• The morality of pirating
    219 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29314080]Well, anything that is [i]a priori[/i] is ultimately objective because it's not subject to any contingent factors. The reason I believe this to be logically invalid is because in order for the claim that morality is achieved [i]a priori[/i] to make sense, you have to presuppose there is such an object (in a non-physical realm - Kant called it the realm of noumenals) that contains morality. The claim that there is a non-physical realm is entirely unfalsifiable, and hence is meaningless. Regretfully, you have to make one small presupposition for [i]any[/i] theory of morality to make sense. That's why - philosophically speaking - I'm a moral sceptic (possibly even a moral nihilist though I doubt there's much difference). In practice, I'm utilitarian, because I think ultimately people being happy is the one pursuit that isn't muddied with absurd counterexamples (though a hell of a lot of people disagree with me: retributivist thinkers for one example). Deontological ethics, as I see it, misunderstands how human beings act. We act in respect to our belief sets and our desires (not necessarily self-interested desires: that is important). We don't act for the sake of acting (again, lots of people will disagree with me but I think the burden of proof lies on them). Hence, a moral system that discounts one's desires [i]a priori[/i] is hugely counter-intuitive to what I believe all human action consists in. Haha, we have derailed this so much, but I like it. Just occurred to me that I sound really scathing in my previous posts, haha. I take back the attitude towards you, I just sound rude :wink: However I don't take it back to Kantian ethics! After grinding my way through the Metaphysics of Morals I feel I have just cause for hating his thought! :dance:[/QUOTE] Bah don't worry. I didn't feel scathed upon :P Yeah the [I]a priori[/I] morality i do agree on, because i massively disagree with Kant in terms of an inante, intanginble moral code we glean from [I]somewhere[/I] (the realm as you said). Total bullshit really. I'd kind of class myself as a bit utilitarian aswell, i've been trying to find an moral code that combines a bit of everything, categorial imperatives, with utilitarianism and a bit of virtue; hah, maybe I should just go nihilist and not bother. I just finished Applied ethics 2nd year at Uni, so i know how you feel, but i felt that way after logic. So many weeks going a+B = x [QUOTE=Robbobin;29314147]I think all the useful qualities of the categorical imperative can be summarized in the golden rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. But I actually think the silver rule is more important, but even then it's not conclusive because I can think if countless examples where I'd prefer it if people acted contrary to the ways they want to be treated: One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. The only moral maxim that I really approve of is the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness. And even then I have the nagging feeling that I'm discounting the theory of higher and lower pleasures...[/QUOTE] And i agree here too :D i sound like Cameron and Brown agreeing with Nick Clegg in the debate. The whole problem for me in Utilitarianism is higher and lower pleasures, or the only thing i kind of got antsy with. It's better to be a dissatisfied Aristotle than a happy pig, the saying, somewhat muddled-ly, goes. Very hard to distinguish what one unit of utlity is (a util) because utility is subjective. ITS TOOO HARDDDDD! But aswell as that, it's the whole idea of, Jim in the Jungle, if you got taught this example? 20 people are kidnapped, if you kill one of them, the kidnappers will let 19 go, do you kill him? That old issue basically.
A couple of years ago I read Tao Te Ching, prior to starting my degree... since reading it I've basically destroyed any conception of morality I had. There's just no evidence of any object we can call morality, so I think the next best thing we have is something we [i]know[/i] exists like happiness (who doesn't like happiness?). I don't like calling my beliefs a system of morality, in metaethical discussion because I think it's impossible to avoid naturalistic fallacy/the is-ought gap. I could easily charge a utilitarian of falsely equivocating good to happiness. I think as far as "morality" goes (I still hate calling it morality), tautologies are the way forward. If we lived in a world where everyone was really happy, everyone would be really happy. Desire seems to be linked to the pursuit of happiness, so how could anyone not want the above tautology? :dance:
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29314285]A couple of years ago I read Tao Te Ching, prior to starting my degree... since reading it I've basically destroyed any conception of morality I had. There's just no evidence of any object we can call morality, so I think the next best thing we have is something we [i]know[/i] exists like happiness (who doesn't like happiness?). I don't like calling my beliefs a system of morality, in metaethical discussion because I think it's impossible to avoid naturalistic fallacy/the is-ought gap. I could easily charge a utilitarian of falsely equivocating good to happiness. I think as far as "morality" goes (I still hate calling it morality), tautologies are the way forward. If we lived in a world where everyone was really happy, everyone would be really happy. Desire seems to be linked to the pursuit of happiness, so how could anyone not want the above tautology? :dance:[/QUOTE] Fuck it. Let's just make our own moral code, with blackjack and hookers. Forget the moral code. And the blackjack.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;29314331]Fuck it. Let's just make our own moral code, with blackjack and hookers. Forget the moral code. And the blackjack.[/QUOTE] Bender has so fucking got the right idea. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Benf199105;29314166]And i agree here too :D i sound like Cameron and Brown agreeing with Nick Clegg in the debate. The whole problem for me in Utilitarianism is higher and lower pleasures, or the only thing i kind of got antsy with. It's better to be a dissatisfied Aristotle than a happy pig, the saying, somewhat muddled-ly, goes. Very hard to distinguish what one unit of utlity is (a util) because utility is subjective. ITS TOOO HARDDDDD! But aswell as that, it's the whole idea of, Jim in the Jungle, if you got taught this example? 20 people are kidnapped, if you kill one of them, the kidnappers will let 19 go, do you kill him? That old issue basically.[/QUOTE] I've never really had that much sympathy with these counterexamples. There's definitely a problem in how the hedonic calculus would work in practice, but I think in any situation where you have to commit one normally abhorrent act to bring about happiness that exceeds the badness of the act (putting this so crudely, haha), I have no problem accepting that the abhorrent act should be committed (assuming those are the only two options). I don't like the idea of someone purposefully omitting an act even though it would create so much happiness. If the government was in a situation like this, for example, and they [i]didn't[/i] commit the act, I'd be pretty pissed off with them (again, I'm assuming there was no third way, and that the level of happiness is increased overall). The best argument against utilitarianism I've seen is the repugnant conclusion, whereby a world with a thousand people with lives barely worth living is just as good one with 100 people with fucking amazing lives (according to utilitarianism that works on [i]net[/i] utility). Though I don't think this is that difficult to rectify: utility could just be measured on average utility rather than a simple additive scale.
I say fuck the capalist pigs that want to take my money, I steal from the rich (Big-ass companies that care only for money, and only see people as sources of money, not possible inspiration. EA ect.) help the middle-class (smaller companies that care about people, Valve ect.) and [b]ALWAYS[/b] give to the poor (indies, notch ect)
[QUOTE=That_Crazy_Gman;29314782]I say fuck the capalist pigs that want to take my money, I steal from the rich (Big-ass companies that care only for money, and only see people as sources of money, not possible inspiration. EA ect.) help the middle-class (smaller companies that care about people, Valve ect.) and [b]ALWAYS[/b] give to the poor (indies, notch ect)[/QUOTE] You seem to have misplaced valve from the category of "Sees people as a source of money" Sure, they started out fine, and were pretty good until they deviated from the idea of "All the new content is free, fuck map packs" to "Hey lets make some new hats"
[QUOTE=doommarine23;29309481]I pirate games to test them and to see how they run on my hardware. If I like them, I buy em, if I don't like em, I don't buy em.[/QUOTE] Luckily, they have these things now. They're called demos, reviews, and estimated system requirements. They let you know information about the game, how other people think about it, if it should run well on your hardware, and test it out beforehand. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;29308273]Describe how a company would tap into the piracy market.[/QUOTE] Steam. Release convenient, cheap games that are accessible anywhere, the only restriction being the need to use Steam.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;29308454]Distribution via torrents?[/QUOTE] That doesn't make any sense. Provide some reasoning. [QUOTE=Treybuchet;29316194]Steam. Release convenient, cheap games that are accessible anywhere, the only restriction being the need to use Steam.[/QUOTE] How is that tapping into the piracy market? Are you sure you meant to respond to me because I see absolutely no connection to what you are saying and the question being asked.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29316854]That doesn't make any sense. Provide some reasoning.[/QUOTE] [url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1026_3-6070004.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Pepin;29316854]How is that tapping into the piracy market? Are you sure you meant to respond to me because I see absolutely no connection to what you are saying and the question being asked.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Steam provides a service that gives you a reason to buy something legitimately. It's so much more convenient than having to torrent something every time I want to use it, it's really well supported, and if you take advantage of sales it's much cheaper than anywhere else. Steam gives you [i]incentives[/i] not to pirate, whereas most companies simply aim to make it as difficult as possible to do so. With the former, everyone wins. Whereas only the publisher benefits from the latter, and even that's short term. They should invest their efforts in making incentives for people to purchase things, rather than resisting.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29316854]That doesn't make any sense. Provide some reasoning. How is that tapping into the piracy market? Are you sure you meant to respond to me because I see absolutely no connection to what you are saying and the question being asked.[/QUOTE] Alright: Piracy: Cheaper Easier Faster DRM Free Steam: Cheaper(Savings, cheaper to release on it) Easy to get. Fast to get, effective. DRM less necessary, therefore less to no DRM.
One day, Billy decides one day to make a comic book. He spends long hours designing the comic, writing the story, and drawing the illustrations. When Billy finally releases it, the comic is a huge success. It is so successful that a major comic book company decides to hire him to make more comics. So Billy makes more comics at the big company, because he gets paid more money. However, the price of the comic books increase. The comics Billy release are still great at first. However, over time, the bosses at the big comic company decide that they want to make more editions of the comic faster. They tell Billy that he needs to release his comics faster and faster, until Billy has to start decreasing the quality of the comics to meet the time requirements. He doesn't have time to edit them as well before their release. He has to cut some characters out of his comics because he doesn't have time to develop them. Now, Billy's bosses tell him that his comics need to sell better, or they will fire him. So what does Billy do? He researches what will sell fastest and best. Billy finds that he needs to add a few things that might alienate the longtime comic books readers but will attract new, young, and "mainstream" readers. The sales of the comics skyrocket, although Billy is unhappy with the quality of the comic. Unfortunately, there is little Billy can do. Now, there are a group of people who want to read Billy's comics. However, they do not feel like paying to buy them. So instead, they go to the comic book stands and take pictures of the comic books and just read them at home without paying for them. To combat this, Billy' bosses start printing the comics on a picture resistant paper that makes it hard to photograph. There are some cases of this new paper causing headaches to some readers and the glare from the new paper makes it hard to read. Sales begin to decrease because people do not like these protections that the company has installed. When sales decrease, Billy is blamed for not making good enough comics, and he is fired from the company. The End [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] Oh I forgot the best part. A little while later, Billy's old bosses hire new comic book writers who will work for less pay than him and who will comply with what they are asking for.
[QUOTE=Axiain;29288124][img_thumb]http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8809/piracy.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Dowling v US specifically stated this. This is more of a semantics argument than anything, tbh. Theft and stealing are used as examples because people find them easier to understand than "Copyright infringement" and "intellectual property rights violation".
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29317373]I disagree. Steam provides a service that gives you a reason to buy something legitimately. It's so much more convenient than having to torrent something every time I want to use it, it's really well supported, and if you take advantage of sales it's much cheaper than anywhere else. Steam gives you [i]incentives[/i] not to pirate, whereas most companies simply aim to make it as difficult as possible to do so. With the former, everyone wins. Whereas only the publisher benefits from the latter, and even that's short term. They should invest their efforts in making incentives for people to purchase things, rather than resisting.[/QUOTE] Your avatar looks like a rabbit.
I dont pirate but there are times when I would not call pirating bad like if you already bought it for another console or something since you already gave the company money or if its some kind of mass boycotting of a game if the company did something horrible. Every other time you should suck it up and support a company you like.
My friend pirates a game when the developers don't release a demo. He claims he has to know if the game would run smoothly on his system before be goes ahead and purchase it.
[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;29292766]No no, he loves the C! Whats a pirates favorite restraunt?[/QUOTE] ARRRRbys
The only time I would support cracking a game is if it locks you out of reinstalling it due to a installation cap.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29324842]I dont pirate but there are times when I would not call pirating bad like if you already bought it for another console or something since you already gave the company money or if its some kind of mass boycotting of a game if the company did something horrible. Every other time you should suck it up and support a company you like.[/QUOTE] If you really like the game and want to support the developers, you buy a copy for another platform. Otherwise, you're just another entitled brat.
Only thing I've ever pirated was a software program that I had legitimately purchased at one point but you had to pay $30 for the newest version. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Still warez" - Autumn))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29324842]I dont pirate but there are times when I would not call pirating bad like if you already bought it for another console or something since you already gave the company money or if its some kind of mass boycotting of a game if the company did something horrible. Every other time you should suck it up and support a company you like.[/QUOTE] mass boycotting it should involve not buying it at all.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;29316047]You seem to have misplaced valve from the category of "Sees people as a source of money" Sure, they started out fine, and were pretty good until they deviated from the idea of "All the new content is free, fuck map packs" to "Hey lets make some new hats"[/QUOTE] yeah, the team fortress 2 crap has gotten [b]way[/b] out of hand, but you can still get all the extra crap [b]without[/b] paying, although it's now like a "free" MMO nowadays, they still have that good spirit at heart though. team fortress 2 is sort of the black sheep of valve.
I hate it when people try to justify piracy. I'm not saying people have to stop pirating shit, mainly as it's not really any of my business, I just wish it didn't come with a bunch of stupid bullshit reasons about how you're fighting the power and raging against the corporate machine like some sort of neckbeard revolutionary.
[QUOTE=Mr_Minion;29333798]I hate it when people try to justify piracy. I'm not saying people have to stop pirating shit, mainly as it's not really any of my business, I just wish it didn't come with a bunch of stupid bullshit reasons about how you're fighting the power and raging against the corporate machine like some sort of neckbeard revolutionary.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this is kind of a situation where you can say "I like pirating, but hate the pirates" On another note, how about audiobooks? I've gotten about half of my 46 audiobooks from the local library, and about another quarter from interlibrary loans. Basically impossible to prove that I didn't pirate them, in the same way that it's impossible to prove that I did. Hell libraries as a whole. They're kind of a big argument against the anti-piracy stuff, because there is a single purchase/donation, and then the entire town can read them free of charge.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;29336563]Yeah, this is kind of a situation where you can say "I like pirating, but hate the pirates" On another note, how about audiobooks? I've gotten about half of my 46 audiobooks from the local library, and about another quarter from interlibrary loans. Basically impossible to prove that I didn't pirate them, in the same way that it's impossible to prove that I did. Hell libraries as a whole. They're kind of a big argument against the anti-piracy stuff, because there is a single purchase/donation, and then the entire town can read them free of charge.[/QUOTE] Unfortunatly however libraries have to buy books at a higher price because of this, and ESPECIALLY music
Piracy on Facepunch: It's fine to pirate anything but any games Valve or Garry makes.
[QUOTE=nikomo;29340050]Piracy on Facepunch: It's fine to pirate anything but any games Valve or Garry makes.[/QUOTE] Because Valve and Garry aren't evil capitalist imperialist pig-dog oppressors.
People around here pirate everything (I'm in Egypt BTW) because 1 dollar = 5.5جs, and 1 British pound = 8جs But I don't pirate, I make people on Facepunch buy stuff for me. :downs:
[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;29326646]ARRRRbys[/QUOTE] Oh my god stop
[QUOTE=Lord Hayden II;29287534]your stupid[/QUOTE] Haha.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.