Why DON'T you pirate?

Regarding torrents, you certainly don't need to register at most sites. Or any, in fact. And viruses, malware, etc.? Install antivirus and anti-malware apps that are some good, take whatever other measures you think are necessary, and really - not much to worry about above and beyond what the internet in general might throw at you. Be careful; that goes a long way online.

This is just as well, as it happens, because torrents are not just for illegal files. You can download tons of interesting legal stuff as well. It's simply a neat networking protocol, and massively popular, so there are in fact worse options.

So anyway, for reasons not to do it, that one's more or less not one. It's easy, convenient, not particularly unsafe, and yeah, a gazillion things are readily available, with but a humble search.

I download pdfs. But, I almost always download the pdfs of books ive ordered already or intend to order. If I dont care for the book I wont keep the pdf, I dont see the sense in this. If I do like the pdf Ill order the book. To me its just easier to have the book infront of me over a pdf anyhow.

Ethics and Honor. Neither would ever allow me to split hairs in such a way as to insist that knowingly "receiving stolen property" isn't "theft". Legally, it isn't. Ethically and honorably it is. I don't game with people that split those kinds of hairs about mere game rules, being rules laywers, which really doesn't harm anyone. So it would be hypcritical for me to split the same kind of hairs in real life.

Plus, I consider it the height of chutzpah to want to punish a company/person by not paying for their products, but then not be willing to make the extremely tiny sacrifice of ... not having access to it. If you really cared that much, doing without would be easy.

Jeff Wilder said:

(1) I believe creators should maintain control over their creations, including earning money for them (if they choose).

Click to expand...

I don't think that logically follows. Creators do maintain control over their creations, and people do earn money from their creations, even though piracy occurs. It's a stretch to say, "The person who wrote this is entitled to payment because I made a copy." It isn't necessarily the creator who gets paid, anyway, in this era of work-for-hire.

Copyrights and royalties are not natural rights; they are specific privileges enshrined in our laws for a specific purpose. Just as an example, copyrights do not exist in traditional hunter-gatherer societies. Yet a person cannot complain they have been "stolen" from if a song they invent gets sung by others in the group and transmits to other groups.

Copyrights, also, expire... is it unethical to download something the day before the expiration, but ethical the next day? The only thing that makes it unethical the day before is the existence of a law. Copyrights are ultimately as much of an ethical issue as stop signs. Is it generally unethical to run a stop sign? Yes, because you might contribute to an accident by not following the cultural norm. But is it evil to pass by a red octagon in a moving vehicle without stopping? Are the British evil because they drive on the "wrong" side of the road?

Unfortunately, we are stuck with a 20th century system for dealing with a 21st century economic question. The sacredness of property is a ridiculous myth. Property laws are useful, but from time to time, they must be ammended. You can no longer indebt your grandchildren, in the USA it is illegal to actually buy and sell people (and this thankfully occurs rarely today), and Microsoft is not allowed to update your EULA to state that they may read any files they please on your computer.

In this case, yes, by all means, pay for your PDFs. But I feel no guilt about pirating material I cannot obtain legally. With regards to the law, the punishment for making a single infringing copy should be something reasonable... that's in the Constitution. Fining someone thousands of dollars and throwing them in Federal prison for making, say, a copy of a page from a school workbook, is just ridiculous. Obviously, creators deserve to be compensated for their labors, but making a federal case out of teenagers downloading MP3s is not what I call justice, either.

Making electronic copies of information is just too easy for anyone to expect it won't be done under reasonable circumstances.

How is this all supposed to work? I wish I knew. But trying to put the genie back in the bottle is just not going to work.

pawsplay said:

Copyrights and royalties are not natural rights;

Click to expand...

What are our 'natural rights'?

they are specific privileges enshrined in our laws for a specific purpose. Just as an example, copyrights do not exist in traditional hunter-gatherer societies. Yet a person cannot complain they have been "stolen" from if a song they invent gets sung by others in the group and transmits to other groups.

Click to expand...

Interesting choice of example there. With no money, isn't it a bit of a moot point?

But anyway. . .

With regards to the law, the punishment for making a single infringing copy should be something reasonable... that's in the Constitution. Fining someone thousands of dollars and throwing them in Federal prison for making, say, a copy of a page from a school workbook, is just ridiculous. Obviously, creators deserve to be compensated for their labors, but making a federal case out of teenagers downloading MP3s is not what I call justice, either.

Click to expand...

Here, I agree totally.

Making electronic copies of information is just too easy for anyone to expect it won't be done under reasonable circumstances.

Click to expand...

It is not always (or even usually) just 'information' at stake.



It's a grossly inaccurate term that bugs me when used like that in these discussions (as it inevitably is, every time). Just had to get that off my chest. Again. Nothing personal.

Aberzanzorax said:

I'm wondering what the reasons are that people do not download illegal material.

1. Ethics.

5. Goodwill.

6. It is illegal.

7. Hipocracy/identification with the producer of the product.

8. Convenience.

9. Pennies to the Dollar.

Click to expand...

As a

1) past pirate of a few albums and bootlegger of a single concert (I was a teen),

2) who is currently attorney in the Entertainment industry,

3) and lifelong creator of intellectual property in a variety of media

4) as well as a host of other factors- Philosophy degree, Catholic upbringing, etc.

I don't pirate for the reasons enumerated in my edited quote of the original post.

It's a stretch to say, "The person who wrote this is entitled to payment because I made a copy."

Click to expand...

I'll disagree with this.

Just because a good is intangible in some way (for instance, existing in electronic form as oppposed to a solely physical form), does not mean that its creator isn't entitled for recompense for his efforts. He created something that you acquired- in economic terms, a normal good- and only its intangibility makes some think that he's not entitled to be paid.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Just because a good is intangible in some way (for instance, existing in electronic form as oppposed to a solely physical form), does not mean that its creator isn't entitled for recompense for his efforts. He created something that you acquired- in economic terms, a normal good- and only its intangibility makes some think that he's not entitled to be paid.

Click to expand...

How much can I charge you for the pleasure of my company?

Aus_Snow said:

What are our 'natural rights'?

Click to expand...

In my view, those social constructs which are necessary for society to exist. A right not to be stabbed or stolen from, that is a natural right. The right to a nickel every time some 12-year-old from a family on food stamps downloads a song, because I purchased a stake in a publishing company using money I made investing on Wall Street, from seed money I had access to thanks to my affluent family background, that is a bit more of a ... social convention.

Interesting choice of example there. With no money, isn't it a bit of a moot point?

Click to expand...

In the absence of congressional laws about copyrights, it would be a moot point here, too. There is nothing that can be hoarded, stolen, given, or taken away.

It is not always (or even usually) just 'information' at stake.



It's a grossly inaccurate term that bugs me when used like that in these discussions (as it inevitably is, every time). Just had to get that off my chest. Again. Nothing personal.

Click to expand...

What is inaccurate about it? Information is what makes something copyrightable.

pawsplay said:

How much can I charge you for the pleasure of my company?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the pleasure of your company is not considered a normal good in economic terms- it is not created in order to be placed into the stream of commerce.

If it is, the price you set and receive will be determined by market forces in your locale and the nature of your personality.

1) You might do better in Nevada (but outside of Las Vegas), certain parts of Amsterdam, Singapore and the like as opposed to alleyways in NYC or LA.

2) You might do better if you are some kind of celebrity or well known lecturer as opposed to an "Average Joe."

In the absence of congressional laws about copyrights, it would be a moot point here, too. There is nothing that can be hoarded, stolen, given, or taken away.

Click to expand...

Absent copyright laws?

Well, since the dawn of time, IP creators have always had the right of self-enforcement. That usually meant the threat or use of violence.

Since about 1200 AD or so, many Western powers have had some form of a "Court of Equity" in which matters not directly covered by a law could be decided...which could conceivably include decisions regarding IP. The problem was, they're inconsistent and have no res judicata, no value of precedence setting. That means a decision today could be radically different than one made tomorrow or last week.

The copyright laws we have now are, IMHO, a nice alternative to either former regime.

GMforpowergamers said:

the end result in my opionon is it is Wrong...

Click to expand...

I always get a little skeeved out when economic terms are linked to what is morally good, personally. It is, in my view, conflating two very distinct entities. Reminds me a bit of the merchants-in-the-temple incident from the New Testament, or the "render unto Ceasar" bit. I'm not a better person for paying my taxes. I'm probably a better citizen, but non-living entities -- the state, the dollar bill -- have little bearing on my moral compass. Supporting an economy or a nation or a particular industry isn't a moral thing. The RPG industry isn't inherently virtuous. Music and invention and games and stories existed long before IP law was conceived.

Not that it's new or surprising or even wrong to think that way. Protestant Ethic and all that.

This isn't directed at you specifically, GMFPG, but at kind of the majority of the thread, it seems. It's just kind of fascinating to me as a dabbler in social sciences and religious studies how these can conflate on an issue like this.

This touches on the no-politics-or-religion thing, so I might not even be able to discuss all of the ideas, here, but I did think it was worth pointing out that I find the idea that it is ethically or morally wrong very odd, personally, and a little disturbing, in a sort of "what would Adam Smith think!" kind of way.