Upload
Login or register
x

Adult Swim on Piracy

A recent report
claims film piracy
costs the economy
billion annually
We say this is
super misleading.
Film piracy may cost
the film industry 20 billion
but that money still goes
into the economy.
People will buy shoes
or comic books
or cataract surgery or
even baby formula
instead of spending that
money on movie tickets.
We say film piracy
feeds babies
adult swim]
...
+1643
Views: 43892
Favorited: 129
Submitted: 12/13/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to GothicChi

Comments(215):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 215 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
198 comments displayed.
Reply
+524
User avatar #1 - doctahhobo (12/13/2015) [-]
I wish I could meet the people behind their bumps cause they are ******* gold most of the time.
Reply
+10
User avatar #142 to #1 - trolltyler (12/14/2015) [-]
You can make bumps, on the adult swim app
Reply
+166
#2 to #1 - norkasthethird (12/13/2015) [-]
yeah, for a given definition of "gold"
Reply
+146
#21 to #2 - faktopus ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
I once fell asleep watching cowboy beebop when that **** was on AS. . . woke up to that goddamn slide and almost **** myself
Reply
+28
User avatar #59 to #21 - thekieran ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
I was fairly young when II saw this for the first time. I wasn't supposerd to be up so late and I didn't realize it was a commercial. In my midnight stupor of a child who had never stayed up past midnight I was convinced that this was why I wasn't allowed to watch tv at night. The music, the eyes, all of it was terrifying to me at the time.

This was compacted to the trifecta of awful when my dad woke up and happened to walk in on me watching tv at nearly 4 am. It wasn't for another four years until I felt safe enough to watch tv at night again.
Reply
+3
User avatar #152 to #59 - belshir (12/14/2015) [-]
that was the idea of the thing, to scare kids into turning the t.v off. Can say even now an adult man in his bedroom behind a two locked doors and 12 stories above ground this **** still makes my skin crawl
Reply
+1
User avatar #82 to #59 - necroshredder ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
**** man I barely remember this **** . I cant even remember seeing that **** on air. If I saw that as a kid Id probably get nightmares cause I had this one nightmare( my first nightmare to be exact) where I was in a dark room and saw these big wide open gaping eyes just staring at me. been scared of bulging eyes ever since.
Reply
+2
#163 to #82 - valigar (12/14/2015) [-]
GIF
You mean like THIS?!
Reply
+1
User avatar #166 to #163 - necroshredder ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
close, less bulgy, still creepy tho Id give it like a 5/7
Reply
0
#167 to #166 - valigar (12/14/2015) [-]
GIF
A perfect score?!
how's this?
Reply
0
User avatar #168 to #167 - necroshredder ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
meh not really
Reply
0
User avatar #146 to #59 - captchakid ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Weird. Ive never been scared of fictional things like that outside of jump scares. Grew up on Alien, Scarface, and dozens of other action/horror/sci-fi movies.
0
#124 to #107 - creamgravy has deleted their comment [-]
0
#123 to #107 - creamgravy has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #169 to #21 - oceanfrank (12/14/2015) [-]
Is it sad/weird one of the fondest memories I have were falling asleep to Inuyasha, Cowboy Bebop, and Harvey Birdman: Ace Attorney at Law?
Reply
+8
#49 to #2 - zzRedzz ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
This bump scarred me for life
Reply
+4
User avatar #8 to #2 - elsenortamatoe (12/13/2015) [-]
Dont know why you got thumbed down. That **** was terrifying. And most bumps are great. Makes it seem really chill.
Reply
+3
User avatar #10 to #8 - kaldarvonlupo ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
I didn't, but it's likely because of the text colour.
Reply
0
User avatar #70 to #8 - insominus (12/13/2015) [-]
What is a bump? This **** is amazingly spooky.
Reply
+2
User avatar #110 to #70 - basalm (12/14/2015) [-]
A bump is essentially a commercial with either self promoting stuff or AS answering tweets....
Here's a link to some other bumps, though.
adult swim bumps
Reply
+1
User avatar #111 to #110 - insominus (12/14/2015) [-]
Thanks fam
Reply
+2
#118 to #2 - totallynatedrake (12/14/2015) [-]
no time for sleep
Reply
+1
#48 to #2 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
Wasn't that just a creepy pasta.
I've seen that on Adult Swim and never though **** about it until the creepy pasta.
Reply
0
User avatar #164 to #2 - valigar (12/14/2015) [-]
AS: The Dawn Is Your Enemy (FULL BUMP WITH WINK)
Reply
0
User avatar #161 to #2 - tenaciouslee ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
That doesn't look inherently spooky.

But to some wee babby watching AS at night like he shouldn't be, that'd scare the **** out of you, I bet.
Reply
0
User avatar #109 to #2 - basalm (12/14/2015) [-]
Awesome.
AS is great.
I wish they loved me like I love them.
</3
Reply
0
#58 to #2 - amicoolnowmom (12/13/2015) [-]
That text color tho
Reply
+61
#24 - include (12/13/2015) [-]
GIF
Reply
+144
#4 - Bluemistake ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
>Live in Australia
>Literally every ******* thing is overpriced as all hell
>a single season of a show will cost you upwards of 50 dollars, close to a 100 if it's new
>Dallas buyers club is released in the US in like ******* december or some ****
>Released in Australia in march or so, a whole lot of ******* months inbetween
>People obvs not gonna wait for that **** so they pirate it
>Company that made Dallas Buyers club demands of the telco that the people who pirated it's identities are revealed
>Goes into a big ******* lawsuit with the government about this
>Faggot Buyers club wins the suit
>Company now demanding compensation of upwards of a few thousand dollars for some ****** oscar bait movie.

Some of the reasons I don't feel bad about pirating, why would I? Film studios make enough money and treat consumers like dirt anywho.
Reply
0
#136 to #4 - gloriousthighs (12/14/2015) [-]
I don't know where you are shopping but new tv seasons tend to cost around $30 at JB or any major shop. It really isn't very hard to live in Aus, I just work for Woolworths and get like $24 an hour, simple enough.
Reply
0
User avatar #153 to #136 - serefth (12/14/2015) [-]
Shows like the walking dead and similar on blu-ray cost around $54 son
Reply
+1
#172 to #153 - gloriousthighs (12/14/2015) [-]
I see. I've never bothered with bluray or buying any of those new shows so I didn't know it got that unreasonable.
Reply
0
User avatar #157 to #4 - mrwalkerfour (12/14/2015) [-]
i think it depends who you pirate from. if you pirate movies/music from big groups or companies then thats fine, theyre rich already and successful so its kay if you do that.

if youre pirating music or movies from small time artists or film makers, thats affecting them more, they need the revenue to survive and progress so it hurts them to pirate.
Reply
+2
#44 to #4 - myjunk (12/13/2015) [-]
Just to put it into perspective:
The minumum wage in Australia is 17,29 Aussie $ or 12,45 USD or 11.34 €
Higher than in any european country.
(For example Germany 8,5 Spain 5 Greece 3,4 Romania 1,5)
I know, I know the price difference is probably higher thant the wage difference but still
Reply
+17
#47 to #44 - Bluemistake ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
That being said, our cost of living is absolute bonkers too, currently 5th highest in the world with neither free healthcare nor free education, our welfare system has elderly people living in absolutely bare minimum conditions while bogans are popping out kids just to receive more from Cennalink. That aside they've implemented a system in which after the current set of pollies go into retirement, the age to receive pension funds has been lifted to 70, our average life expectancy is 80, basically another way of the government telling the people go **** themselves.

Don't even get me ******* started on the internet either, it's the southern hemisphere equivelant of Canada, in the 80's the government decided to privatise the telecommunications business into what is now known as the absolute abomination that is Telstra, who literally give 0 ***** . See we're almost in 2016, people are building ******* hoverboards no problem yet somehow the Australian internet is still predominantly copper ******* wires, which it has been for the last 30 odd years. Now only recently the government has implemented a program called the NBN, the national broadband network, optic fibre for everyone at the same ****** (absurdly high) monthy fees. But nope, cause the pollies like to play musical chair with the position of Prime Minister in the land downunder they've made changes of which the details were leaked. It will now be a slower version, providing a slower internet speed, yet at the same time cost more to build, and if that doesn't sum up Australia's politics in a ******* nutshell well I don't know what will.
Reply
-2
#155 to #47 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
you should stop running your mouth, that just the **** labor spit out to get your worthless votes
Reply
0
User avatar #170 to #155 - oceanfrank (12/14/2015) [-]
You calling someones vote "worthless" in a democracy proves how **** of a government you actually have. Might as well not even bother voting since the ones in office are gonna stay in power to keep ******* you in the ass amirite?
Reply
0
#117 to #47 - pyrebaron (12/14/2015) [-]
Amerifag here, most of my friends are aussies because of my odd work hours. Half the people in my group are victims of this ******* .

I may not share your hardship, but i know your pain. ****
Reply
0
User avatar #154 to #44 - serefth (12/14/2015) [-]
people at hungry jacks earn $8 an hour, I know this because I worked there when I was 15.
Reply
0
#173 to #154 - myjunk (12/14/2015) [-]
Was this by any chance before the Australian Fair Pay Commission?
Reply
+3
User avatar #38 to #4 - scowler (12/13/2015) [-]
Australia is ****** .
Reply
+22
User avatar #22 to #4 - komandantmirkoo (12/13/2015) [-]
read it in a aussie accent. 10/10
Reply
+5
#28 to #22 - Enobrin ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
9.5/10 needed more shrimp on the barbie.

Accurate points though.
Reply
+9
#45 to #28 - glomsworth (12/13/2015) [-]
nah it was good, i rate a solid 5/7
Reply
+1
#56 to #46 - ugoboom ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Reply
+6
User avatar #51 - ryuggu (12/13/2015) [-]
Is there any reason they're called adult swim? Always wondered about that.
Reply
+3
User avatar #52 to #51 - feelythefeel (12/13/2015) [-]
They replace CN for night hours and play adult cartoons like ATHF or Metalpocolypse.
Reply
+3
User avatar #53 to #52 - ryuggu (12/13/2015) [-]
then who's swimming?
Reply
+18
User avatar #54 to #53 - feelythefeel (12/13/2015) [-]
It's a reference to adults only hours in public pools, colloquially known as adult swim.
Reply
+6
User avatar #55 to #51 - theism ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Cartoon Network typically airs kids programs except for a late night block of adult shows. Adult swim is a period of time where kids aren't allowed to swim in many pools.
Reply
+11
#34 to #18 - asotil (12/13/2015) [-]
>TFW physically can't
Reply
+10
#68 - ablock (12/13/2015) [-]
I don't know why there's a debate over this. I honestly hope I'm missing something, but I always thought that if you wanted something, you would have to buy it. Isn't that, like, basic economics? If you don't pay for something, why should you be allowed to watch/use it? Someone enlighten me if I'm wrong, I hoping I'm just dense.
Reply
-1
User avatar #114 to #68 - kozdafunny (12/14/2015) [-]
Because I don't feel like paying money I don't have for something I don't know I'll enjoy or not. This is coming from a former pirate.
Reply
0
#162 to #68 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
because if my friend buys a dvd, he can lend it to me to watch, right? now if he buys a digital copy, can he still send it to me to watch?
Reply
+5
User avatar #94 to #68 - plataeiou (12/14/2015) [-]
Nothing to debate. You're spot on.
Reply
+68
User avatar #3 - angelious (12/13/2015) [-]
Yeah but the company that makes the movies still doesnt profit at all which leads to troubles for them..


for the millionth time; you can rape,murder pillage and pirate all you want. but dont try to act like you have the moral highground here...
Reply
0
User avatar #73 to #3 - haroldsaxon (12/13/2015) [-]
Most big companies does profit from piracy, though perhaps not from your download directly.
Reply
-3
#6 to #3 - ekusas (12/13/2015) [-]
But in a sense, they do.

Fact is, stealing is wrong. But when you live in a country, where basic necessities aren’t ever in danger of running out, you elevate yourself to the next level of "needs". Surely you have seen the "Maslow's hierarchy of needs", imagine you being in a position where the need for love or belonging is directly linked to having the "newest thing". Anyhow, some live like that, and expecting people to be ridiculous amounts of money (relative to the cost of said product) is in itself a crime, something we sadly don’t prosecute for anymore. Two wrongs don’t make one right, but it’s a moral gray-area, that surely you can’t be the god of.

There’s also the fact, as many states, is inconvenient. Many of times, have this debate furiously divided the gaming communities, and i myself have been on either side of the argument. Fact is, acquiring some games, pre internet, was more of a chore than anything else. Trying to locate Theme Hospital, in over 10 different stores, in my countries biggest city in 1998 was ... hectic and tiresome. With the invention and availability of the internet, free distribution took over, and with that all inconveniences went away. Steam, Origin the dreaded U-play. You name it, it’s there. Those platforms were a means to end piracy; Either through retarded DRMs, that are easily crack-able, or through the convenience of cheaper titles, combined libraries and an always open "shop".

That in itself killed more piracy that any damn ads ever will, some now comes to TV, in forms of HBO, Netflix, Hulu; Name it, it’s there. It’s easily accessible and widely known. If TV-producers don’t want to sell it, cheaply enough so that people can pay a "what they think is fair" amount of money for a product, they will pirate it. Im sure that, that in itself is quite fair, mainly due to no one but the greedy, will suffer. Something i can live with.


TLR - Companies have a chance to get payed, their greed preventing them from taking said offer, and now they are butthurt that people wont pay for their overpriced wares. The moral compass changes colour depending on what side you take.
Reply
+9
User avatar #13 to #6 - theruinedsage (12/13/2015) [-]
>bu-bu-but games used to cost less, there's no reason why it should cost more now that i can just download it, because most of the cost comes from making the cd's!
Reply
+6
User avatar #7 to #6 - angelious (12/13/2015) [-]
i shall repeat myself.

murder rape pillage and pirate all you want. but DO NOT try to claim the moral high ground.
Reply
-14
#9 to #7 - ekusas (12/13/2015) [-]
Sorry, didnt realize you were inbred. Ill try to explain it in a way you can understand.

Sometimes, you can disagree on something. Sometimes right and wrong arent as clear cut as black and white. Sometimes you can get unwanted reactions by doing something others find mean.
Those meanie pants, am i right?

When those meanie pants try to take 15 piecies of candy, for 1 apple, but you can go 2 miles and get an apply for free. You would rather go get the free apple. But before that, you do tell them. Hey, what about 5 candy-pieces, i think 15 is way overpriced for that apple, when it costs you only 1 candy piece to grow?

No said the evil meanie-pants, its my apple, i can do what i want, BTW you cant make apples like mine, that would be mean!

You, then went and got a free apple, just like theirs. Sad that you had to walk 2 miles. But when meanie-pants are greedy, they cant be helped. Evil meanie-pants.

Now everyone lost. This isnt what meanie-pants wanted, neither you! How could this happen? If only people hadnt been such asshole, OOPS, "meanies". If you didnt find an apple for free, and if they had been reasoable in their demands, everyone could have been a winner.
Its almost like, its as morally despicable charging too much for a product, as it is stealing it. Its almost the same thing actually. Sorry for the grown up word.
Shame, but thats the life in meanie-ville. It isnt all white and black !

Now take our your colouring book kids!
Reply
+17
User avatar #12 to #9 - angelious (12/13/2015) [-]
it isnt about right or wrong. its about wether you have your head stuck up so far up your ass you cant understand simple concepts as "law" and "crime"


i pirate a lot of **** . i am also not above stealing things. but the difference between you and me comes in that im not so ******* stupid to claim that im not breaking the ******* law.
Reply
-3
#78 to #12 - heyyoutoo (12/13/2015) [-]
Me pirating anything doesn't cause them any lost money, i wouldn't have bought the game/movie anyway.
Reply
+4
#97 to #78 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Then guess what? You're an entitled **** who wants goods and services without paying, because that mindset is exactly why all piracy conversations turn to **** . You claim that you won't buy it anyway, but you still act like you should get the game/movie anyways, which is what makes you entitled.
Reply
-1
#171 to #97 - heyyoutoo (12/14/2015) [-]
Where i said that what i do is good/correct/lawful? I said that i don't cause them loses, which is entirely correct.
Reply
-4
#128 to #12 - drizztrocks (12/14/2015) [-]
The law doesn't directly correlate with morals. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's morally right, morals are subjective and undefined. People can claim a moral high ground and guess what, there's nothing you can do to stop them, making post on the internet definitely won't, and those same posts don't make you correct either. Instead you should say "Rape pillage and pirate all you want, but don't claim it's legal." Because atleast then you'd be correct.

Now that we understand that morals are subjective, let's argue if piracy SHOULD be considered right or wrong, because the only thing stating that is the law. Should Piracy really be as illegal as it is, and should people be prosecuted over it? No. There's no wrongness in getting your hands on free things that are this readily available, especially since it's something as simple and non serious and entertainment. I believe that pirating in no way directly effects the already often rich content creators. Usually the content creators sink money into a project and knowing that this money could be used to support themselves, but forfeiting that in the name of success. Every youtube video is "pirated" if you think about it, no one pays to see them, yet we still have youtubers who have money in the millions. If a human being decides he'd like to watch a movie for free online, he should be allowed to, and currently IS allowed to in the most practical sense, and that's the way it should be. Creators of media need to realize now that this is possible they need to step up their game, going out to the movies is a social thing, and that's not how they need to get their sales anymore, instead do advertising or create a connection with your audience that makes them want to pay to see you, it's not the peoples fault that they have a much easier and convenient way to watch your movies now, you have to adapt as the producer, adapt to the consumer.
Reply
0
#158 to #128 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
"You have to adapt as the producer"

Yep, that's what DRM and anti-piracy laws are, the producers adapting to a bunch of their consumers deciding to be ******* thieves.

"Youtubers make millions and no one pays to watch Youtube videos"

Yeah, that's because Youtube videos that content producers make money off of have intrusive ads stuck in them. You want to play games with ******* ads popping up every ten minutes in them? No, you don't.

"There's nothing wrong with getting your hands on free things that are readily available"

Oh, okay, that makes sense. I'll just walk into the gas station down the block and start eating all their food without paying. Hey, it's "readily available" so there's nothing wrong with me doing it. Seriously, I've heard pirates give some retarded excuses for theft but I think that one takes the cake.


You are an idiot among idiots, and I'm not going to waste more time trying to push concepts into your head that have already been explained multiple times in this thread. I'm curious as to how you picked the username you have, considering that it generally takes an IQ in at least the double digits to be able to read books like the ones in the Drizzt series.
Reply
0
#135 to #128 - Darkrin (12/14/2015) [-]
Youtube is a bad example because they post their videos to an ad based service. And it is wrong to pirate anything, because things cost money, movies and video games cost hundreds of millions of dollars, songs costs thousands of dollars an hour for studio time. Plus there is the time put in by people to make these things. Pirating a movie now is like having Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel for free, and having him buy the paint, brushes, scaffolding, and extra painters.
Reply
0
#139 to #135 - drizztrocks (12/14/2015) [-]
Hardly, pirating is like having Michaleangelo paint the sistine chapel, him getting paid, then having people look at it and say "Hey, other people would like this, Michale, come with us we'll let you paint other things and earn more money." Then one day people are just able to throw a magic rock at their ceiling and have get the same painting, Michale was still paid, and still is, but the people who court him don't.

Youtube is a great example, just because they get their revenue from another source doesn't make it any less valid. Youtubers put tons of time and production money into their video's as well. The film market is saturated for God's sake. The "Michalengelo" of our time, Robert Downey Jr. has a damn net worth of 173 mil. Trust me, the film industry is doing just fine with Pirating, People aren't losing any significant amount through Pirating, and while movies take a decent amount to produce, they take literally nothing to reproduce.
Reply
0
#144 to #139 - Darkrin (12/14/2015) [-]
In your scenario of "let everyone pirate" where is the money coming from? And the Youtubers that make millions are often "bought" out, so their budget is coming from somewhere that isn't them. And on youtube they make from 1-4 dollars per 1000 views of banner ads, and about 5 dollars for a pre-roll video.
Age of Ultron had a 273 million dollar budget. If it were put on youtube, they would make up to 1.2 million dollars for 300 million views, and 1.5 million assuming there is a pre-roll ad for every single person. So that is a total of 2.7 million dollars for 300 million people having watched it. So they would need 3 billion views to break even. There is still the marketing budget which for most big budget movies is about 75% of the production budget. So that is another 200 million dollars. So over 3/5 of the Earth's population for need to watch it for them to break even. Your belief that everyone should just be able to pirate things is not only wrong morally, but also economically.
Reply
0
#148 to #144 - drizztrocks (12/14/2015) [-]
But you assume that literally everyone would pirate, which they aren't, besides it's not my job to come up with another model that helps to support this decline in people paying to watch large budget movies, it's the people creating them. If they want they can lower the budget, if people want better movies they will put more money into it, trust me. Currently though, with the new age making it illegal definitely won't work, and there's nothing morally wrong with this, the owners aren't losing money because they're not the ones missing out, when they produce a movie they get paid by theatre's and multiple other companies that want to play their movie, it's entertainment. Trust me if anyones going to get ****** it's going to be the people that attempt to deliver the movie, not the people who produce it. Movie's have been and will be one of the biggest producers of money for a long time, and if they start to lag behind they simply won't make entertainment anymore, that's quite simple. When people have a demand and expendable money for entertainment, they will fund it once more with no problem, Elementary my dear Watson. Economics.
Reply
0
#149 to #148 - Darkrin (12/14/2015) [-]
You seem to believe that because people are capable of pirating something, that it somehow makes it okay. So I have to ask do you think pirating is stealing?
Reply
0
#160 to #149 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Don't bother arguing with this dumbass. I've seen his kind before, they subscribe to the fallacious belief that "It's okay if I do <insert bad thing here> because (almost) nobody else will" and they will never be able to comprehend the idiocy of that belief.
Reply
+2
#108 to #9 - Darkrin (12/14/2015) [-]
In tenth grade I took an engineering class, and for one of the projects was to make something you had, I choose a Rubik's Cube. And I could have my teacher make it from his 3D printer, back in 2011 it cost me 4 dollars to make it. But now if I buy the filament and go up to school to make it, it would cost me $18 to get one spool, that weighs about a pound. And that much would be able to print off more than 2 whole Rubik's Cubes, with a little extra. And I still have all of my files for it, so I can just upload it online, and anyone that has 18 dollars and some sharpies can make several cubes. They don't even need the printer because they are getting more and more popular, and you can use someone else's.
That is the same thing as pirating. People try to rationalize it as not doing anything wrong because it is digital, but it is. People put time and effort into making that movie, game, or song. And sometimes they put their own money in because it is their passion, and people download it saying they aren't stealing, or it is a grey area, when it is stealing and it isn't a grey area because it is wrong. And now 3D printers are becoming popular, so physical items like a Rubik's Cube will be able to be pirated, or even legos.
Reply
0
User avatar #174 to #9 - theruinedsage (12/14/2015) [-]
>If you disagree with me you must be inbred

Holy **** that's pathetic
Every time i think i'v seen the lowest on this site, people like you show up.
Reply
0
#180 to #6 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
You're aware that "entertainment" is nowhere on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? "Love and belonging" is about having PEOPLE love you and having a GROUP to belong to, it has nothing to do with video games.

The cost of games is not ridiculous. I live in Australia where the markup is huge and I still don't think it's ridiculous. The fact that you think it is tells me you have no idea how much a game costs to make. To be fair, no one really does, but we do know it's usually in excess of $20 000 000.
Reply
+4
#74 to #3 - stonetomcat (12/13/2015) [-]
I'm not going to argue your point, but comparing movie piracy to burning towns is like comparing that kid who did a magic trick to Jesus Christ.
Piracy isn't right, but they're usually not throwing Molotovs at orphanages.
Reply
+3
#133 to #74 - ainise (12/14/2015) [-]
'twas a play on words. You know, like a Pirate? They rape murder and pillage?
Reply
+6
User avatar #15 to #3 - citruslord (12/13/2015) [-]
Yes, but would they profit anyways? If a company is asking $60 for a product, and I find that particular product is not worth that much to me, I would never pay that much for it. So whether I pirate it or not is irrelevant to their potential profits, and they lose nothing in the case that I do.
Reply
-1
User avatar #16 to #15 - angelious (12/13/2015) [-]
>>#7,
Reply
+3
User avatar #17 to #16 - citruslord (12/13/2015) [-]
Never said it was moral, didn't even imply it. Was just arguing that piracy does not always adversely affect a companies profits.
Reply
-1
User avatar #20 to #17 - mowgaycraft (12/13/2015) [-]
That's claiming a moral high. You're arguing it's a victimless crime which therefore inherently justifies it.
Reply
+2
User avatar #23 to #20 - citruslord (12/13/2015) [-]
Again, I never claimed that. I would say it's still immoral, since you violate usage rights and such. Literally the only thing I did, was refute the argument that piracy is equivalent to theft because of loss of profit, because that's not always the case.
Don't try and project your own interpretations on me.
Reply
+1
#99 to #23 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
The thing with this is that you're getting something without paying, and that's the issue. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have paid anyway, the point is that you're getting a service without paying for that service, and while you're not physically stealing, you are benefiting off someone's effort without paying.

It's like if someone was selling paintings, and you scanned/printed one out for yourself without paying, then going "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". You're unfairly getting entertainment from their work regardless.
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #99 - citruslord (12/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, I'm not arguing with that. That's the more major moral issue with it.
Reply
0
#137 to #15 - ainise (12/14/2015) [-]
Then you feel yourself entitled to said $60 product for free. You felt that the people who created this product are not worthy of the money they expect. EG: If you don't want to shell out $60 for modern warfare 45:Quest for Cameltoe then you just don't buy it.

It took tens of thousands of man hours to release said hypothetical game. Pirating it because you can't afford it - that's one thing. Pirating it out of unwillingness to pay for their product... das jes greedy and gives off an air of self-entitlement. "I deserve this, even though I did nothing".

I just pirated a $1200 dvd set because I literally can't afford it. I also just bought a $60 game with my little bit of free money this month. I could have pirated it, sure, but if everyone continues to pirate every.single.game. we will lose the entire gaming industry. And that's a sad prospective.
Reply
0
User avatar #159 to #137 - citruslord (12/14/2015) [-]
Look, I'm an artist and aspiring dev myself. I understand that the value of something is dictated by more than just the cost of materials.
But at the same time I understand how the market works, and it's useless to try and get $60 from someone that values the product lower than that. That's one of the biggest strength of Steams market and sales. The Witcher 3 may not be worth $60 to me, but yeah it's probably worth $30. And I know that eventually, it will hit that point, and that combined with their ease of purchasing, makes it more worth waiting for than pirating. Either way they'd never get $60 from me for it.

All I was saying was that always equating piracy to lost revenue is fallacious. It's still immoral to pirate, no matter the circumstance. But it is not always theft.
Reply
0
#183 to #159 - ainise (12/14/2015) [-]
So let's say a thing is pirated by ~2 million people. I'd guess about 1% will purchase it anyways, I personally know a couple and I know I have done it in the past, so I think that's more or less a fair number.

I'd guess..maybe ~15% would have purchased it if they could not pirate it. Probably lower for music, probably higher for vidya gams, probably about that for videos.

These are just spit ballen numbers, but I guarantee if pirating software was not a thing, they WOULD see an increase in sales, likely around 8%-25%, depending on the product & price, of the pirated software. So yes, Piracy does ultimately lead to a loss in sales. Why pay for something you can get free, ya'know?
Reply
+8
#33 to #3 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
>copying a bunch of digital 1's and 0'S (note COPYING) is equal to rape or ending a human life
ok
Reply
+18
#32 - alleksi (12/13/2015) [-]
This reminds me of the "broken window" -fallacy, that basically states that destruction doesn't benefit the economy.

It's based on the claim that it matters not if a shopkeepers window has been broken by his son, since the money that the shopkeeper must pay to fix the window, will still contribute to the salary of the glaziers, and therefore to the economy.

"What would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?".

Yes, it's true that breaking a window will now employ the glazier and help him keep his job, and therefore your money spent on the broken window has contributed into the economy. This is a true statement.
But the important part here is that it does not justify breaking windows or causing any other damage.
"Breaking windows causes money to circulate->upkeep of the economy->therefore breaking windows is good", is not a good conclusion, because what is not taken into conclusion is that had the window not been broken, the shopkeeper would have spent the money somewhere else and therefore contributed to the economy again. Not breaking things does therefore not contribute to the economy in any special kind of way

By believing in what that post says and using it as a justification for piracy, you are basically making the logical conclusion of "It is okay for me to pirate, because the money that I was going to use to buy the film, I can now spend on other things". It's as if the broken window fallacy was flipped on his head.

To make the comparison, it's like the shopkeeper breaks the window, gets the glaziers to fix it, pays them nothing and instead buys himself brand new shoes with the money. Yes, money has still been contributed into the economy, but suddenly a worker has done a job without pay, therefore wasting time and possibly losing money.

To make the conclusion that "I am still contributing into the economy" is not correct, because all forms of non-charitable labor should be rewarded with a pay of some kind.

The basic TLDR of it is that people should be rewarded for their work. You can't buy a bread by paying the butcher. You can't pay your taxi ride by saying "I tipped the waitress 50 bucks, don't worry". Whatever it is that you consume, you pay directly to the person/group responsible for it. That's your responsibility as a consumer. A person doing a job without paying will only cause that person a loss of money. You are giving money to one place, and indirectly causing the loss of money in another place.
Reply
-1
User avatar #36 to #32 - alleksi (12/13/2015) [-]
That said, movie industry can and will survive alongside piracy, but it can mean that studios might be forced to be more aggressive with things like product placements to gain a more secure form of profit.
Reply
+3
#101 to #36 - anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Just look at DRM and games, even if piracy doesn't create huge losses, it DOES make companies become aggressive assholes to their own consumers and forces paying customers to jump through a bunch of hoops to play a game they paid for because someone else pirated the last game.
Reply
0
User avatar #96 to #36 - plataeiou (12/14/2015) [-]
This made my inner economist squee with delight.
Reply
-4
#62 to #32 - zandersave (12/13/2015) [-]
But the content isnt asserting that you can pay for movies by buying baby food. Its refuting the point that pirating movies somehow "costs the economy" anything. Which it doesn't. Whether the companies should be paid is besides the point.
Reply
+37
#40 - daniboyi (12/13/2015) [-]
I pirate. I admit it freely. but I don't try to justify it with some ****** excuse, Piracy is wrong. I do it and I realize it is wrong. Anyone who thinks it is morally 'ok' to pirate are delusional or just plain stupid.
I pirate.
I admit it freely.
but I don't try to justify it with some ****** excuse,
Piracy is wrong. I do it and I realize it is wrong.
Anyone who thinks it is morally 'ok' to pirate are delusional or just plain stupid.
Reply
+1
User avatar #61 to #40 - cookiecoketwo (12/13/2015) [-]
I only pirate older games, and only pirate them if I had originally paid for the game.
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #61 - yaybacon (12/14/2015) [-]
I do the same, but only for console games like PS2 or the Wii.
Reply
-3
User avatar #63 to #61 - daniboyi (12/13/2015) [-]
I do the same, but in the end, it is still wrong and illegal.
Just because I break a glass I already paid for, does not give me the right to go grab another without paying.
Reply
+5
#76 to #63 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
with movies/games/music if you've paid for a copy you may download/reproduce said work for personal use, i.e a car CD player or second computer
Reply
+3
#132 to #40 - drizztrocks (12/14/2015) [-]
Are they? People don't pay to watch youtube video's why should they pay to watch movies? If the companies that create these movies are so upset they should change their method of producing entertainment, or change the medium. Go to pure stage acting, that can't be pirated. Come up with a medium in which it can't be pirated, this is the internet, it's truly free, everything digital will be by extension. There's nothing wrong with taking something for free right infront of you, even if the original creator half way across the world doesn't want it. Stealing from a business is morally wrong because you're conflicting directly with them through force, there's no force used when watching a movie online for free, or pirating a game. Us middle and lower class consumers shouldn't have to stop pirating in an economy that already supports rich people, instead the rich people should have to accommodate to us, the majority. Just because we find a way around this unbalanced economy doesn't mean we're bad people morally, if we hurt someone intentionally we're bad people, this isn't wrong.
Reply
+2
User avatar #181 to #132 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I will post a piece of a comment made by Darkrin here.

"Age of Ultron had a 273 million dollar budget. If it were put on youtube, they would make up to 1.2 million dollars for 300 million views, and 1.5 million assuming there is a pre-roll ad for every single person. So that is a total of 2.7 million dollars for 300 million people having watched it. So they would need 3 billion views to break even. There is still the marketing budget which for most big budget movies is about 75% of the production budget. So that is another 200 million dollars. So over 3/5 of the Earth's population for need to watch it for them to break even."

There are no nice words to describe your comparison of homemade videos and ads to full budget movies, or that particular comparison to games.

They shouldn't have to come up with a medium that can't be pirated, particularly when that doesn't exist in a world with recording technology. The lower class just shouldn't ******* steal, because that's wrong. Intellectual property is still property.

To use an example I'm fond of, imagine you're a graphical designer. You're hired to sketch up some designs for a company logo, and your employer selects one. Later, another company is using your other designs. That's not fair, and is stealing. That's your work, they have no right to take it.

The use of force isn't what's wrong with stealing, it's the fact that you're stealing. You're getting a product that wasn't yours to have. If you see an apple and you think it's too expensive, you're not entitled to take it just because it's in front of you and you want it.

"But it's not the same because it's a physical object"

Get ****** . You're still accessing a product that you have no right to access.
Reply
+16
User avatar #25 - askafj (12/13/2015) [-]
robbing a bank doesn't hurt the economy because the bank robbers will spend that money.
Reply
-2
User avatar #29 to #25 - daiemio ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Idiot, spending stolen cash gets lead back to you, smart robbers launder the money by sending it to a swiss bank account, which uses the money you deposited to transfer it to digital currency tokens, which you can withdraw for clean money anywhere else in the world.

So yeah, the money kinda DOES make it back into the system, but could also be funneled into the rest of the world, making the US poorer, and the rest of the world, slightly less poor.
Reply
+3
User avatar #30 to #29 - askafj (12/13/2015) [-]
My point is that it's stupid to try and justify piracy.

The creator's is charging money for people to see it, so if you see it without paying, then you're stealing something.
Reply
-2
User avatar #31 to #30 - daiemio ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Its true, justifying piracy is WRONG, however, if the film WAS worth paying for, people would, for example, I'm going to watch the **** out of the new Starwars movie, IN THEATER.

However, I have no qualms over for example, downloading the Wreck-it-Ralph movie and watching it for the 4th or 5th time, because the Scene when he recites the Bad-guy's code when falling into the Mentos cover of the diet cola mountain is amazing.
Reply
+3
User avatar #100 to #31 - askafj (12/14/2015) [-]
So you're saying it's ok to pirate some movies but not all of them
Reply
-1
#103 to #100 - daiemio ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
**daiemio used "*roll picture*"**
**daiemio rolled image**Let's say you want to watch.. Hrmm.. for example, Little Nemo's Adventure in Dream Land, it was released as a BOX copy.. which means, you need to buy it, own a VCR, and have a Analog TV to even VIEW it.

Imagine if someone converted it to a AVI format and made so that people can redistribute and share it with others who want to relive the glory of that old movie.

Technically, its STILL pirating.. but the anti-theft laws are out of date, and need a revise, but no-one wants to go through the trouble of doing it, because it would take time, effort and overall resources away from making better more important laws.

Would you let old movies die simply because some lawyer/law-writer did not foresee the future, and corporate keep bleeding the average person with piracy-laws, that put money into the law-firms pocket rather then in the hands of investors who actually MAKE movies..

Now, I'm simply speaking in rethorics here, trying to defend OLD movies, newer movies are still technically within the gray-zones, its a risk/reward system, you release digital movies, people pay to see them, but dropping 30$/€/£ on a movie and then ending up disappointed is more likely to drive off customers then welcome them back, which is what leads to pirating movies in the first place.

I remember watching Valhalla Rising in the theaters when it came out, Me being a avid movie enthusiast with a group of my friends, I did a bit of research on it, and came up with Viking Mythology, suspense and a interesting plot, I did not read more into it because I did not want the entire movie spoiled for me, so I left it at that, and booked a time with my pals, we went into the movie expecting to see awesome Viking stuff and long-ship battles, what we ended up with left us confused, disappointed and ultimately.. angry.

Each time we went to see a movie we hoped to be good, it ended up being bad or just "meh" and it did not feel like my money was being put to good use, eventually I just stopped going to the theaters, NOW however, a known franchise is back, with the same director, and some of the same actors, I KNOW its going to be awesome, and my friends and I are looking forward too it.

The main TLR is.. You should get value from what you pay for, if you can pay for a movie, by all means, do so, if you wish to watch it first, by ALL means, do so, but don't be a dick and pirate a movie and start charging others to see it, that's where I draw the line on piracy, besides, companies don't LOOSE money if the people never intended to pay for it in the first place, which what a lot of people forget about, and simply focus on the "omg, he's stealing" part.
Reply
-2
User avatar #72 - payseht ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
It's normally accepted that piracy is understandable but not the moral high ground.
I disagree and will use myself as an example.
I pirate. Always have, will always attempt.
Why?
Because I made 200 euros a month, and a game costs 60 if not more.
**** you
I am willing to pay for entertainment, and have, since I do purchases 5 euros indie games and such.
Moved for work in Britain for a month now, and have bought more games in a month than I have had in the two or so years of Steam, out of which one was Shovel Knight which I pirated and finished, including the Plague Knight series, to name the most compelling example, just because of how much I want to support the developers which I couldn't reasonably do before.

If you want my money, do take it. We live in a digital era, so adapt your ******* prices to the local economy. Shipping is free, mate! I could buy a new smartphone for that money.
This isn't the "understandable" or "sinful" way of doing things, it's the only reasonable option available. Think Robin Hood where the poor are taxed so harshly by the rich, the only reasonable option is a man in tights to help feed them.
It's fighting ******** standards that have no place in today's digital world, and the harder we press, the faster the ***** upstairs may want to get off their asses and do something about it. Their industry and old ways of making money are being "attacked" by piracy and other more convenient methods (there was a movie, can't remember which, that was banned from movie theaters because it had a day 1 digital release where you could stream it instead of going to the cinema. Censorship and banning are the first signs of an industry crumbling and refusing to adapt, like the taxi industry boycotting uber).

tl;dr: adapt or die. It's not that it's free, but it's 1. more convenient piracy has gone down since Steam released and 2. reasonably priced (i.e. not priced at almost half my monthly paycheck)
Reply
-1
User avatar #98 to #72 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
The math is very simple.
The industry doesn't lose a customer. Nobody with my monthly salary (which is actually higher than the minimum) would be willing to pork out 60 bucks for entertainment.
Would you rather have one sale of 60, or six sales at 10?
Copying and redistributing 1 or 10 is the same, but now you have more buyers, a wider audience, and a bigger number of people playing your game.
Not localizing prices (among others like exclusive titles, regional releases, locked content- think Australia's Stick of Truth version-, late Blu Ray releases, etc. etc. etc. all outdated, all harmful to the consumer and by proxy the company) is feeding the pirate industry and the faster they wake up to this fact, the faster everyone will be happier.
Pirating is pushing that realization, or at least it would if they recognized the problem instead of the perceived result.
-People are using our product without paying!
-Price it higher to compensate and punish those who were willing to pay while also alienating those who were already alienated by the inflated prices! Oh, and only sell it in the rich countries that don't have a big piracy problem for some reason I can't quite figure out!
Reply
+1
User avatar #125 to #72 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
If you can't afford it, it's not yours to have. Simple as that.
Reply
-2
User avatar #129 to #125 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
If I can't afford it, but can still have it without taking anything from someone, where's the issue?
Wouldn't you download a car?
Reply
0
User avatar #175 to #129 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
More man hours were probably poured into that game than into anything you've ever done. Making games is a brutal and grueling business, the last few months of development plagued by late nights, unpaid overtime, the threat of losing your job and absolutely no recognition for your contribution. You're not paying for the ones and zeros, your paying for access to their intellectual property that they have every right to charge for.

In short, intellectual property is still property, ******* . It's still not yours to just take.
Reply
0
User avatar #184 to #175 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I think I made my point throughout this thread. You are free to ignore it and resort to insults but a sincere " **** you" to your angry burst because you won't try and understand what I'm saying because "hurr I know it's wrong so it's wrong and any argument is stupid and anyone who argues with me is stupid durr"
Good day, impenetrable wall. May nobody disagree with you on the internet in the future.
Reply
0
User avatar #190 to #184 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-]
You made some points, sure. They're not good ones, but you made them.

You think that if you weren't going to buy it, it's okay to take it. I think that's stupid, because it's a product that you have no right to take. Literally the same as taking something from the store, the fact that it's digital makes no difference.

You think that because you are unable to afford it, they must charge ridiculous prices for it. "They" being the publishers. Ignoring that games are one of the most expensive things to produce these days. Pokemone Red and Blue cost $50 000 000 USD to market, never mind the development costs.

You compare the situation to that of Robin Hood, when the only thing you're being denied is one sort of entertainment. That is entitlement, believing you deserve entertainment so much as to compare it to the deprivation of basic needs. No, this isn't the rich abusing the poor, this is the free market. That's what they charge for their games, and they think it's going to make them the most profit. Either buy it or don't, but don't act like stealing it makes you a hero.

You speak of how the industry doesn't lose a customer when you pirate. That's not the issue here. The issue is you being a thief and trying to take the moral high ground, hiding behind flimsy arguments claiming that no, they're the bad guys. It's not your place to decide how much a product costs, it's theirs. It IS your place to decide if it's worth that and buy it or not, but it is absolutely not your place to just take it anyway.
Reply
0
User avatar #192 to #190 - payseht ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-]
That stupid store analogy... If I steal from the store, the store is left without an item. If I pirate a game that was never going to be purchased by me, I copied it and took that. No net lost. No money lost. I was never going to give them any of my money. Do try and understand the difference between digital copies and physical objects... However, what they did get is a fan. A potential future buyer instead of a full-blown non buyer. I'd like for you to explain how I'm buying games now that I can afford them, even though piracy is just as readily available and familiar to me as it was in the past. Is it because people don't want to be ****** but others force them to? Is it because corporate greed drives the market, not the consumer?

Not ignoring it in any way. If anything, quite literally addressing it. Localising prices to the places you sell your product will yield greater profits. Ten 6 dollars sales>One 60 dollar sale. You're popularizing your product and get buyers that otherwise would pass (such as myself and every single person in my position I have talked to).

I think you're grasping too much on implications rather than what I was trying to point out. The point of that analogy is that the status quo doesn't have to be correct, that sometimes going against what the higher ups would want benefits more people and in this case the consumer which, in turn, the market long term. If the laws are wrong and the market is unfair, people need to have their voices heard, and piracy is one big one which they time and time again chose to ignore and just turn around and blame other people of their mistakes then punish the clients, pushing the desire for piracy even more. It's all quite stupid...
And I don't get where that entitlement you came up with comes from... I never said people should get everything for free... I'm giving a reason why a problem exists in an industry, and how you can fix it. I'm not doing it for my own benefit or to justify something you perceive as being wrong. It's not, and I'm sorry you can't broaden your horizon enough to grasp that.
Every one of my peers decided it's not worth it, but look, I can still have it without hurting anyone because I'M NOT TAKING ANYTHING which is something that you'll understand once that understanding of DIGITAL and PHYSICAL emerges, hopefully sooner rather than later because you've been pleasantly rational so far, if not a little too trapped in your own world and closed minded about moral nuances.
Reply
0
User avatar #198 to #192 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/16/2015) [-]
And similarly, if I go and get a haircut and don't pay the story hasn't lost an item. If I go into a movie theater or get on a train without a ticket, I have similarly received something I have no right to access.

The thing that's wrong about stealing the game isn't just that you're depriving the store and the makers of an item, it's that you're accessing an item that's not yours to have. There is no distinction here between physical and digital, it doesn't stop being stealing just because it's a step removed.

Good job. You're doing the right thing, while defending the wrong thing. It doesn't matter what your reasons for pirating games are, if you're not satisfying a basic physiological need and you take something that's not yours you're in the wrong.

If they're not in the position, or don't have the inclination, to localize the game then tough. Either buy it at full price from elsewhere or go without. Your thoughts on the price of the game do not entitle you to take it for yourself.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You can go against the higher ups all you want, but you're doing it in a way that makes you the villain, not them. This is no more a defense for piracy than racism is a defense for looting stores, not to imply these crimes are on the same scale.

I will reiterate - Getting on the train without a ticket is wrong. Going to the movies without paying is wrong. Getting a haircut and running out on the bill is wrong. The removal of an object isn't the only thing that makes stealing wrong, it's getting access to another persons work when you have no right to do so.

Please understand, it really does not matter that we're talking about the digital world. It really does not matter that it makes you a fan. It really does not matter that you think the industry is broken. What matters is that you are taking what isn't yours to have, and you're not doing it because you would otherwise die.
Reply
+2
User avatar #92 to #72 - AcidFlux (12/14/2015) [-]
I disagree.

The tl;dr should be "I want something, but since I can't afford to purchase it, I take it anyways. I then justify my actions with a flimsy rationale about 'outdated industries'."

Want. Not need. If it was a necessity of life, then I'd agree with taking it if you can't afford it. Need clean water, but the only source available is overcharging by a ridiculous amount? Steal it. Need food for your family but it's not available within your budget? Take it.

Of course, that doesn't justify stealing Perrier and lobster tails, but there's a difference between want & need.

You don't need that new game. But you do want it.

tl;dr
Stealing a true 'need' item = morally defensible.
Stealing a 'want' item = greed+lack of morals
Reply
-2
User avatar #95 to #92 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I agree with you entirely.
Problem is what does stealing have to do with piracy?
You're going under the assumption anyone would be willing to sacrifice a good chunk of their monthly paycheck to have a one-time payment for entertainment.
There is no potential buyer lost within my example.
Those who live in a first world and choose to pirate, those are greedy scumbags.
Those of us who would purchase it but have been cut away from it by a greedy corporation inflating the prices to fit old standards instead of adapting to a digital era... I don't think so, no.

Making a copy of the product and taking that isn't the morally positive thing. The positive thing is the result. Industries will see this and hopefully come to their senses.
I don't pirate because I want to, but because it's the only option I have without hugely impacting my financial life negatively. Steam has recognized this, and there's a reason piracy has gone down since their digital distribution and huge price cuts hit the market.
Reply
0
User avatar #134 to #95 - AcidFlux (12/14/2015) [-]
Acquiring access to a service that normally has an associated cost, without paying that cost, is theft. It's no different than sneaking into a movie theater, even if you're not sitting in a seat. It's no different from using your neighbor's wi-fi without their permission. Or getting cable access by paying the technician a 'bribe' instead of actually signing up for service.

I know you're not going to agree. I know you're going to continue to defend your position. And that's fine. But in my opinion, supported by the majority viewpoint and the actual laws of the society in which we both choose to live, it's illegal access.

If you trespass on your neighbor's property, even when they are not there, even if you don't damage anything, it's still trespassing. If you borrowed someone's car without permission, even if you return it in the same condition, no damage, and the gas tank filled back up, it's still a crime. And so on. There doesn't have to be demonstrable loss of usage or value for a crime to be committed.

What if, while you were at work, I entered your home without permission. I used your stove to cook food I brought with me, took a shower but used my own soap & towels, and watched your TV, and then left enough money on the counter to cover the utility & water costs... is that acceptable behavior?
Reply
0
User avatar #151 to #134 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
You mean what if you made an exact copy of my house and did all those things nowhere near my house..?
None of the examples you gave can be compared to piracy.
The only argument you could make in terms of stealing is if they're using a potential client because of it which 1. hard to asses and prove and 2. not applicable in many cases.
I would take money away if I were to copy that product and sell it to someone else. That money has been directly shifted from the company unto myself. That is black and white theft. Me downloading a digital copy of a game I had no intention on buying previously took money from nobody but did add me to a fanbase and potential future buyers (if the prices were in any way shape or form accommodated to the market instead of inflated to compensate for a problem they keep fueling).
If I were in a position where 60 bucks was a day's work, sure, your arguments about theft would be valid. But from my position that I've been trying to make you understand for the past few hours, no, there's no argument to be made. They are stealing their own money and product by releasing it from a market where it's a casual item into one where it's a luxury without taking the economy into consideration, even though the costs of shipping and local taxations have been completely removed thanks to digital distribution, they choose to keep the same prices.
I made a pie. A tasty pie. A wonderful pie that you can't wait to taste. Someone has bought it, and then replicated it. I'm sitting here selling it for 100 dollars a piece while the person that legally bought and then copied my recipe is handing them out. I look around and see other people selling their pies for 10 dollars and their lines are massive compared to mine. I decide to invest into making my pie even better which forces me to raise the price. Suddenly, a huge innovation cuts the amount of work I need to distribute my pies to everyone, and so I decide to keep the price the same. Looking around, some people decided to sell their pies at whatever cost the people buying it wants. It looks like there are some assholes, but their jar of money is still filling up faster than it would with a fixed price. I see the people giving out my pies for free have huge lines, and there are quite a few lines where people are buying my pie for a 10nth of what I'm asking. I realize that people that don't que up in my line are evil and so my very first next action is to interrogate everyone that dares to step into my line!
Reply
0
User avatar #178 to #151 - AcidFlux (12/14/2015) [-]
No, I mean my specific example. No one is being injured or harmed. No physical property is being damaged. Is that act still okay?

But let's use your version for a moment. I enter your house, and I make detailed records of every square inch of your house, down to the pictures on the walls. Everything. The furniture, the carpet, the way your personal items are laid out on your shelves, etc. And again, I've entered your house without your knowledge or permission, and copying all your personal details. Short of identity theft, everything is copied.

Are you okay with this action?

Let's go further. You say that because you aren't actually a potential purchaser, that you never would have spent the money on that anyways, this is a justification for your actions. Okay, let's assume that holds water.

Then that same rationale can apply to every single other person out there. As soon as there's any kind of 'validation' that being a 'non-potential purchaser' is a justification for piracy, then all of us can do it. Who can argue against an individual claiming their own state of mind? What stops me from claiming that I never had any intention of purchasing that, so I made a 'copy'?

You can't police thoughts. You can only police actions.

So now that it's a legitimate justification, and the number of actual purchasers shrinks down to virtually zero (only those that don't understand the concept/how-to of piracy or have very strict morals about it) ... the incentive to create new content begins to fade, as does the quality of new content.
_
tl;dr If it's okay for one person to pirate because the were 'never going to purchase it anyways', then it's okay for everyone to do it. And if everyone does it, then the incentive to create new content vanishes._


Your example regarding the $100 pie? That's not how a competitive marketplace works. If the other person wants to force you to lower your prices, then they should make their own pie, then sell it for less. What if it actually costs $90 to make that pie in the first place, and you're only making about a 10% profit? What if it only costs a $1 to 'replicate', so the 'pirate' is making a 900% profit?


Reply
0
User avatar #186 to #178 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
In order to make a copy, someone has to legally purchase/enter your home.
Just because I'm enjoying this analogy, let's keep using it.
What happens is you sell your house. You have a bunch of identical ones. Let's say you're an architect and that's your business. Designing houses and selling them. Someone buys one, copies the design, and starts distributing it free of cost. That would be intellectual property theft which is where piracy is pretty much immoral and illegal, which in a perfect world would be perfect to remain that way.
In an imperfect world that I keep describing and everybody seems to ignore, it doesn't work that way for the rest of us. We have two options. Either we never experience a product, or get it for free. Very hard to argue with those prices, honestly.
When I'm talking about a potential buyer lost, why can't you grasp the notion not everyone has the luxury to buy anything? Here in England, a game is a day's work. Back home, it's 50 euros more than my remaining spending money so about half a year's worth of work.
You're equivalenting apples and oranges. When I say there's no potential buyer lost, I do mean it sincerely and will assure you few people are so bad with money they'd spend six months without any form of entertainment (because it's all going in the "game" jar; meaning no movies, no going out, no snacks or beers or drinks) just to buy this one game.
There is nobody there to be lost in the first place. Don't switch it back to douchebags that can easily afford this by not having that extra can of coke for a few days. The world is bigger than the one you know and we're not all doing so well as you might be.
The justification only apply to those who cannot or definitevely would not. It then continues being a positive because these people are now fans of that product and if they choose to lower their prices at a fair rate or, gasp, localize it... then an actual potential buyer emerges where there was none before. I've spent most of my life pirating and most of my adult life stocking all the games I loved and supporting the franchise that are still active. Many of my friends share this aspect with me because we've been lucky enough to have grown successful enough to where we can viably support this hobby we all love but have been restricted to accessing in the past, and I know we're not alone because nobody I talk to wants to pirate, it's just their only way without crippling them financially which none would be willing to do.
Reply
0
User avatar #188 to #186 - AcidFlux (12/14/2015) [-]
You've made my point; luxury to buy what you want.
You have no right to a luxury item.

Answer this; why should I have to pay for the luxury item, but you do not?
Reply
0
User avatar #191 to #188 - payseht ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-]
I do, now
And I did before, too, but if there's an option that grants it and harms nobody yet benefits most, why not take it? If I hadn't invested in those years of piracy when I couldn't have done it legally, I wouldn't have had the investment I do now and little if any of my money would have been spent into it.
I fear you're going to jump right back to you so let me restate this for the last time... look at it from my perspective where it was never available in the absence of piracy, instead of yours where it would be a few easily made sacrifices. I was not taking anything as there was nothing to take. I was not a potential buyer and most of my peers hold this position. I was a person of interest without the means to try that became a fan and now a client. They lost none of my money but have gained a great deal later, which could have happened in the past had they not "countered" piracy by alienating people like me even further by raising the prices even higher which is the root of why piracy even is a thing.
If you can buy something but get it for free, why not do it? Because you're being counterproductive to the product you just refused to invest money into. You're taking instead of giving.
If you can't buy something but can get it for free without harming anyone, why not do it? Beats me, honestly... seems like a bunch of moral objectivists trapped in their own world arguing about black and whites while a spectrum of grey is minding its own business.
Reply
0
User avatar #194 to #191 - AcidFlux (12/15/2015) [-]
You dodged the question; why should I have to pay for the luxury item, but you should not have to do so?

Or, perhaps this is more tailored to you: Should anyone ever pay for anything that they can acquire for free?
Reply
0
#196 to #194 - payseht ONLINE (12/16/2015) [-]
The timing was nice so...
Just pirated a series of comics that aren't sold in my country. Kind of happy I get to experience them and thought I'd share.
They could just simply start selling them here but it would be too expensive. Or I could import them and pay shipping fees and import taxes but it would be too expensive. I think I'll choose to download a copy someone made of the comic they bought steal it instead and single handedly destroy the comic book industry by not doing the thing I wasn't able or intending to do in the first place. We all have to carry our crosses...
Sorry to interrupt, though. You were saying something about moral absolutes and how stealing is stealing is stealing. Something along the lines of a luxury product should always be available only to those who can afford it and those who can't but could have access to it be damned.
Reply
0
User avatar #197 to #196 - AcidFlux (12/16/2015) [-]
Nope, I clearly stated earlier: _ (If it was a necessity of life, then I'd agree with taking it if you can't afford it. Need clean water, but the only source available is overcharging by a ridiculous amount? Steal it. Need food for your family but it's not available within your budget? Take it. )_

I never dealt in absolutes in this topic. I asked you to explain why I should have to pay for something that you acquire for free? And you've yet to do so.

This shows me that you know there's a flaw in your argument. And you're intelligent enough to know how I'll exploit that.

In a roundabout way, you've given insight, if not a direct answer.

You don't think that luxury items should only be available to those that can afford them. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Tell me; what percentage of consumers should pay for the product so that the incentive to produce that product remains? I don't think that 100% of potential consumers would choose to pirate. BUt how many is the minimum required?


It boils down to this. You want something, but you don't want to pay for it. It's not something that you need to survive. But you expect other people to finance the production of that 'something'.

It's a form of welfare. You benefit from the work of others, but without their consent.
Reply
0
User avatar #200 to #197 - payseht ONLINE (12/16/2015) [-]
I'm just going to copy-paste my answer from two days ago since you keep accusing me of dodging something...

"If you can buy something but get it for free, why not do it? Because you're being counterproductive to the product you just refused to invest money into. You're taking instead of giving.
If you can't buy something but can get it for free without harming anyone, why not do it? Beats me, honestly... seems like a bunch of moral objectivists trapped in their own world arguing about black and whites while a spectrum of grey is minding its own business."

It comes down to net worth. Piracy is bad when a consumer that can buy a product choses not to because they can get it for free. That is a net loss. The company lost money.
If there is no consumer there, if there is no interest or possibility, but the access exists, you didn't lose their money. They wouldn't have given it to you in the first place. Piracy in these cases has a most of 0 net lost. You lost a client that you never had.
At most, such as my case, you gain a fan and a potential future consumer should the times be right to them. This is a potential net positive. I wouldn't have ever spent so much money in the present and recent past if I hadn't build up that passion by obtaining things out of my reach without any net loss.

There will be those who get to a high enough status to afford games but started off with piracy, but those people fall in the same douchebag category as those who have always had this privilege. Leeches.
Reply
0
User avatar #201 to #200 - AcidFlux (12/17/2015) [-]
Again, this is a fancy way of saying 'Other people should pay for this product so it continues to be produced, so that I can get it for free.'

In other words, you want me to fund the next product, so it's available for you to take for free.

That's welfare. I support the idea of welfare in cases of need. Not want.

It's a beautiful tap dance, though, your meandering rationale. It's more eloquent than any other attempt I've ever seen. But it still comes down to: _ "I want that, but cannot afford it, but I'll take it anyways."_

Everything else is smoke & mirrors.
Reply
0
User avatar #203 to #201 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
also, feel free to stop using "take". Sharing a copy someone made of a legally bought product isn't taking. I kept insisting on the potential buyer thing because it's only taking when someone who can afford to buy a product chooses to pirate anyway. When there is no potential buyer, such as people who could in no way afford it, their money weren't ever on the table to be snatched by piracy. Is loaning your game to a friend until he or she completes it piracy? That's pretty much what it boils down to since you like those, but at a much more bigger range.
Reply
0
User avatar #204 to #203 - AcidFlux (12/17/2015) [-]
Making a copy of something without permission, when applied to a physical item, it counterfeiting. Why does this suddenly become okay to do when it's a non-tangible item?
Reply
0
User avatar #206 to #204 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
Because I have given a lot of people access to my Steam account and I really need to know if I'm doing something illegal by distributing content they did not buy by letting them have digital access to it...
Reply
0
User avatar #207 to #206 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
again; just trying to prove nuances exist and rigid rules of the past need not apply
A genuine discussion needs to happen but people like you are trying to prevent it by holding a firm outdated position
Reply
0
User avatar #208 to #207 - AcidFlux (12/17/2015) [-]
No, I'm asking for legitimate explanations. I've yet to attack you personally or fail to engage in a rational genuine discussion. ANd whiel we discuss back and forth, in addition to trying to understand your point, I'm trying to illuminate mine.

For example: would you condone someone allowing his neighbor to run a connection so that the neighbor could access his cable in another house?
Reply
0
User avatar #214 to #208 - payseht ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-]
Okay, man. We both have very strong beliefs in opposite camps.
Though I do see your case and have tried to make it clear that I do and both respect and currently follow it, I've tried to present the gradient which I'm sorry I wasn't eloquent enough to properly represent.
At the end of the day, thanks for such a long debate over a topic a lot of people are passionate about, but not passionate enough to have a discussion regarding it.

To me, piracy will always stay the gateway that introduced me to a medium I grew to love and support in my adult life that I would have probably never gotten into in its absence or would have with minor tweaks to an outdated system. I'm sorry I couldn't convey that properly and probably haven't in this "closing statement".
0
User avatar #215 to #214 - AcidFlux (12/21/2015) [-]
I understand your point. And I respect your opinion. And I appreciate being able to have an intelligent discussion.
Reply
0
User avatar #212 to #208 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
Real quick, I want to emphasise on IF the prices were adjusted, one of the key factors (not taking into account, for example, availability), I would be completely onboard with your position.
A lot of factors aren't taken into account. I have to pirate comics because they are not available in my area. Even if priced accordingly and fairly, the cost of importing them would nullify that adjustment.
There are just a lot of factors people that hold a strong position against piracy don't seem to take into account.
Again, not so much defending as much as discussing and suggesting ways of it to not be necessary in the first place and making it [piracy] a widely agreed negative.
0
User avatar #213 to #212 - AcidFlux (12/18/2015) [-]
From my perspective, it still comes down to 'I want that, but A) cannot afford it or B) it is not allowed in my country/region for some reason (legal, usually).' Those are not, in my opinion, valid reasons to pirate/steal/etc.

Now, am I saying those that do anyways should be locked up for ten years or have their hands cut off? No. But at the least, there should be an acknowledgement of 'this is not allowed but I'm doing it anyways, even though it is wrong', not 'it should be allowed, so that justifies my actions and makes them not wrong.

Here's a point from my perspective; I think cannabis should be a legal substance for adults to consume. It's no more damaging than tobacco or alcohol, and the reasons for restrictions are archaic and draconian, as well as outright false propaganda.

But I don't smoke pot in the United States . If it was legalized, I probably would use it recreationally. But since it's not a NEED, I believe it is ridiculously foolish to break a law for a recreational activity.
Reply
0
User avatar #211 to #208 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
we've reached the maximum reply amount so I'm replying here
Everyone should pay for a product
It is when those unable to that we can become more understanding with. If they have access to something outside their price range, I choose to view it as a positive not negative*. The more good things are shared, the better.
Someone that could pay for it but doesn't removes money from the developers and publishers of said product. Instead of giving the money they can afford to give and help support their hobby/passion, they choose not to. It directly affects a product and the people behind it because it removes the money that was already on the table.

*unless someone else is selling it, in which case that person is making a financial gain out of counterfeiting someone else's work. It doesn't remove money from the original company, but it is putting money into someone's undeserving pockets

Think Patreon. Do you feel guilty for not donating to the people that give you entertainment while others do (in whom's absence would mean less content if at all) or maybe kickstarter if you're more familiar with that platform. Is it fair some people can choose to pay while others are simply given the option, albeit it not being feasible to them, personally.
Reply
0
User avatar #209 to #208 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
I know and understand that, which is why we're still talking instead of one ignoring the other.
I see no problem with your example as long as both are consenting. Where your example falls slightly short is the nuance of "Is the other neighbor financially able to pay for it? Is it genuine sharing, or is it simply taking from the cable company?"
Piracy is a complicated topic, and I am sorry if maybe I accused you of things you do not hold, but I could only run with what you have said, and from those I could only take that you view some things in an outdated way. That was taken from your examples where you're trying to equate physical objects with digital ones, or genuine theft with online "theft" (where there's a distinct line since one is taking, and the other is receiving)
I see your point, and believe me I side with you 100% when it comes to a lot of things regarding piracy (which I tried and fail to come across) but what's happening, from what I can tell, is me agreeing with you and me trying my hardest to explain it from an outside position. I am mostly not a pirate anymore comics are still an issue but I do buy the hardcopy of the series I thoroughly enjoyed so it's kind of 50/50? , and when I was I didn't like it, so I'm trying to present the positives from my perspective as well as of many others who were and still are within it.
Piracy isn't bad. It's the pirates and how they use it that can be bad. I'm just sharing, anecdotally, how it can be a force for good. Also, why it exists in the first place and how you can fix that.
0
User avatar #210 to #209 - AcidFlux (12/17/2015) [-]
So, those financially able to pay for the product should do so, while those not financially able to pay for it can pirate it? This scenario is acceptable to you, it seems. Is that correct?

But someone that could pay for it who chooses to pirate it instead is wrong? Is this your position?
Reply
0
User avatar #205 to #204 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
in some cases it's okay, and in some it isn't. It's not a black and white subject as you make it out to be.
If something is counterfeited but the one doing the illegitimate copy isn't charging any money, who's losing from it? The person that spent no money, or the person that bought it to counterfeit it and charge nothing? There are instances that I've been a victim of where they did charge for pirated content. I payed for it (as it was not unreasonably priced unlike the original that, at the time, I wasn't aware of) and it was actually sub-par since the cutscenes were removed to save space on their CDs. That would and should be illegal.
Should photocopying machines or printers be banned?
Things are different with the digital world because you're not reproducing something analog anymore. You're distributing a perfect copy of a product. This introduces a lot of variables, and a big discussion needs to happen because of it (among many other reasons) but people like you and the people in charge who you side with don't want to have this discussion but instead choose to use the old ways of thinking.
Also, where do I sign a permission contract to do with the product I bought as I wish?
Reply
0
User avatar #202 to #201 - payseht ONLINE (12/17/2015) [-]
More like "I want that, I can't afford it, but I can have it anyway". I'm funding it now, too, and happily having been on the other end of where you are now. I'm sorry if you think of it as welfare because that's not what it is. It's us contributing to something that we like and not get angry other people are getting it for free just because they don't have the means to otherwise. I think this is a case of jealousy on your part or something, honestly. I don't know why you're so angry to contribute to the industry. Is it because others aren't obligated to and can have things that you need to pay for? Is there an injustice done to you, personally, because for the life of me I can't quite understand your position besides moral objectivism, where something is wrong no matter the context. Some people such as past me can't afford a product but they still get to enjoy it. They get to share in my passion where there were no means otherwise to. Sorry for the wall of text, btw... whenever I press Enter, the page tries to reload. I'm guessing Addy is working on the site atm.
Reply
0
User avatar #195 to #194 - payseht ONLINE (12/16/2015) [-]
Dodged the question..?!
Have you read the last two paragraphs, man?

Let me try and simplify this, I guess... everyone should have to adhere to the same rules, but life doesn't work like that. We have trials to assess the same crime but give different punishments, if any, because of circumstances. Most people besides you seem to grasp this notion of a gradiance. People that receive something they otherwise would have never received without harming anyone or anything in the process but having been introduced as a new potential client where there was no chance of that happening previously... I can only see a positive here, but who knows, maybe I need to simplify it even more until everything is black and white and people that kill someone in self defence should be trialed and executed as murderers because everything and everyone's the same and we need to boil everything down to a simple "yes or no" question.
Did you kill that man?
He was trying to rape my wife!
Not what I asked!
I just pushed him aside; he broke his head on th--
Not. What. I. Asked!
Yes... I killed him...
Off with his head. You disgust me, murderer!

Since you like things being boiled down and simplified, there; that was pretty much our conversation. Good day, sir.
Reply
0
User avatar #176 to #151 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Imagine for a moment, that you were a graphical designer. You're hired to whip up a few designs for some company, and you send them off. They choose one. Later, your design shows up on another company.

"You weren't using it", says the company.

"Yeah, but I had to work to do it", says you

"Well, we didn't actually take anything from you, so it must be fine", says the company.

"That's completely ******* retarded, pay him or don't use his **** ", says anyone with more than **** for brains.
Reply
0
User avatar #185 to #176 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Thank you for missing my point and moving the goal post.
Truly you are an argumental mastermind.

I'm choosing to ignore you from now but I just wanna mention I did my best to emphasise how the publishers are the villains here, not the developers. It is by their actions people don't get to experience their creations on which they've spent so much time and passion on. It is not them who choose to lock content behind a neigh impenetrable paywall, but the publishers, making it a disservice both to the potential consumers who are surprisingly unwilling to hand over a third of what they make in a month, and the developers that created a piece of art that would otherwise not get to be experienced by those people if not for piracy.
In my cases, it doesn't remove a buyer from the pool, it's introducing a fan. I ******* bought enough games that I pirated even after I had finished them just because of how much I enjoyed them AND because the price eventually dropped enough thanks to services like Steam.
Get off your high horse, actually read what I'm spelling out, and try to empathise with someone else's position in life outside yours, who hasn't such a cushy life, and can't stand on a soap box preaching to the masses the neighbouring kingdom made of gold has all the right to demand the same taxes and tributes. It's incredible how thick you are to that concept and I think it's because you're too emotionally invested or probably from the United States where nobody seems to grasp there's an entire world outside their borders.
Reply
0
User avatar #189 to #185 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-]
I am empathising with someone else's position. I just happen to be taking the position of the developers and publishers who make the product, rather than the guy trying to defend it by suggesting that games with a $60 000 000 dollar budget shouldn't dare charge $60 for their game and that it's okay to take what's not theirs because they think they're too poor to afford it, like that makes any sense.
Reply
0
User avatar #193 to #189 - payseht ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-]
Hope the other response addresses what you said here fair enough because we're just going in circles when you keep using the word "take"
Also, they can feel free to come to my second world country and make it for much less. Do you think they'd still sell it for 60, because I'd be damned if they were suddenly fair.
Reply
+2
#79 to #72 - imho (12/14/2015) [-]
it's still not moral to negatively impact someone's livelihood just because you enjoy something and don't want to cut back in other areas, but it is understandable
Reply
-1
User avatar #86 to #79 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Negatively impact would imply taking away. I'm not taking away anything. Pricing it in that way without having a reason to makes it that you will either never see my money, or I pirate it and maybe support your team later if they choose to be fair about the whole thing.
I'm not taking away anything. I'm making a copy of it and enjoying a product they refused to take money for by simply making it financially impossible.
And how much of your spendings would you be willing to cut back if you only had around 10 bucks pocket money a month? Don't make it sound like I'm unwilling to make certain sacrifices in some areas because I am, just not to the extent where I could choose between a game and a new phone.

At the very least it's morally neutral, but I believe it's forcing them to rethink and adapt in today's digital market, making it in my eyes a morally positive movement.
Reply
+1
#89 to #86 - imho (12/14/2015) [-]
You do directly take a sale away from the company so there's that.
The prices are also probably higher than they would be to compensate for piracy, just saying.

As for me personally, a lot of people have to budget their money and make sacrifices. It is definitely understandable that someone would rather pirate and get what they want without caring about multi-million dollar corporations losing out on an extremely insignificant amount of money relative to their profits. But that's still not morally right and I think most people would say it's not

Reply
-1
User avatar #93 to #89 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I know most people would say it's not, which is why we're having this conversation to argue that they might be wrong.
How do I take away sales from a company? In a world where I make 1/10th of what I do here where I can actually afford it, how much would I really want to buy a product if it would have that much of an impact?
I wouldn't. There is no potential buyer lost. There's an interested person in the product locked behind a huge pay gap that they are not willing (nor should they be expected) to jump. Now, thanks to piracy, instead of that you have an interested person that has used your product without taking that leap of faith and would be more willing to try your products in the future... if you price them accordingly. You went from an interested person to a potential buyer as so long as you be fair about it.

And pricing them higher to compensate for piracy is the stupidest move... they're trying to put out the fire with gasoline. Piracy exists because of those high prices and making them even higher alienates long time consumers. They're punishing those who trusted them up to now (and potentially losing clients), and giving reasons to those who pirated in the past to keep doing it. Just saying...
Reply
-1
User avatar #80 to #79 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
morals are subjective for a reason
Reply
+1
#81 to #80 - imho (12/14/2015) [-]
yep, but his first sentence is that he disagrees with it being the norm that it's immoral. It's fine if for him subjectively it's moral, but he has no reason to argue against it being the norm
Reply
-1
User avatar #83 to #81 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
no, he didn't really say that lol
Reply
+1
#84 to #83 - imho (12/14/2015) [-]
"It's normally accepted that piracy is understandable but not the moral high ground.
I disagree"
it's heavily implied
Reply
-1
User avatar #85 to #84 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
oh, I only looked at the first sentence as that's what you said
lmao
oops
Reply
0
#88 to #85 - imho (12/14/2015) [-]
yeah idk how i got the sentence wrong like that so my bad
Reply
0
User avatar #90 to #80 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Some morals can be objective. Intentionally inflicting harm on someone for your enjoyment and without their consent is generally a bad thing...
Reply
-1
User avatar #116 to #90 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
"generally"
all morals are subjective
Reply
0
User avatar #119 to #116 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
let's compromise and just say "most"
I used "generally" more jokingly, but I don't think there's a circumstance where torturing someone could be considered good... even if you try and justify it and bring it to morally neutral, torture isn't seen in a good light, much like slavery or genocide...
Reply
-1
User avatar #121 to #119 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
I'm not going to compromise, because that's not how morals work.
It doesn't matter if torture is seen in a good light to the majority, if it is seen as a good light to a person and they think it is okay, it is morally right to them.
Reply
0
User avatar #122 to #121 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I think we disagree on the definition.
Since you think morality is subjective, I'll assume you don't believe in a deity, so the objective part is harder to see.
A society or a person isn't responsible for something being moral or not. The moral reality is emergent.
Let me try this. Western society didn't view slavery as immoral way back in the day. Does that make slavery moral or has slavery always been immoral it's just that the society and individuals inside that society didn't recognize it as such?
Reply
0
User avatar #177 to #122 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
"The moral reality is emergent"

...based on the society. Mirukawa is correct, what seems moral to you may not seem moral to someone else, and vice versa. Morality is subjective, most easily seen by acknowledging that it doesn't exist without a subject.
Reply
0
User avatar #187 to #177 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I think we may be agreeing but coming at it from different perspectives that seem to conflict...
Think of a situation that has many options. You know the outcome of every possible action you can take in that situation. Is there an outcome that benefits more and harms less than all the other options? Theoretically, this option should exist in that pool of choices.
What we have today is a limited understanding of what all the possible choices are and what will be their results. Doesn't mean that ultimately positive choice doesn't exist, it's just that it hasn't yet emerged or has become obvious as of yet.
Today it's pretty universally accepted that owning another human being is morally bankrupt, but that wasn't always the case.
Just because people have a limited view of all the possible things they could choose doesn't make them bad people. Morality is subjective in the sense we're limited to only understanding the branches and possible outcomes of our options in the context of our time and surrounding society. It is objective in the sense there is a possibility that would benefit the most and harm the least (yes, taking into account different preferences like a masochist receiving more pleasure from having pain inflicted upon them than not).
Reply
0
User avatar #199 to #187 - ninjaroo ONLINE (12/16/2015) [-]
Not only is "positive" itself subjective, but the idea that positive is morally right is subjective.
Reply
-1
User avatar #127 to #122 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
Slavery can't be moral or immoral itself. It depends on the person.
Slavery can be immoral to you, but moral to another.
Reply
0
User avatar #130 to #127 - payseht ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
So you're saying the concept of owning another human being can be moral? There are no moral absolutes? Rape isn't necessarily immoral? The Holocaust isn't necessarily evil because there were nazis that thought they were doing the right thing?
I understand wanting morality to have some ambiguity, and how it is sometimes very dependent on the individual deciding it, but just because it's hard to define terms like "good" and "bad" without placing it in a cultural context doesn't mean they can't exist in the spaces outside our understanding.

Now, I know how that sounded... I'm an atheist and nihilist and don't believe in any supernatural entities or whatever. I just think that there is a definitive way to distinguish which actions are inherently evil and which are good, no matter the cultural or chronological context (as long as it's after we've deciphered these things since as of today we're still struggling but have made leaping successes from the abolishment of slavery and gay rights to women's emancipation movement and the collapse of monarchies in the West)
Reply
0
User avatar #131 to #130 - mirukawa (12/14/2015) [-]
i'm too exhausted to even continue
sorry, i don't agree
Reply
+2
#138 - ainise (12/14/2015) [-]
**ainise used "*roll picture*"**
**ainise rolled image**Piracy is morally and legally wrong.

That being said, there are times when Piracy is your only option. EG: A game no longer being produced/released(hi2u old SNES games), Unplayable games(either due to restrictions, like JP games or due to other reasons, like old NES and GAmeboy games who cannot hold save files anymore).

That being said, I know I've certainly downloaded something I didn't feel worth paying for. Like the Walking dead, which I soon deleted(because man..did that show suck after season 1).

I wasn't in the right, here. I'm not stimulating the economy. I'm not promoting anything. I'm not entitled to what I downloaded and I'm appreciative that I got to experience these things. What I did was illegal and morally bankrupt.

You can pirate **** all you want, but don't claim you're in the right or claim you're stimulating the economy. You're doing neither. You're just stealing intellectual property. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reply
0
User avatar #141 to #138 - freemanareso (12/14/2015) [-]
Finally, some one with intelligence.
Reply
0
User avatar #145 to #138 - EnergizierAnon (12/14/2015) [-]
i agree, except on your analyse of The Walking Dead.
Reply
+1
User avatar #143 - shepshifter (12/14/2015) [-]
How is it really taking away the industries money? If I can't get it for free then I won't watch it, there is no money given to them either way.
Reply
+1
User avatar #104 - acebuck (12/14/2015) [-]
No money into the film industry = no more movies
Reply
-1
User avatar #105 to #104 - navestotwo (12/14/2015) [-]
do you honestly how many people pirate movies?
compare the "estimated loss" versus their net profit when they release a movie
yeah, no, it's not going anywhere
Reply
-1
#106 to #104 - someoneforamoment (12/14/2015) [-]
Have you seen the budgets for the latest movies?
Reply
0
User avatar #112 to #106 - acebuck (12/14/2015) [-]
I know but things are only getting more expensive.

Idk I just like paying for things and having a physical copy.
Kinda pride myself in my movie collection.
Reply
+1
User avatar #64 - amsel (12/13/2015) [-]
Hollywood and the music industry are so out of touch. There are people on youtube producing music and films with quality that is exponentially better than the highest budget productions of the 90s, and they're doing it for costs that are somewhere right next to nothing. The fact that Hollywood still thinks its appropriate to spend $400 million on a crappy movie with no plot and full of Michael Bay style explosions, then turn around and charge consumers $13 per ticket (or easily up to $20 for IMAX) is quite aggravating.
Reply
+1
User avatar #57 - bobindun (12/13/2015) [-]
Adult swim really is the best Channel out there
Reply
-1
#65 to #57 - amsel (12/13/2015) [-]
I think Coco is really the best Chanel out there.
Reply
+1
#69 to #65 - tonyredgrave (12/13/2015) [-]
GIF
**tonyredgrave used "*roll picture*"**
**tonyredgrave rolled image** Damn Nazi sympathizer
Reply
0
User avatar #71 to #69 - amsel (12/13/2015) [-]
That's not really proven. She dated some German dude who was involved in Nazi matters. Winston Churchill himself told people to stop going after her at one point. Most of what connects her to Nazis is a bunch of theories put together by one dude in one book that has never been tested or refuted enough to say it's true.
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #57 - itskennyandjosh ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Some of the shows on there are really really ******* stupid though
Reply
+1
User avatar #43 - aejann (12/13/2015) [-]
I feel like this isn't a justification for piracy, but rather an explanation as to why this particular criticism of film piracy is false. Pirating a film doesn't hurt the economy outside the film industry, but that doesn't make it morally right.
Reply
-1
#87 to #43 - heyyoutoo (12/14/2015) [-]
It only hurts it if you would have bought the movie otherwise.
Reply
+1
User avatar #37 - servernotfound (12/13/2015) [-]
I only pirate stuff if its been released in another country and won't be released in mine for months/ever. Never understood that mindset: "I just spent x million on making this product, but I won't bother selling/broadcasting it in another region, even if they speak the same language"
Reply
0
User avatar #91 - mylazy (12/14/2015) [-]
And it doesn't even cost the film industry that much. Because a significant portion of the people who pirate things wouldn't have bought them anyway or only bought them because they pirated them first.
Reply
0
User avatar #179 to #91 - tanitakavirius (12/14/2015) [-]
Exactly. Same with counterfeit goods. Of all those that bought fake $25 Louis Vuitton or Dior, who would have bought the $600-$1500 original?
Reply
0
User avatar #5 - Tusura (12/13/2015) [-]
I will watch something online after it has already showed up in stores on dvd/blu-ray.

If I like the movie, I buy it later when I see it at the store.
If I don't like the movie, I don't buy it.

Same with Music. If I like a song I heard, I'll buy the album or single.

However, with what limited money I have. I can't afford to buy things if I just want to try it out to see if I like it.
Plus, actors and musicians make WAY more money than they would ever need.
So sad that a multi-millionaire loses $5 of revenue from me not buying something, and instead trying it before I buy it.

If you make something of quality, I'll support you by buying it. If it's crap, I don't want it anyway.
Reply
0
#35 to #5 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
In the case of musicians I can guarantee unless they've already made it big, they're living of cds and what you buy at concerts. Gigs cost money, getting to them costs money, not to mention repairs of equipment and your car (heavy milage will kill any vehicle) it all cost them money. And though actors make a lot of money the rest goes to other people who work on the film to, so people like the writer who get a percentage instead of a regular paycheck are getting screwed more than the actor.
Reply
0
User avatar #39 to #35 - Tusura (12/13/2015) [-]
Well, if it's a local band, or someone up and coming, and I like their music. I will buy a CD.
I was only referring to already high paid people.
For instance. I love Linkin Park, Metallica, Godsmack, Eminem, Ludacris etc etc.
I've bought CD's for all those bands/artists because I like their music.

I've bought singles from a few other people that I can't think of at the moment, but that's because I liked that one song, and not the rest on the album.

I'm not going to spend $15 on an album, when I can spend $2 and get the one song I like.
Same with movies. If I like the actor, or I've seen it in theaters and I like the movie, I'll buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray.
If I don't care about the actor, or I thought the movie sucked in theaters, I won't buy it.

If I don't have money to see it in theaters, I'll wait till it's online and watch it. If I like it, I'll go buy it when I have the money to do so. If I didn't like it, I don't watch it ever again.

I'm a small business type of person. I support my local community, and things that I enjoy. I'm not going to go out of my way to give money to things I don't care about.
Reply
0
User avatar #42 to #5 - trollmobile (12/13/2015) [-]
i do that for games.

i played skyrim on xbox untill i sold my xbox and got a PC
so i downloaded skyrim off thepiratebay, to try out modding it.
i already had about 400 hours in it, so if modding it wasn't worth the cost of the game, i didn't want to buy it.
but it was, so i bought it on PC

i now have close to 450 hours in it on steam aswell, landing me close to 900 hours total across xbox, pirated version, and purchased PC version.
12>
[ 215 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)