Why DON'T you pirate?

DracoSuave · Apr 15, 2009

Elephant said:
Funny, that didn't seem to be a problem when I opened my Christmas presents last year.

If I rely on sales of an item -I- create in order to eat, and your christmas present was a stolen copy of my item, then while Christmas is good for you, it's not so good for me. Your friend basicly stole one person's Christmas for someone else.

That's not cool.

I don't understand this idea that it's somehow inherently wrong to receive things without paying for them. Should we outlaw soup kitchens for giving away food when restaurants are trying to get people to pay for meals? No? How about libraries? I didn't pay for the novel I read last week, I borrowed it from the local library.

In the case of the soup kitchen, someone gave their food or money so that they could provide that free food. In the case of the library, they have permission to lend out materials. The choice was made by the original owners to give it for free. When the original owner -makes- that choice, there's no moral quandry to benefit.

Now, on the other hand, if you had a soup kitchen that got their food by stealing from the farms that grow the food, rather than having it donated or buying it, you might have a more adequate analogy.

I do understand (and agree with) the idea that it's wrong to deprive others of their property without their consent. After all, if you steal my books, I can't read them anymore.

And if you copy someone's intellectual property without their permission, you are taking it upon yourself to take from them the right to decide what is done -with their property.- If someone came into your house and said 'Yes, this is your house, but I want to borrow your couch. And bathroom. Don't worry, it's cool, I'm not renting it out!' then it's not so cool, is it?

You -are- depriving them, depriving them of the ability to profit off the sweat of their own brow. You didn't work for it, don't douche on those who -did.-

If, on the other hand, you sneak into my house while I'm away, make copies of my books, and bring home the copies to read yourself, I might not even notice (unless you broke something or left a book on the wrong shelf).

No, but if you wanted to sell those books because -that's how you feed your kids- you might look at it a different way when your kids look up at you and ask 'Where is food, Daddy?'

Fact is, it's not your right to decide who gets stuff for free. This isn't even Robin Hood country, it's not like you're stealing from evil lords who are taxing innocent peasents to death. You're stealing luxury items to give to people who own computers. This isn't even on the same level.

CapnZapp · Apr 15, 2009

Klaus said:
A more accurate parallel would be:

You're selling some books you wrote. At night, someone sneaks into your house, steals the books, makes copies, sneaks back in an places the books back. Next time you're trying to sell your books, you see that a lot of people you didn't sell to have copies that they are reading. Regardless of wether those copies were given for free or sold, the fact remains that a lot of people who might otherwise buy your books will no longer pay you for them.

This parallel is still not accurate because of the part which I have emphasized.

Not matter how you try to spin this, pirating is not stealing.

(It isn't breaking and entering either, but that part I'm willing to accept you added for dramatic effect only.)

CapnZapp · Apr 15, 2009

Bodhiwolff said:
I love the people who somehow try to justify their piracy by claiming that everything works out in the big picture. If I pirate and don't spend 15 dollars on a game book, I can spend 15 dollars on a shrimp dinner, thereby supporting the companies I like.

What this fails to take into consideration is that the individual doing this gets BOTH the game book and the shrimp dinner, without the economy as a whole being compensated for both products. The individual gets to have their cake and eat it too, while at least one of those products is devalued, and somebody, somewhere, loses out. Companies start to lose revenue. Which hurts me, in the long run.

You can't get Two-for-One and not have somebody, somewhere, lose out. (Let alone the fact that the individual doesn't *deserve* both products for one price.)

If I pirate books, or music, or movies, I make it that much more difficult for the books and music that I like to get made. I make it difficult for those things that I like and appreciate to get through the amazingly difficult process of going from concept to completion, because the companies that fund these projects don't have as much money to throw at projects.

Ultimately, if I pirate these sorts of products, I'm adding to the problem in the system, and I'm hurting the industries that provide these products. It isn't enough that I, personally, pay for the products I like and only pirate the "so-so" products (so-so in my opinion, mind you!). Because if everybody does that, then only the absolutely-freaking-fantastic products from the general public's tastes make enough money to keep going. Only the blockbusters for the general public survive (and even those have diminished revenue).

And my tastes don't run to the median.

If I pirate, I add to the problem which is starving out my favourite artists, movie-makers, and writers. I add to the problems in their industries which are forcing companies to green-light fewer and fewer projects.

So piracy kills *my* chances of cool new products. I'm selfish. I want cool new products.

It is in my own best interest not to pirate. It is in my own best interest to convince friends not to pirate.

Stopping .pdf publication, because .pdfs are being pirated like crazy, is a minor inconvenience to me. But it is a major chance at diminishing the frequency of piracy, which is a major boon to my hobby, and therefore is a major boon to me.

In other words, stopping .pdf publication is good for me, even if I am minorly inconvenienced.

This conveniently leaves several issues out of the discussion.

For PDFs things aren't as clear-cut, but seeing most people here discuss piracy in general rather than WotC piracy in particular:

If piracy can break the backs of the major record labels, and usher in a new era where artists publish their music directly on the net, where a consumer can pay a dollar (or a cent, or whatever) for their new great track and all of that money goes directly into the artist's pocket (except for a small percentage taken by the internet provider, and perhaps the music site indexer I found the artist on if Google wasn't enough) then, yes, piracy is worth it.

Another issue is how problematic lots of people feel about the vastly disproportionate and draconic measures these IP industries now try to get governments to enact. It's hard to feel sorry for WotC when I know it's Hasbro shedding the crocodile tears. As much as I love my hobby, I'm not willing to sacrifice internet freedoms just to have WotC stay afloat. Sorry, but if WotC can't cope with the changes brought about by modern technology, then we should blame them for crashing D&D and not the pirates.

In essence, the genie is out of the bottle.

Trying to turn back time will only result in you going bankrupt, so my advice is: don't even try.

Why DON'T you pirate?

DracoSuave

First Post

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Similar Threads