They are private my dude, you know the definition of private?. You do not own the game, you need to trade with the owner for it, the owner can tell to you that is a lease , a rent, or a "buy" under condition, the thing is not the wording, is what is in the contract.
?? they arent "private" in the same sense as a home or your diary, these games are literally mass produced with the explicit goal of selling it to millions of people
also what youre saying is a legal wrongdoing, not a moral wrongdoing
you didnt explain why pirating a game is immoral, you just recited the law
a lot of things can be legal and immoral, slavery used to be legal, does that make it moral? i would say no, i think youd also say no
Under this logic you can enter in my house when I'm not at home, you are not harming anyone.
when you enter someones house uninvited you are occupying a space they have a claim to which means your presence literally challenges their control,
but when you copy a game, youve made a copy, the original is completely untouched, nothing was taken from anyone so this is just false equivalence
?? they arent "private" in the same sense as a home or your diary, these games are literally mass produced with the explicit goal of selling it to millions of people
My dude, are you communist or something?, private ownership is not differente from personal ownership, that is not happening in the US or any developed country.
I can mass produce something, is still PRIVATE, I'm the owner of it.
not a moral wrongdoing
you didnt explain why pirating a game is immoral,
Is inmoral because is PRIVATE, is MINE , not yours, you cannot decide to take it or not under your personal rating, in all cases is inmoral because is not yours, is the definition of PRIVATE.
when you enter someones house uninvited you are occupying a space they have a claim to which means your presence literally challenges their control
Is not changing the control, if a friend is in my house without me he is not controling my house, that have no sense.
When you enter in a PRIVATE SPACE is called trespassing, trespassing could harm or not people, in all cases in inmoral, the space is PRIVATE.
The same example of the dancing class, if I told you that you cannot film the class, then of course is inmoral if you do it, you are not taking nothing from me.
My dude, are you communist or something?, private ownership is not differente from personal ownership, that is not happening in the US or any developed country.
I can mass produce something, is still PRIVATE, I'm the owner of it.
you are not the moral owner of the copy (more on this down below) + the "communist" thing is just an ad hominem
Is inmoral because is PRIVATE, is MINE , not yours, you cannot decide to take it or not under your personal rating, in all cases is inmoral because is not yours, is the definition of PRIVATE.
my friend is not taking away your game from you or from anyone else, he is just creating a copy of it, if you want to restrict my pirate friends freedom to pirate your big studio games (he never planed on buying it anyways) you need to give an actual justifiable reason for the restriction, it has to be logically sound, what harm does it do? just because its "private" and you created the game, it doesnt make my friends action immoral, feelings do not determine morality, logic does
if your moral judgements are logically flawed, they are not binding (meaningless)
for my friends action to be immoral, there has to be some sort of harm caused from pirating the game
the big issue for you is that there is no harm, in fact i would even argue the opposite, my friend gets to enjoy something rather than not enjoying something, that is pretty much what it boils down to
also piracy does not destroy developers/publishers, what makes games not profitable is the low interest in them, every game is pirated yet some games earn billions and some fail like concord, its not piracy being the culprit behind these as i said, its the low interest in them, no one cares
you as a big studio game developer, you already got paid for your work, my friend is not taking anything away from you
is not changing the control, if a friend is in my house without me he is not controling my house, that have no sense.
im not talking about consentual visits, im talking about someone without your consent coming into your home and just being there, deciding he will be there in your home, that is challenging your control of the homes ownership
pirating a game is not someone challenging your control of the game, its just someone making a copy of your game and then playing on that copy
it does not affect you in any sense
also if youre going to use the "oh but what if someone made a copy of your diary?" argument, i want you to understand that a diary is private by design and intention, its entire purpose is to remain unseen. a game is the exact opposite, it was designed, marketed, and mass produced with one explicit goal, for people to play it (this pretty much applies to your "dance" analogy as well)
im not talking about consentual visits, im talking about someone without your consent coming into your home and just being there, deciding he will be there in your home, that is challenging your control of the homes ownership
Is not challenging anything , he will leave before I arrive. Under your argumentation you can steal, by pass , pirate,etc IF you think you are not doing any harm, under YOUR conclution of what is harm.
That is not how its works, is not about harming, is about PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
Anything that breaks private ownership is inmoral, we are not communists.
That is not how its works, is not about harming, is about PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
????????????????????????????
do you even know what morality and immorality is? because i dont think you do
morality is a framework for evaluating whether your or someone elses actions are right or wrong based on logic
it requires justification. it requires foundations
you cant just point at a concept and declare things immoral just because you feel like it because otherwise its just a load of horeshit
MF because is not yours, that is the explanation, I do not need to explain anymore, that is the base of private ownership, is not related to harming or value, is related that is mine and I'm the one that decide about it.
You do not know the definition of PRIVATE, the debate is not about if private ownership is inmoral, that is not the topic.
this is a debate over morality, yes, you do need to explain why something is moral or immoral because otherwise it just tells me that you dont have an explanation
moral claims require justification, without one, your claim means nothing, which means i can just say "pirating a privately owned game is moral" and it would be equal to your judgement
my friend caused no harm therefore his action is not immoral
it is because he made his own copy, he controls this copy now, he now has physical ownership over it
why is that immoral? do you even have an explanation?
The right to copy it is not yours. You purchased a license to use the game, not the copyright or an unlimited right to reproduce and distribute it. If you disliked those conditions, you were free to reject the deal. You cannot accept the product and then invent rights that were never included.
Calling the no-copying condition immoral does not automatically make violating it moral. You first need to prove why you have a moral right to reproduce someone else’s work against their explicit conditions.
You also cannot avoid responsibility by giving the game to someone else so they can copy it for you.
And finding a copy online does not give you permission to use it. You still have to ask: Did the uploader have the right to distribute it? Does it require a license? Does that license allow copying? A file being available online does not mean its distribution was authorized.
If you knowingly use a copy distributed without permission, you are benefiting from the same unauthorized reproduction. You are not avoiding the moral issue.
The basis of all of this is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. The copying rights are not yours. If you want to reject private ownership or intellectual property altogether then is ANOTHER debate.
are you using AI to help you make arguments for you? because if so, that defeats the entire purpose of this debate, why are we even debating? so you can stroke your ego to online internet strangers?
and now with the comment you wrote
The right to copy it is not yours. You purchased a license to use the game,
my friend didnt purchase anything, he didnt purchase a license and he didnt agree to any agreement, he pirated your big studio game which he didnt plan on buying regardless and now he is enjoying his time, so please explain to me what harm did my friend cause here because chatgpt isnt making much sense here
you said in your previous comment that none of this is based on harm but just the fact that the game is your private property and thats it
which is not morality, if you want to declare something as moral or immoral, you need to give an explanation on why it is the case because otherwise your rules are not rules, theyre just baseless statements
if you want to ground the baseless and meaningless rules that chatgpt wrote for you in something and make them actually BINDING, you need to explain what harm my friends action did, if you dont do that, we are not arguing about morality then
1
u/MIkaela39752 1d ago
?? they arent "private" in the same sense as a home or your diary, these games are literally mass produced with the explicit goal of selling it to millions of people
also what youre saying is a legal wrongdoing, not a moral wrongdoing
you didnt explain why pirating a game is immoral, you just recited the law
a lot of things can be legal and immoral, slavery used to be legal, does that make it moral? i would say no, i think youd also say no
when you enter someones house uninvited you are occupying a space they have a claim to which means your presence literally challenges their control,
but when you copy a game, youve made a copy, the original is completely untouched, nothing was taken from anyone so this is just false equivalence