This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
Repairman goes to your house, fixes your sink, fixes your toilet, fixes your....
I don't believe you.
Also incorrect. As has been explained previously.
No, it was never explained. The mindset is the same. You're not paying people for the sweat of their brows.
Actually people have explained their reasoning to you several times.
Why don't you point out one instance of that?
Your idea was based on an analogy that didn't work. Your idea is completely supported by your bad analogy.
No, I explicitly stated the idea and STILL nobody had an answer. I'll explicitly state it again: "why is it OK to take a product on grounds that you wouldn't have paid anyway"?
Not one person answered that question.
If you have any other reasoning you're going to need to present it, but you've just been backing yourself up with poor analogy.
I was never backed by analogy. The idea was presented pages ago, you just chose to ignore it and attack the analogy because that was the only way you found to try and make my argument fall, and you failed. Even if you had invalidated the analogy, you still didn't present an answer to my question.
Why not just not make the analogy anymore? Argue against piracy without the analogy.
... even on Earth Mode.
So basically now that your analogy has been torn to shreds, it no longer has anything to do with your argument.
How the hell can a octopus live outside of water anyways? This is so stupid. -Fade2black001
There are some arguments here that should be forbidden in any piracy debate.
Morality, ethics, piracy is or is not theft for the most part. And analogies. Analogies are the easiest things to break down with this debate, because nothing can really be compared to piracy, because the nature of data is quite unique - there is nothing else like it, and it can be copied and manipulated. They're electrical impulses at the core - very easy to copy. Could probably vampire tap something and illegally copy stuff.
I keep hearing "It's theft, it's immoral" and then I refute, and I get fed that again. You argument can't support itself, sorry, you need to back it by a reasoning.
Beyond that, all those arguments, they've been debunked multiple time. This debate was rehashed over and over again. I like to take a pragmatic approach to this debate rather than an emotional one.
<bold>I can debunk each and every anti-piracy argument there is - while still being on the fence about it. I'm neither pro or against - both sides bring good arguments and depend on SUBJECTIVE ideologies.</bold> Without ANY fail.
I'm going to debunk, no, utterly MURDER, your bad arguments.
#1: Piracy is theft.
No, and if you can't accept that, then you should leave this debate. Still, I'll explain why.
First, what is theft? How do we define theft? As piracy is in the eyes of the law of society today, considered a crime, we must use the definitions of the CRIMINAL CODE(s). Sure, dialects and cultural meaning EXISTS, and the word theft may have different meanings to different people, but we DISREGARD THEM. So, your personal definition DOES NOT MATTER and you can't use it as an argument. Why? Because we use the criminal codes' definition, because we are speaking from a legal standpoint, not a moral one, not yet, anyway.
So if you're about to say "But to me, it's theft", you better just stay quiet, because you're wrong. Don't feel like you're wrong? You're still wrong, and I have evidence backing my claims.
Theft, is you take something, someone lose something, feel bad. Piracy is Infringement of Copyright. Intellectual Property.
If I'm caveman, one day I make bow. You take MY bow, I lose something. Tribe wars ensues, everybody dies.
You take my idea and make bow, I lose nothing. Everybody eats. But you stole my idea, I lost being the alpha male bringing food to tribe. Me angry lost females. Lawyers are invented. Society improves, thanks to piracy! Haha, this is just me amusing myself a bit. But it brings an important side point: Sharing ideas causes advancement and improvement, keeping them to yourself prevents advancement. Ideas must face the world. It's an imperfect analogy, I agree... But it's something to think about.
Back to 2014, this definition of theft is not supported in court. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml
Piracy is not theft, PERIOD.
I'd like to add that the only reason piracy is a crime (copyright infrigement) is because we have copyright laws in the first place. If we didn't have them, it wouldn't be a crime.
#2: Piracy is immoral
Now, this one is thougher. We've established that piracy is not theft according to the criminal
code. But what about the moral meaning of theft? Back when theft was invented as a concept, we didn't have computers and data. So, some guy atop a mountain said "Thou shalt not steal". Made sense. It meant you took something from someone else, depriving him of his good. Humans lived in society, they tried to get along, etc...
But this decision to get along, to follow the same code of ethics, is it natural? Is it absolute? If it is absolute, who is the judge? Certainly not the law. The law is subjective and should change to benefit society. But I digress.
What if it was the end of the world? Ressources are scarce. If you take from someone else, you condemn him to death. If you don't, YOU die. Sharing is impossible. That was a sithy analogy, sorry. My point was to prove that morals, and I'm heading toward a naturalistic fallacy here, are subjective. Created to benefit society, and subject to change if need be.
And even if you say "Even if you're about to die and steal to survive, that doesn't make stealing okay" you're wrong. Stealing is not okay or okay. Stealing is an action, action have consequences.
As a society, we dislike theft, because we have social codes and ethics, but those codes aren't universal or absolute, they're an agreement for the majority to follow, in order to live without problems.
But those codes, not everyone follows them. And the police enforce them, not an higher force.
They're not going to go to hell for not having the same morals and ethics as you. Sure they're
psychopaths and harms other, but their way of thinking is, unless there a God to judge what is
right or wrong based on a absolute, godly moral code, which doesn't exist by the way, just as valid
as your in the end.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Every man dies, not every man lives.
In the end, there is no higher force they have to answer to. This makes the moral argument obsolete. Morals are a subjective code, a social agreement between the majority to follow it. Not everyone does, and they certainly won't be punished by a higher order.
Animals steal of each other. The only reason we view theft as bad, is because we have as humans, developed empathy.
Important reads and sources
In the end, this is based on YOUR moral ideology - one you developed over time.
How is your moral ideology better than someone elses? It's not, really.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted, sadly. No Lord will punish bad actions.
That is reality. Read the No Nonsense self defense above. If you believe everyone will always follow "The code of conduct... you have high risk behaviour.
And the code isn't absolute.
It's going to loop like that. You're going to tell me "It's still theft" then I'm going to remind you that 1: It's not theft according to the criminal code, 2: Your personal interpretation of the word THEFT is irrelevant 3:If by your moral code theft is bad it's good, but moral codes are not absolute and there is no higher power going to judge your actions when you die as far as I know. So every moral code is equal, and the way society/the earth is will cause shifts in what is acceptable or not, socially.
There is no "Truth" or "absolute morality". Philosophy is just one big rock-paper-scissor mindkuff.
Here are some various links related with this subject:
It comes down to three questions:
Do piracy harms? How?
Is piracy immoral? Why?
Should we stop piracy? Why?
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
By the way, you're not getting a TL;DR. If you want to argue, you gotta know your facts. I'm willing to educate you, but I can't do that in four lines. So read, or leave, because then you don't have the information to logically assess and debate this subject.
I'm neither for or against piracy. It's an action with consequences. So far, pro arguments are either illogical (appealing to morals to make a point, without logical reasoning behind those morals) or analogies that break down with a push. Or proven wrong, or just wrong. So looking at the facts, there are no reasons, yet, to stop piracy entirely.
Another important point, is that at a point where trying to stop piracy costs more money than piracy does in damages, it's pointless to try and stop it, because there would be more loss than if you let it run it's course.
#1: Piracy is theft.
While I'm actually going to avoid the horrible semantics debate that is "Is piracy theft"
Typically when one makes that argument, they're very upfront that it's not considered theft currently in a legal sense, and argue it from a semantics PoV based on the actual definition of theft. Not their own definition, but the actual definition.
So of course if you're going to add stipulations as to what the argument is about, you win without any type of counter argument. And no anti-pirate is really going to disagree with you, well outside of a handful that are either trolling are just arguing to argue.
How about this to end the topic.
Piracy is illegal. PERIOD!
Even if you think its ok, its not.
You didn't try google, you made that up...
Twist those dirty bags - Shake
MeCarana posted...#1: Piracy is theft.
I'm not certain to perfectly understand your point, but mine was, piracy is a society and legal issue, and thus must be dealt with using logic, facts, with a pragmatic, logical approach. Personal feelings about it have no place here. If we want to argue about the legal definition of theft, or what it means to people based on their feelings, that's a whole another philosophical debate and would be a strawman to go there. Especially considering that if they feel so strongly about it, how about they go push a change in the wording of the law. Would be more efficient.
But they're not doing that, so I don't care about their definitions. I've also touched on how subjective morals and (personal) beliefs are not a good point, because they can't be backed logically.
We gotta stick with the legal issues and wording if we want to get somewhere.
How about this to end the topic.
Illegal doesn't mean bad or harmful. Law is not absolute and can be wrong. Just because the law says it's not okay, it's doesn't mean it's not okay.
It's illegal to go over 100Kms an hour where I live. In Germany I could, no speed limits. Okay or not?
Now that's a perfect analogy.
What about countries where piracy is legal? Is it still not okay, or okay? Go read point #2 of my post if you're going to say it's still not okay. Then make a logical reasoning behind your argument based on morality.
Circular argument is circular.
SRSLY, I can debunk EVERY SINGLE ANTI PIRACY ARGUMENT.
Keep 'em coming. Let's get to 500 and beyond!