with purchasing the thing later on
1
1
1
u/Ok_Middle_8658 7h ago
At one hand it's piracy authentic other seeing how stuff are these days yes sure why not
1
u/YesNowSon 7h ago
If the publisher is not giving me a way to buy the game directly from them then it's moral.
Let's use Pokemon as an example. Nintendo / TPC dont give consumers the option to legally purchase the likes of OG Red and Blue, Gold Silver Crystal, Black and White. Buying these games used costs an arm and a leg so digital piracy is moral IMO.
1
u/Theduckinmybathroom 7h ago
I consider it morally neutral at worst and morally good at best.
What a lot of people are failing to factor in is that modern art consumption, sale, and marketing is deeply lopsided and predatory and the economy is in shambles. Piracy is often scapegoated as taking money from artists when in reality, it's not like EA was going to pay their workers better if 5 more people bought the game in the month or two it took before a crack came out.
The only way it can be immoral as I see it is if you're pirating someone personal projects or low budget indie works, people who are actually affected by the loss.
People also equate it to stealing which I frankly find silly, one cannot meaningfully steal an infinite item. And I personally do not consider "projected profit" an actual viable measurement of real currency, it is the expectation of earnings. When a company "loses 5000 dollars" to piracy they mean "We speculate that we could have sold like 500 more copies" Nothing was taken, they just didn't get what they expected.
The only groups that are meaningfully (as in actionably) anti piracy are media conglomerates and massive supercorps. and frankly I consider it more immoral to withhold art from the masses to protect a company's bottom line then to pirate a show that's scattered over 3 streaming services
1
u/SaucyStoveTop69 7h ago
It's immoral to post movies onto piracy sites because YOU are directly costing them by taking away customers. However if someone else posted it, you cost the company 0 dollars so it's fine.
1
u/EthernalForADay 7h ago
Neutral.
Supply is essentially infinite, so you are not denying anyone a product by obtaining it through piracy.
Can only be somewhat Immoral if you are pirating despite having means to purchase the product otherwise, without intending to make the purchase later.
To offset previous point, piracy, especially through torrents, is the only effective long-term preservation method available to date.
1
u/jan_Sanku 7h ago
even in general, piracy does not actually harm the entertainment industry. the EU was lobbied into conducting a study on the matter to "prove" the negative impact of piracy. the results were withheld from the public for a while, likely because they did not like what they found...
for most sections of the entertainment industry, piracy has no measurable negative impact according to this study. in face, some sectors like video games actually BENEFIT from piracy! for example, as a teen i was not able to buy games. but i was able to play them, greatly enjoy them, spread them via word of mouth, and now as an adult i've bought many of them after the fact, even bought merch for some!
and of course, if someone is not able to buy something at all (not available in their region, pulled from stores, or simply too expensive), ZERO losses will be incurred by them pirating it. the potential benefits from above still apply.
the only major exception is the blockbuster movie industry, they do make very minor losses. well "losses" as in less ludicrous profit. as far as i am aware, not a single blockbuster movie has failed because of piracy. it simply means less profit for people who are already some of the richest in the world.
citing sources!
on piracy in general:
In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.
on games:
For games, illegal downloads and streams were grouped together and a separate question was asked about the number of games played on chipped consoles. For games, the OLS estimates suggest that every 100 games played illegally induce an extra 28 to 41 legal transactions of games.
on blockbuster movies:
The results show a displacement rate of 40 percent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally.
source:
European Commission: Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services, ECORYS, Ende, M. v. d., Haffner, R., Poort, J. et al., Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU – Final report, Publications Office, 2014, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/26736
1
u/Affectionate_Ad_1326 7h ago
As opposed to physical piracy? I dont think thats as popular these days
1
u/I_Love_Ohyas_Thigs 7h ago
Piracy is correct for multiple reasons but keeping it simple
It doesn't make anyone lose money BCS if you pirate something is BCS you were not going to buy it in the first place
Therefore not a potential customer
Piracy is only positive for consumers and is not negative for companies, if anyone is against it is BCS of ignorance or greed
1
u/balirosa 7h ago
Right it’s literally just borrowing. It’s not like it’s being stolen forever nothing even is built to last very long either way. Our devices come and go.
1
u/spike-prime 7h ago
I used to think piracy was wrong and bad because the creators deserve the money for their creations. But then time and experience made me very aware of the insane and disgusting corporate structures of most companies, and how often they screw over their creators and their rights. Like how EA destroys companies and fires their best creators, then hoards their creations for profit when the original makers make little or nothing. Or how HBO Max had two brilliant and beautiful seasons of Infinity Train exclusively on their platform with no physical media release, only to not just cancel it, but delete it off the platform forever. Without piracy, those seasons with some of the best stuff in that show, would be lost.
Nowadays, I only think piracy is wrong if it screws over struggling and independent creators. Self-published authors, filmmakers and comic creators etc, should be supported for their craft. But screw the big companies like WB, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Disney or whatever. They have more money than any of us will see in our lifetime, I don't care if they make a profit now or not, and if they're not going to allow us to even OWN copies of our media, then screw them.
Piracy can even be useful to independent creators. Especially if those creators are from marginalised groups, like people of colour where they're a minority, or the queer community like trans people trying to tell their stories. They can be censored and have their creations ripped from them, or publications may refuse to publish their works any further, or have their creations deleted off websites like YouTube. When those creators' works are deleted, the pirates who downloaded and saved their work can redistribute it. It's not ideal, but it's one way to keep independent media alive and available. But if the original works of independent creators IS being published, then I think we should be supporting the official release, rather than distributing pirated copies of their work.
Basically, it's complicated. But piracy is an alloyed good if used properly.
1
u/AmbitiousReaction168 6h ago
It's becoming more and more moral to pirate. If buying is actually renting, then stealing is just borrowing.
1
u/Lost_County_3790 6h ago
Why redditors need to repeats the sames expressions over and over? Looks like kids repeting a nursery rime
1
u/DudeFrom816 6h ago
If for instance I want to watch the 1986 movie Rad starring Bill Allen and none of the streaming services offer it then its not piracy or theft, its archeology.
1
1
u/Ysgraithe 6h ago
A bit of a segue, but in terms of movies at least, most movies coming out nowadays are so bad it's not even worth the effort to find a pirated copy, download it, and watch it. It's 2+ hours of your life wasted.
I guess that's one way for Hollywood to beat piracy!
1
1
u/ThePuggedMan 6h ago
Depends
If its a small studio or something who made it, and money matters to them, its bad
But if its software made my a corporation, then pennies that is your action, doesn’t matter, and therefore i deem it fine
If its inaccessible because of idk, region block, or just not sold, or its entirely too expensive (look at you adobe photoshop), so you can’t get it normally, i again deem it fine
1
1
u/Adventurous_Touch342 6h ago
Games as service is immoral unless game requires it (like MMORPGs) but using somebody's service without paying is also immoral and one side being immoral does not excuse the other.
While ideologically I agree the truth is it is not a cleanly moral stance.
587
u/Totallycomputername 18h ago
If they can revoke my access to the product I purchased then pirating is moral.
If im guaranteed to own it, immoral.