What would you considered "Ethical Piracy"

vis4valentine@lemmy.ml to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 363 points –

Hi guys, first of all, I fully support Piracy. But Im writing a piece on my blog about what I might considere as "Ethical Piracy" and I would like to hear your concepts of it.

Basically my line is if I have the capacity of paying for something and is more convinient that pirating, ill pay. It happens to me a lot when I wanna watch a movie with my boyfriend. I like original audio, but he likes dub, so instead of scrapping through the web looking for a dub, I just select the language on the streaming platform. That is convinient to me.

In what situations do you think is not OK to pirate something? And where is 100 justified and everybody should sail the seas instead?

I would like to hear you.

300

  1. When the content is no longer available for retail purchase (i.e old games or shows that have been pulled entirely [see Infinity Train])
  2. You have a physical copy, but want a digital version.

Slightly more gray: content I've already paid for in one form or another. I spent like $100 going to the theater to see Mario with the family. I'm not losing sleep over adding it to my Plex when it hits VOD.

I pay for a smattering of VoD services, I don't lose sleep over watching something that isn't available on them.

If corporate greed didn't force a hundred different services on us, then it might be different.

You say you don’t want 100 different services, but do we really want all media content to be under one roof or just a few players? Consolidation is also terrible for media/art. That’s basically why so many people are against the Actibliz acquisition.

It could also have music streaming style. Where the features of platform is the more pull then content.

Spotify supports far more range of devices. Tidal sounds so much better, deezer is slightly worse quality than tidal but for more country. YouTube music gives you add free YouTube etc.

All media content under all services.

I'd love that but it's just not realistic because of how the media publishing landscape currently is. Happy to advocate for that but moving that needle will take decades. My response is it's usually somewhere in the middle. 5-10 major players, maybe some smaller ones as well. I don't need access to literally everything ever made. Libraries already have a wonderfully large free collection as it is (for anyone reading this Hoopla is amazing and countless libraries have massive catalogs on it)

Sure, it's not an easy thing to achieve for sure, but I won't lose sleep over them losing revenue because they can't figure it out quickly enough.

Even moreso where it comes to media that's just not available any more. If you, a content IP owner, don't make that content available for purchase, then you have only yourself to blame if people pirate it.

If you, a content IP owner, don’t make that content available for purchase, then you have only yourself to blame if people pirate it.

I don’t think we are entitled to someone creative work just because they made it. That opens way too many doors.

This is doubly true for games, which tend to be re-released over and over again on different platforms. This is true to a lesser extent for things like movies, but it’s much worse with gaming where each console is a closed ecosystem that’s incompatible with other systems. At least with Blu-Ray, you can expect any Blu-Ray player to play the movie you’ve purchased. It’s not like a Toshiba player will only play Toshiba brand Blu-Ray discs.

Companies love to use the “you don’t own the game, you own a personal license to use the game” line when revoking rights to play games you’ve legally purchased… But that goes both ways; If you own a personal license to use the game, it shouldn’t matter what platform it’s on, because it’s the same game regardless of whether you’re playing on PlayStation or PC.

Straight black but I still consider ethical:

The entire "going to the movies" experience is terrible for me and my wife, only going to get worse with a runt on the way. It's certainly a fault of the theater I try and attend, but I'm not driving 2 hours for a decent viewing experience.

I pirate like CRAZY. BUT if I find a film/TV show I really enjoy, I certainly do my part in word-of-mouth or digital marketing for them. It's certainly once it's left the theaters but I wasn't going to that anyway. It also gives a chance for older films/series to get some funding that I may not have picked up otherwise.

Occasionally if there's a film/show that's a standout, I'll buy a physical copy. Honestly I never open them as I have a more convenient digital copy on plex but I do put in some for it.

That said, watch Grave Encounters 1 (not 2..) and Cabin in the Woods. I believe they're both on Netflix but absolute top tier movies if you're into horror for GE or horror parody for CITW, cabin possibly being in my top 5 of all time.

Also that said, I've seen way too many episodes of MTV Cribs for me to care about it too much >:(

Paying for a ticket isn’t the same thing and I’d argue that’s not morally justified piracy. You went from a rental to ownership at a rental price.

I thought you were going to say something like “I already bought a copy of Star Wars thirty years ago, then THEY made the way I watch it obsolete, so I don’t feel as bad getting another copy since I already paid for it once.”

That would be closer to moral than “well I watched it in the theaters once, so I totally own a copy!”

We've all got our lines, mate. That's the point of this post.

  1. You have a physical copy, but want a digital version.

Kind of similar but I feel like pirating content you have legal access to (Steam, Spotify, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) in a way to get around DRM is ethical.

For example wanting to listen to songs you have on Spotify on an iPod or reading ebooks purchased from Amazon on your PC.

Or content you have purchased and have now lost access too, or shit if you buy something at all you can ethically pirate it. You already paid!!

Concerning the first point there is also the case of content getting altered. For example TV shows that switch songs because of licensing.

  1. Content that you cannot acquire by any "lawful" means.
  2. Content that you already own a copy of (Yes, this includes "only" having a "license" to it; you own what you own).
  3. Content that is outrageously priced, and/or from large companies where the people who worked on the product will receive nothing from sold copies. (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc)

Third category also contains works so old that only the people hoarding rights to said works profit from giving out licenses to them bc they never worked on them.

Content that isn't legally available in your geographic location

Most TV shows in foreign countries, and a billion movies are like this. Since they refuse to take my money, I can’t feel guilty for getting it for free.

Doesn't stuff like childporn fall under category 1?

Lawful content and lawful aquisition are two different things. CSAM is never ethical, doesn't matter how you aquired it.

That's one way to self-report.

Scientific articles. You're not robbing the authors of a single penny, because they don't get a cut of the sales by the publishing house anyway and the journal reviewers are volunteers.

many, if not most, authors of such papers are more than happy to provide a copy if you were to ask them directly.

That indeed should be the preferred route when you're not in a hurry and the contact info is up-to-date, but when you want to binge very quickly through a dozen articles as I used to do a lot that becomes impractical. Sometimes authors are unresponsive too, or deceased in the case of old articles.

Isn't there an archive site for scientific papers that are freely distributed? I forgot what it was called, should bookmark it.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

As some else said, you really should just reach out to the authors. You would be surprised at how many will gladly send you it. Plus, you now have a direct line to the person to ask questions and are showing them that people want to read their work. Academics really appreciate that generally.

1 more...

When the money goes to people who did not create the media. Support creators, not exploiters.

You are saying that you would prefer to get paid per sale instead of per hour?

I did both and prefer my money per hour. No matter if the sales are low or high. The fluctuation of payment is an insecurity that i don't want.

1 more...

IMO it's better to not pirate small indie content (mostly games in my case).

Assuming they release on Steam of course

Steam really needs their 30% cut, good you’re here to provide it to them

To run a storefront and do R&D to develop handheld PC's, simple at-home streaming, and higher quality VR? Yes, it's reasonable for them to charge an industry standard rate as a storefront

Steam offers rather valuable services to the developer in exchange for that fee though. You get to use Steam's existing infrastructure for content delivery, payment processing, advertising, community management, authentication (not necessarily DRM), multiplayer services, etc. instead of having to implement and maintain it all on your own. Self-publishing is not easy nor is it cheap.

Many people already said stuff I agree with, but I'd also include low-income families being "justified" in pirating stuff, be it for work, study or entertainment (as entertainment is a basic right imo)

Culture should be available to everyone, I agree.

to answer the opposite of your question i would say it’s unethical to steal things from indie developers and creators; the same way its more wrong to steal from a local corner store than it is to steal from Walmart

Even though I agree with you, I'd like to enphasize on piracy NOT being theft. Your analogy is great but I prefer to say it again just in case.

If items in the physical world could be stolen like it is for digital materials then it would mean the world has created a duplicator. Which would be absolutely awesome and that society has really advanced in technology. So good news all around.

But, sadly we cannot steal stuff in the real world like we can for digital because there is no duplication machine. There's no copier so real world theft is going to result in one person losing possession of the item they had.

Any piracy related to scientific papers I consider ethical. That kind of knowledge should NEVER be hidden behind a paywall

Abandonware is a very clear cut case of ethical piracy, too. Without it, a lot of digital stuff "wouldn't exist" anymore. Mainly games, but also loads of productivity programs, doubly so for discontinued platforms, like Amiga computers.

1 more...

The only (ethical) reason not to pirate games is indie. But I still buy on Steam/Gog cause its convenient / I don't risk malware.

-Not available to buy or only second hand for exorbitant prices (cough cough Nintendo) -Overpriced subscription (cough cough Adobe) -Getting a version of a game you already bought free of invasive or resource-heavy -Trying out a paid program/game/etc. with the intent of buying it if it you like it and it runs well

Archival of information and software that is no longer available, such as NES games.

Any and all book piracy is ethical. It's just like a library. If libraries are ethical libgen is ethical.

Libraries are ethical because they pay for the books. If we're limited to only physical books, then they buy new ones every ~8-12 rentals. Additionally (though I couldn't verify this through a search), I've heard they also pay more to buy them.

How does them paying for it make it more ethical? If I buy a book and put it on libgen does that make it OK then?

I have never, ever heard of a library rebuying the same book every 8-12 rentals, ever. What do they do with the old ones?

There should be a way to pay only the workers when you buy something. In that case, you could pay them but only after pirating and making sure you enjoy it. Since there is nothing like that, I think you should pay only content from small creators. Big creators already have plenty, and paying for anything else just gives money to greedy executives who then lower the quality of the content to make more money. Of course, if you have the means and don't pay anything, you are just making sure there will be less of that content made in the future. It isn't scalable; if everybody pirated content without paying a single cent, there would be no content made except by hobbyists who don't want to make a living out of it.

I know someone who's pirated books and then donated directly to the author or signed up for their Patreon for a few months.

Oh yeah I was thinking more along the lines of video games or movies where there are too many people creating it. For books, etc you can definitely donate.

Anything I'm legally not allowed to buy. So, old videogames (not just Nintnedo) or content of streaming services that show fuck you to my country.

I've always said this. The law needs to change to make products fall into public domain much faster if it's not legally available.

1 more...
1 more...

if you owned a game but your license got pulled for no reason (assassin's creed)

although pirating triple a titles is always ethical imo, devs usually get paid the same no matter how the game does

also pirating to try a game. steams 2 hour refund policy isnt enough, as 2 hours often is not enough to get into a game and see if u like it

pirating retro games
if the only way to play a game legitimately is to pay $500 for a cartridge, it's ok to pirate

if you can't afford a game (ex. low income countries), it's ok to pirate. there are places where a full months salary isn't enough for a single triple a titile

if you owned a game but your license got pulled for no reason (assassin's creed)

I’m not quite sure what you mean. So you paid for it (not a physical copy I’m assuming) and when you woke up one day they took it away and you’d have had to pay again to get it? Just understanding what happened here.

no they pulled everyone's license

to add on to that, they put it on sale to get some quick bucks before shutting it down

asdfasfsd

There are games and software that check a server to see if you are entitled to use it when you run it. If that server goes down or they geo block you, or ban you then you may not use the game or software you purchased (unless you crack/pirate it).

Another example of terrible policy no doubt and a great justification for cracks. But I know what AC games he’s talking about and I believe that doesn’t apply here. Correct me if I’m wrong though!

In this case you can't play your purchased dlc (or online multiplayer) but you can still play your game. Games affected: Anno 2070, Assassin’s Creed 2, Assassin’s Creed 3, Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, Assassin’s Creed Liberation HD, Driver San Francisco, Far Cry 3, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, Silent Hunter 5, Space Junkies, and Splinter Cell: Blacklist

Pirating copies of games I have already paid for a "license" for is ethical IMO. I want to be able to have offline-capable backups that can't be taken away from me.

Ive purchased monkey island on dos, iOS and GOG over the years. I refuse to buy it again. Sure, if they remaster, that's something else.

I think something most folks can agree on is abandonware. If there is literally no way to purchase something and you want to buy it then I don't think people should be angry that you "stole" it.

Media not available for purchase in any format. Final Space for example, it got pulled from Netflix and there's no physical copies at all. The only way to watch it is to pirate it.

I have episode 1 downloaded from GooglePlay and I can still watch it. I can't download any more episodes.

That seems to be a regional thing, it's still available in Germany on Netflix.

If a product is no longer for sale on any storefront, or the edition for sale is lacking content had by previous versions of the same product, piracy is morally correct for the sake of archival and preservation

On a tangential note, this is the same reason I will not buy a phone without expandable storage. The cheapest statistic of a phone is now the difference between a $800 phone and a $1200 phone. For $30 I can double my storage, but that is not ok for manufacturers, especially when they can make $5 a month for 1G of space, that requires internet access, from millions of people. Learning that most people have to pick and choose memorable pictures and videos just because they run out of space is horrendous to me. The companies know that data storage will increase over time for every user, and they are banking on everyone banking their data in a more insecure manner, with them, at an ever increasing rate. I refuse to have my memories and heartfelt data held hostage by bullshit companies that can't even support their own devices for more than 5 years.

Have you heard of the Fairphone? Repairable, modular, and expandable. I have three generations of it at home and they're all great.

Do iphones have SD cards? And yes, you drive a good point. Expandable storage is a must and super convenient

No and most android companies are also doing away with SD card slots. I have spectrum mobile and the only phones they offer with SD slots are low spec Samsungs.

Gotta love the companies' sorry excuses for ditching things that are good. "It's hindering design progress! We need to move away from these outdated standards! We can't make them work with new hardware!" - On removable batteries and backs, audio jacks, physical keyboards and repairability.

1 more...
1 more...

Most people here arguing that the "ethical side" of piracy is when the media is not available elsewhere. Or if it's available but at an abusive price/requirements. To which I agree.

But I also believe that culture shouldn't be only for those who can afford it. Books, movies, videogames, tvshows, education, science is what makes a society culturally rich. This is exactly why we have libraries. It's a public service. I've seen teens become avid consumers and incredibly knowledgeable in certain subjects, to the point that they are making a living because of it. Because the internet allow them to explore and grow. Without a pricetag nor preassure on their families.

Heck! Even I pirated almost everything in my teen years. Nowdays I pay for a lot of media. Don't get me wrong, we should be supporting artists. Always. If possible.

If it's not possible, go ahead just pirate it. Piracy it's just the best digital library in history. With a heavy euphemism attached: "piracy" (the act of attacking ships in order to sack them, kill people, rape people). It has a bad connotation on purpose. Don't fall for it.

Edit: punctuation

I like this take a lot. Noone should be kept from educating themselves due to their financial means or lack thereof, especially since a lot of e.g. research is financed through money from the state i.e. money that belongs to the public.

If I have already purchased a copy of the physical media, I don’t think it is piracy to acquire a digital copy of the same media for personal use

1 more...

Music Producer input here. It's sort of been a general rule of etiquette in production that piracy is fine if you intend to buy the product.

A lot of the better plugins can be very expensive and prior to subscription models, were limited in free trials. It can take some time to know if a particular plugin works with your workflow and gives you the results you like over multiple different projects.

I've always stuck with this. If I see something I like the look of, I'll pirate it, use it over a bunch of projects and if I find myself relying on it then I'll save up to buy it legitimately. Of course, there's a fair bit of trust involved there, and a lot of people will be happy enough to keep the pirated version and try to find a new crack every time the DAW or plugin requires an update,

No chance I would have been able to afford half of the software I use in my workflow when I first started out, nobody can. But I eventually found my flow then caught up and paid it back.

I consider that ethical piracy. Or maybe I'm just justifying it to myself. But that's how it was implied when I first started out in college and it's a good system where you can still eventually support the small companies that make quality products that work for you.

Any streaming content that gets pulled from a service and isn't available elsewhere.

Add to that, any streaming content that is not available in the original language. Here in Germany, a lot of older movies are only available to stream with the terrible German dub. I'm not paying for that so I'm not paying at all.

When it comes to video games, if I cannot legally buy new copies of games for that system, then it becomes open season on Piracy and emulation. Recent example, the 3DS eShop

If it is not available to buy anywhere for me and the only way is piracy, I feel like piracy is justified. No one loses anything on this scenario.

Won't someone please think of the poor corporations sitting on those IP rights hoping to squeeze them for profit someday?

You're practically taking the bread out of the CEOs mouth

If the product is no longer available to buy officially.

If the product required prohibitively complicated methods to play it (VPN, specific hardware requirements) which can be circumvented by pirating means, so, by extension, I mean region locked software or media in general.

When the quality I want is not available; a stream of a movie in 1080 or very compressed 4k which I want to see in the best quality possible.

These are all really great points I tend to forget about. As a Linux user, it's a main driver for me too.

Well, starting with, if you own an original copy. Sometimes companies put stupid DRMs in some digital stuff that just make the life of buyers miserable, games love to do that. For me is always ethical to pirate these ones.

Second, anything that you don't have money to buy, if you will never buy this stuff I can´t see why is bad to pirate, you are not stealing anyone, and I know a lot of cases (me included) that a person pirated something to test and then buy the thing after.

Education, similar to the prior, if a book or anything is not affordable to ppl that are willing to study an area, for me is totally ethical to pirate, this is a very common situation in third world countries where the dollar is very expensive causing books that are imported to be too expensive to students.

I’d say that there’s a scale

‘pirating’ an abandonware PC game that has long been left by the original devs, and isn’t for sale anywhere legally - this is still illegal under most laws, despite their being no legal routes to buy it at all legally. Most sane people don’t think this is unethical.

But downloading a hacked version of an app or game developed by a tiny independent team that truly care about the product, and invest the profits back in it - I say that this is unethical, as the people you are stealing from are directly affected by your actions. If you bought this game or app, your money goes directly to them, and they are more likely to keep developing other things.

Adobe, MS and the like have billions, so piracy has less of a direct impact on them -

So yeah, for me it’s a scale of ethical piracy - and you have to draw the line where you feel comfortable

Here is a quick hot take: If a company ever advertised a product in a public setting and the content is no longer available for purchase in a retail setting/manner anyone should be free to acquire it via non-retail means. Full stop.

Piracy is a service problem. They keep making it harder for people to watch things, and piracy gets easier every day.

For me the primary question is "Am I willing and able to buy this firsthand".

The latter is the most obvious. For instance, Nintendo won't sell me a game for the ds no matter how willing I am to buy. Therefore, I have no issues with pirating said game since they refuse to distribute it.

The former is more nuanced. Sometimes it's a matter of distain for the company and their business practices, such as Adobe. Sometimes it's a matter of the thing being incredibly overpriced. Sometimes it's just something that contributes so little value to me the only reason I'd interact with it is if it's free. Sometimes it's lack of knowledge about what I'm getting, and I want to try it first.

Also when it comes to Anime specifically, I try to support creators in other ways because my objections to the licensing companies in the US has nothing to do with the content itself.

If I may add, there's also things like "I have purchased this same album 15 times in my life, I just want to listen to my music".

For me personally, that falls under willingness to purchase. I only want to buy the same thing so many times.

If it comes from a large corporation, its probably ethical, since they are exploiting you (or others) in an unethical way.

If it's an indie team (or one man team for that matter) then it's probably unethical.

If I would buy it, I consider it unethical to download it to save the money. If I wouldn't, my Utilitarianism side is kicking in and it's actually MORE ethical to pirate than not. I also see no ethical problem with trialing something even if it's indie.

I something is "I don't like enough to buy, but would play if it was freeware", that's the grey area for me. My Utilitarianism side says pirating it is the correct decision, but there's a part of me that doesn't agree.

For me it concerns the intersection of privacy and piracy (and ownership).

My conceptions of ownership: I give money and receive a product in return. That ends my relationship with the seller.

But, increasingly (or almost exclusively on online marketplaces) businesses expect we will pay them for, essentially, the privilege of becoming their products. They control digital media as a means to record every action and behavior about us, the users, in order to bundle and sell our information to data brokers and other ad partners.

So, essentially, if buying something does not give me full ownership (possession of media) and is simply a means for a business to spy on me and harvest my data by controlling that media, then I'll pirate.

It's unethical and dangerous to use a transaction to spy on customers.

Ethical piracy is a reddit fallacy(which I used to believe too) where people think showing a company a middle finger is acceptable.

The solution is to use FOSS, and kill their stranglehold on the market

Take adobe's crap for example... they are big because of the students pirating it, expecting employers to pay for their license in the future. Creative cloud is all they learn and then it's hard for them to switch to freemium or libre options, so they pirate it.

This happens with ms office too! We were taught how to use word, excel, powerpoint as kids, and now are forced to use those since everyone around us uses those...

That's exactly right about pirating software that requires you to develop skills with it. Pirating Photoshop or whatever just means you are foreclosing the libre options to yourself in the future as you build up the proprietary ecosystem.

Only until very recently LibreOffice is almost on par with Microsoft Office. 10 years ago OpenOffice was horrible, I tried my best to use it but unless you were using it only to write letters to your city hall, it was unusable.

Anything by a company in the S&P 500. No reason to pad corporate earnings.

E.g. Minecraft years back no. Minecraft now that it is owned by Microsoft. Go for it.

For ethical piracy, I would say definitely if the content is no longer available through official channels.

Other situations include:

  • downloading a copy of equal quality to one you already have a physical copy of, but don’t have the equipment to rip it
  • really old stuff that should be public domain, but isn’t because copyright law is broken
  • downloading the cracked copy of a game because DRM in your purchased copy makes it unusable

I personally avoid DRM protected digital purchases unless I can strip it out. I prefer ripping movies myself, but I don’t have any issues buying DRM-free music. I also wouldn’t mind paying for a kindle book given that I can always import it into Calibre and end up with a DRM-free copy.

All of it. By pirating you support other pirates and oppose copyright, which should be abolished. The more people disregard copyright, the closer we are to getting rid of it.

By pirating you support other pirates and oppose copyright, which should be abolished.

I agree with the concept but folks sitting around downloading stuff from TPB are not actually taking the fight to copyright laws in any sense of the word. Even if that were the case it sure isn't motivating people. The desire to enjoy the thing is the driver 99.99% of the time.

It doesn't matter what their motivations are. What matters is the cultural normalization of willful copyright violation. I think that is the most important driver of major changes to law. In a democracy what matters is how the public feels about it, what they regard as normal, and that depends on how they and the people around them actually live. IMO the core reason we get things like gay marriage and legal weed is because of all the people openly being gay and smoking weed despite the law hating on them for it.

That’s actually a pretty compelling argument when you put it that way. I’m not sure I’m entirely sold, but I’ve got a lot to chew on here. Appreciate your elaborating!

Piracy makes up for some huge inequalities in the world. The prices for digital goods do not usually take into account the economies of certain regions. I live in Morocco and our money is really low compared to the dollar. 1 dollar is like 7 Dirhams. The average salary for a normal job is really low if you convert it to dollars. So services like Netflix and HBO would cost 10 times more if you factor in wages and conversion to dollars. Why should we pay that just because we live in another place ? Why do these services pretend to be global and yet they are enforcing US prices on the rest of the world. You can't even speak of physical goods because Amazon doesn't give a fuck about Africa. Books would cost 3 times their price in shipping and you have to wait a month or so, not to mention that there are limits on how much currency you spend internationally. The fees for an international card are so high also. In short, without piracy 90 percent of the world wouldn't be able to partake in anything.

Regional prices are fair on one hand, but on the other, they open up opportunities for abuse leading platforms to implement region-locking, where you can suddenly find your library unavailable or even entire account inaccessible when noving between countries. That's the case with steam and spotify, and a few others I can't quite remember. But yeah, I feel your pain, I even felt bad for that one ps4 my friends used to share between them like that girl in 5 guys meme just because sony doesnt do regional pricing and the games were at times more expensive than their entire PC's.

1 more...
  1. Work of art no longer sold.
  2. Creator(s) and/or production company involved with the making are garbage human beings.
  3. You don't have money and you don't just want to stare the ceiling.
  1. Work where the original author is dead. (The money is not going to the author).

If you're not using it to make money it's never not OK. I can't see it as theft. It's just a different method of obtaining the same thing that doesn't harm anyone.

Not only are those making this choice unlikely to pay anyways, but all the regular people who worked creating it already got paid so nobody can say "oh the film crew, VFX artists etc will be out of a job". No they already did their job and got paid. The investors maybe want more money but they aren't hurting for it, I don't feel anything for them.

On Anna‘s Archive Front Page there is a book "Against Intellectual Monopoly", I think it would give you an interesting perspective to consider too.

The concept of intellectual property is incoherent IMO. Thus, in principle, it's never wrong to pirate anything because you're not actually stealing anything.

However, I personally have a principle that I never pirate anything from small creators, at least not without compensation to them. It's one thing to pirate from a multi-billion dollar mega-corp. But a small time creator who is trying to make a living, that is different for me. I always throw them money if they have a donation page or buy some merch, etc.

All piracy is ethical because Intellectual Property is a lie.

I will pirate from megacorps and indies, anyone who sets up a demand based distribution system for products.

The only products I will not pirate are those that have a needs based distribution system and are finite.

Question about this: if there's no IP, what is the motivation for creating media or game content?

Modders do it all the time by passion. It's the introduction of IP and money that removes passion and turns it into an industry (see also: YouTube)

Creative drive, I'd say. Some people simply like making stuff

But even people who like making stuff would be able to devote more time to their work if they were given the means to sustain themselves through their work without needing to work another job, wouldn't they?

I would say the motivation to create is simply to create. Dwarf Fortress authors allowed donations but until they had health issues did not outright sell the game. Even now it's optional though as only the UI is sold, base game is still free.

I would argue that if your motivation to do anything is money, then whatever you create is always going to be inferior.

It obviously isn't true that people motivated by money build inferior products... There may be a loophole here where you can claim that the absolute best of a category might be built by an individual driven only by the desire to create, but I feel like that is a shitty argument. I would argue that the vast majority of quality products are only produced by those who seek monetary compensation.

I would argue the opposite, in that monetary compensation enables the creator to put in the time and effort required to make a product with high quality. Without monetary support in a capitalist system, they are forced to spend their time doing other meaningless work to eat, and can't spend the time they want on the project their passionate about.

Looking at the current state of Hollywood, the drive to make a profit is actually ruining movies for me in the past 5 years. Full of bad writing and old remakes of remakes trying to get money from old IP. Nothing new or original has been written for some time and it's getting old.

Okay, I would say my argument probably breaks down at small individual projects. For larger corporations though I think it's still stands true. Anyone who's worked in JIRA is probably familiar with the status "Won't Fix". For essentially any bug incoming you would weigh the user impact versus the revenue impact. You prioritize based on severity but also prioritize based on revenue. Your Sprint cycles by very nature can't be oriented to producing the best possible product if the best possible product is only what makes you the most money.

EDIT: I would also say that this largely depends on how you define what a good product is. Is a good product one that makes you a lot of money? Is a good product one that is high functioning and provides good use?

what is the motivation for creating media or game content?

As a digital artist I can say it's for the love of the art.

I imagine it's similar for modders and anyone with basically any hobby.

I think people have already answered your question. Just to add on, think about stuff that happened before the creation of an IP regime. Were people not creating things back then?

I would also like to clarify that I'm not talking about forcing people to reveal their secrets. If you want to keep your thing a secret, you're welcome to. But, there should be no state prosecution if that thing gets made public.

And I do buy things if I enjoyed them and want to reward the creators. When I was a poor kid with no funds, I pirated a lot of videogames. Now that I'm a slightly older kid with some funds, I buy the games that I enjoy and my game piracy has gone down a lot. Without piracy, these future sales from me would have been lost because I probably wouldn't care about videogames. Not a justification, just my feelings.

I change laptops frequently. Used to buy songs from iTunes and every time I changed laptops, transferred music over, I'd lose access to them. Would have to go thru insane process to be allowed to listen to the music I'd paid for.

Similar thing would happen with some software, Adobe especially.

If you're going to treat me like a criminal, then I might as well be a criminal. Same with purchasing movies on Amazon.

I tried to pay for minecraft, but 2 hours later, Microsoft wouldn't let me. Kept trying to make me an Hotmail account.

Growing trend in software I'm not happy with. No longer allowed to own the things we buy, and forced to hand over my email, phone number, address, name, create account... used to be, you could just buy things, simply. That was that.

Corporations are getting drunk with power, overreaching, infiltrating people life.

Also, if in poverty, no food, homeless, etc. If I can't afford what I need. And can get it another way, I will

Yeah that was my first thought too. Anything you've legitimately paid for that the company then takes away or makes extremely difficult for you to access, I think it's perfectly justified to pirate it then.

I had this experience when while I was playing Bioshock Remastered on Steam, 2K Games in their grand wisdom decided to "update" the game after 5 years of neglect. Oh, did they fix remaining bugs or other outstanding technical problems with the game? No. Of course not. They dropped a "Quality of Life Update" to force a 2K games launcher, which immediately made the game unplayable for me because I couldn't get the game to launch anymore. The irony.

So anyway, I had to pirate the game I bought and transfer my saves to finish playing.

I felt the Adobe part. I bought Photoshop CS2 back in the day then sadly lost the license key a few years later. I never felt bad for pirating the latest version.

Another example of ethical piracy would be when offline games force you to be online all the time. Minecraft forces me to be online to play through the official launcher. Since I also play with mods that are still a few versions behind, I downloaded a cracked launcher so I can play even when I don't have internet access.

In what situations do you think is not OK to pirate something?

Never pay money for pirated content or ask someone to pay money for pirated content. Donations to keep a site running are borderline and iffy, depending on the implementation and transparency. As soon as you earn any kind of revenue or treat it as your 'job' it crosses into the unethical IMO.

Second point related to money: Pirating stuff you could easily pay for is probably bad, if the creator receives $0 from you. There might still be reasons to do so (not wanting to support DRM for example), but if you got the cash you better find a way to support the actual creators (merch, donations...). The smaller the author the heavier the moral responsibility to bring some money their way. This also weighs in the other direction: It's probably accetpable or even good to not give more money to giant corporations that abuse intellectual property for their own gains and who shit on creators.

This also weighs in the other direction: It’s probably accetpable or even good to not give more money to giant corporations that abuse intellectual property for their own gains and who shit on creators.

What is your take on this particularly in relation to the SAG-AFTRA strike over streaming residuals? Even if you want to pay for a creator's work, most ways to consume content now mostly does not get to the creators of a work. I'm not even sure how renting or buying a title through a digital service like amazon or google is distributed to creators vs how much goes to the platform and copyright holder.

My feeling is that most titles from the past decade fall into this category

What is your take on this particularly in relation to the SAG-AFTRA strike over streaming residuals? Even if you want to pay for a creator’s work, most ways to consume content now mostly does not get to the creators of a work.

On general principal I always support workers rights to strike and applaud them for fighting for a higher wage.

My personal opinion in this particular case: Many writers in this industry very much overvalue their worth, especially considering the low-brow content they create (10 years or more of capeshit), how replaceable they are (barely any original idea in sight), the low general quality of their work (I'm not even watching this shit for free, you'd have to pay me) and the encroaching power of AI. I've never seen such a long-string of garbage writing coming from Hollywood (or maybe I'm just lucky having observed a golden age of TV) and I've not seen a similar decline in quality from other craftsmen (cinematography, acting, sound and music...) in the industry. Maybe writers can make some short-term gains, but unless they hone their craft to bring it above the level of what ChatGPT can create right now, they are going to lose their power struggle in the long run.

I’m not even sure how renting or buying a title through a digital service like amazon or google is distributed to creators vs how much goes to the platform and copyright holder.

Often there are options. Speaking about music: A spotify subscription is most likely useless for supporting smaller artists, but buying their merch or stuff from bandcamp is a no-brainer if you have the money.

The average salary for a Script Writer is $64,000/yr. If you're simply looking at the value they produce, that's bloody peanuts.

And you say they're replacable, but you could say the same thing about electricians, and they have a union and strike. Of course, the Electrician produces less value but makes on average $10,000 more than the average Script Writer ($75,000).

I'd also like to remind you to separate the end product from the quality of the Script Writer. They do a skilled job and work hard, and they are only one cog in a machine. I have had this exact conversation with managers and execs in my own field who wanted to hold individual contributors accountable for things that simply were not their fault.

Electricians are replaceable as in you dould hire another or completely do away with ?

As in "could hire another".

The best place for unions is commoditizable skilled-labor jobs. You CAN be devalued, but you have inherent value that should be maintained by not letting yourself get dragged into a race-to-the-bottom with powerful companies.

Books: if I can buy a digital version and if it's not priced over its paper counterpart, I buy. If it's out of print and there isn't a digital version from the publisher, I look for the digital version from anywhere. I did that once for a book series and when the publisher finally put out a digital version, I bought them.

It's about access. The paywall has to be reasonable and the publishers should digitize "out-of-print" regardless of the cost to them. They can recoup the costs over time rather than counting "profits" in a quarterly window.

Blind readers should get the forever exemption. They should have braille/audio of any book, sold or not.

Watching youtube with adblocker 🤣

I don’t even consider this piracy. It’s just using the web as it was intended.

I'd say all piracy that isn't bootlegging or otherwise profit motivated is pretty ethical. It's basically a decentralized museum of modern art that our tragically morally bankrupt society can't be bothered to allow for the legal preservation of.

It is always justified to pirate something. Private property is a scam, and intellectual property even more so; there is no justification for these concepts that does not boil down to "because the current dominant economic paradigm requires them in order to function" or "possessions are more important than people." Information should always be free. Period.

Just hypothetically, someone walks into your house, picks up a table and leaves with it. What do you do?

You mean makes an exact copy remotely?

The guy said " Private property is a scam, and intellectual property even more so". I think The table comment was a response to the private property part, not intellectual property.

Gotta word it differently. You worked really hard to carve a beautiful table out of wood and then somebody comes by and makes an exact clone of it in a few secs and leaves with it.

Im still wondering whether OPs comment on private property was related to non digital assets or not.

Why? What's his motivation? Does he really need a table that badly, or is he just the living embodiment of an unrealistic hypothetical being used to justify a flawed system?

Buying an ebook from Amazon but then pirating an epub version of the same book (Calibre currently unable to crack Amazon's newest DRM since earlier this year).

People are basically just renting their books from Amazon right now; you don't really "own" it if you can't read/listen to it on other devices and apps. That never sat right with me, and when I decided to leave the Kindle ecosystem, I couldn't read those same ebooks in other apps. So now I refuse to ever buy any of my books from Amazon and am currently using Libby for most of my audiobooks/ebooks and B&N for the physical artbooks I want.

Sadly a lot of the indie authors I read are part of Amazon's KU, so their books are not legally available outside of that ecosystem. =( So I've stopped reading them.

Yeah I do it as well. Many ebooks are only on Amazon, so I have to pirate an epub for my Pocketbook.

When I subscribe to the service, but the app freezes up... Looking at you Paramount+.

Sharing knowledge and creative works is how society progresses. Scientific progress relies on open access to discoveries and data. Creative works are shared, remixed, and built upon. But restrictive copyright laws have allowed corporations to severely limit access to information and works of art to optimize their profits. They frame piracy as “stealing” to make it seem immoral, when in reality piracy often involves simply sharing creative works with friends or communities that can’t access or afford them.

To Read More: https://technomagnus.vercel.app/posts/piracythe-moral-imperative-of-sharing-knowledge

I like your argument.

Copyright though also protects creators and deems their work valuable. For what reasons might someone write a book or a song if it were of no value? Is your time not worth something?

Prior to the printing press, stories were spread by word of mouth. Every community benefitted from the free exchange of ideas. Why then go through the effort of inventing the printing press? Answer: money, power, influence - progress as you decide it should be.

Today, society is controlled by the whims / stock portfolios of the corporations. Progresses occurs when a major corporation intends to "profit" from of an idea. Ironically, you and I and every other human on this planet have never been more connected yet we might have less power and influence today than a time prior to the Zuckerbergs, the Murdochs, and the Disneys hijacking our ship.

This can quickly turn to a conversation about communism and capitalism. The reality is that we live in a capitalist society and without someone paying someone for their time and investment, there is no opportunity for society as a whole to benefit from their work. Even is someone works full time on a project and puts it out there for the world to enjoy, if they aren't participating in the algorithm their work will largely go ignored. I say this as someone with a blog who refuses to put ads and google and facebook tracking on my site. If I really wanted to spread my work, I would have to integrate with the machine. But also, don't steal my shit! Worked hard on it.

Copyright though also protects creators and deems their work valuable. For what reasons might someone write a book or a song if it were of no value?

People did it all the time, and there seems to be no correlation with improvements or motivation with the protection of modern copyright laws. The opposite side of the coin is that emlpoyees voluntarily invent content all the time (above their job description) that is immediately the property of their employer. The people who are going to be inventers STRIVE to innovate, regardless of money or lack thereof. A weaker Copyright model would not stifle innovation, but might even bolster it. At least actual inventors would likely have more opportunity to gain from their inventions.

Depends if I find the company that made that media ethical. I would be happy to pirate Autodesk, Adobe, EA etc. Just because they are predatory and unethical. I also "pirate" music (adblock on youtube) since recording labels are shit. Also I watch youtube with no ads, since I do not support Google. I do pay for Nebula though, since a lot of creators I like are there and the company is fair.

Adobe is the one for me. They implemented subscription models, mandatory cloud integration, and spyware just to bleed as much money as they can from their captive consumer base. But the one thing they simply won't do is make their products competitively priced. They set up their industry stranglehold and now they're going to milk it for all it's worth.

There are people who bought Photoshop back before the subscription model who cannot access it today, now that the DRM servers validating their authenticity were taken down with the move to Creative Cloud.

But pirates still have access.

Any stream content. Any subscription. Anything that I can't access because of my nationality.

I'd pay for other things.

Content that should've been easily purchased, but it's stuck behind a subscription model. Photoshop. Lightroom. I don't understand why these have subscriptions. I should be able to buy it like any other software.

I believe it to be ethical, when publishers pay the actual creator's penny's for their work, not because they can't afford it but because of greed.

I would call ethical piracy any kind of data acquiring that would otherwise be unattainable. A more common example is any kind of software and/or content that you pay and therefore should own and for any kind of reason the seller/provider restricts your acces to it.

  1. Whether it is a movie/series/book/song you payed and for some good forsaken reason you cannot access it because you changed your hardware or your country doesn't have access to it
  2. Or it is any kind of software that you have to pay a subscription to keep a feature you previously had on a previous version (ex. Adobe)
  3. or a video game that was removed from the service, has DRM and you can't access it anymore and/or the server shut down and the company doesn't release the source code
  4. or an even older game you own but the cartridge/cd/disk/cassette is destroyed and or the console is not supported anymore and/or it is abandonwarevand the current owner is not know so it cannot be commercially distributed

Coprorations do not want anyone to own the hardware they sell by denying the right to repair, let alone software. The mere sence is unethical, so it's ethical to at least acquire software through piracy.

For me it really depends on who created the content. If it was some big company that has tons of money anyways, I'll have no problem pirating it. But in case it's created by an individual who worked hard for it I'd want to avoid pirating it.

If there is no legal way to play a game due to the game being too old, require obscure hardware, not sold in your region, etc. In that case since the player had no way to give the developer money, might as well pirate it.

When I can't get something because it's no longer being made, or at least not for a sensible price.

Like, old games are fair to copy. They don't even make the hardware for that any more. Sony is making strides with PS+ Extra, but the catalogue there is nowhere near big enough.

I think the music industry has finally got to a point where piracy is pointless. A subscription to pretty much any streaming service gives you everything now. The TV/movie guys are struggling here, and even with three subscriptions, there's a ton of stuff missing. If there was one that had the kind of coverage that Spotify had for like £30/month, I'd pay that in a heartbeat.

4 more...

It is not okay to pirate just to resell to others. It is a huge red flag.

I pirate to save money and if industries are going to play hardball on making everything available.

It's our culture. Everything we create, we create as a society, so to restrict access to our shared culture is the immoral act. That's the philosophical take anyway.

Practically speaking, we're living under feudalism capitalism, so we have to consider that the creation of art (movies, games, images, etc.) all comes at a financial cost, so acting as if those costs aren't borne by others is, I would argue anyway, unethical.

So the position I usually take is that if the group making the thing is small, the Right thing to do is to pay for it, while if it's a big multinational cultural glutton like Disney, they can eat a bag of dicks. As far as I'm concerned, pirate the shit out of that.

The interesting dilemma for me comes with the question: once you've purchased work from the Little Guy, is it ethical to seed it or just sneakernet it with others? Usually I fall on the side of "yes" on this, because small organisations also need exposure, and getting something for free is often the way in. I know that's how I got into a bunch of books for example.

I'm not sure I can think of any examples of unethical piracy, except maybe bootlegging for sale as mentioned elsewhere.

I don't believe that piracy hurts anyone, so I can't understand any arguments that it's unethical.

I'd say as long as it isn't harming a small independent artist, then its generally ethical.

I used to pirate android apps but then I realised that flicking some independent app developer $10 has no affect on my budget. And it is way easier.

IMHO whenever you actively need something and the owner either doesn't make it available or the price is prohibitively expensive, it's justified. That especially includes papers, books and other tuition material that's been paywalled or made expensive as hell without any actual reason, even more so if the author gets next to no compensation.

Downloading series and movies that aren't being streamed anymore, by all means.

When it comes to current movies, it depends on what's available. Unfortunately most streaming platforms don't have Chinese subtitles, and my wife often struggles to fully follow the original audio and the English subs often disappear too quickly.

For software, my personal stance is that if you use something every once in a while, pirate away. If you use it regularly and/or generate income from it, then pay your dues.

I've been listening to A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs and let me tell you, the music industry can fuck right off. Small indie label? I'll probably buy it, but one of the major record labels? Set sail mateys.

That intrigued me, but the shit design of the website turned me off. I can't even find the first episode. There's no list, it's blurbs of each and every episode that you have to scroll through and it only loads like 15 at a time then you have to go to the next page.

I'm not going to spend ten minutes scrolling and clicking just to find the first episode so I can try it.

Yeah, it’s never advised to listen to a podcast on its host site. 80% of them are terrible, just load the RSS up or find it on your preferred podcatcher. I say this just so you aren’t too hard on them about it. It’s very difficult to find a service that is good as both a website and as a podcast host and even “good ones” are not great UX.

It is very VERY simple to set up a functional website these days. And this is an abomination of UX. It would take hardly any effort at all to improve it with a simple chronological list of links.

I don't think I'm being too hard on them at all.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

I don't know about "ethical" but justified yeah.

Certainly if media is not available for purchase I have no problem with people pirating it. But also if it's not available in a reasonably accessible format. For example, I wanted to show my son the original TMNT show. I would have happily bought it on Vudu, Amazon or Play Movies, but it's only available on iTunes. I have all Android devices and don't even have a personal Windows device, so I would need to jump through serious hoops to get it working if I bought it.

Suppose some dude on the street hands out books for free and gives you a copy. Does it make you unethical for accepting one? Would it be different online?

Suppose your government charges a "blank media tax" on storage devices to "compensate" creators with the assumption you already "illegally" download their content, didn't you already pay for it anyway?

What if you're downloading stuff as a hobby but you'd never pay for it if that would be the only other option, did anyone lose anything of value?

Physical media and digital media are different beasts. When he hands you that book, he no longer has it. I would also assume he didn’t steal that physical copy. Someone got paid initially for the physical media, which the person is now deprived of by giving it to you. It’s not quite “apples to oranges” but it’s definitely not a parallel situation.

This is assuming - like digital media - some one took the time to spend his own free time to make copies of a physical medium.

There is no way of knowing whether the person has copyright or stole the first copy.

Or compare school books: the whole class buys one copy together, makes copies for every person to share costs. Likewise, a whole family can chip in to buy a car - you wouldn't force them to buy a car each.

The two examples in your later paragraph are wholly different cases: the second is a completely different use-case and the first one is actually less morally unambiguous than you think.

3 more...
3 more...

@Fleppensteijn @vis4valentine another thing to consider is whether the creators of the work actually receive anything. When you pay to watch Barbie, basically 100% of that money goes to Bob Iger or someone like that. That's what the strikes are about. When you pay to play Factorio, a lot more of the money goes to the people who made it.

But if you get it on VHS or DVD or whatever and sell it, or even give it away, Mr Bob won't receive his cut and it's not considered piracy or stealing

@Fleppensteijn what? They actually tried to make reselling VHSes and DVDs illegal. And of course we all know that copying them is illegal.

I don't know about the first part. Copying isn't illegal for your own use. Either way, when receiving a copy, you're not the one doing the actual copying. This was protected by fair use until EU politicians got lobbied into banning it.

@Fleppensteijn even in more lenient countries, selling or giving away a copy that you made is illegal

Maybe, but I'm talking about receiving it. That's why you have to be careful torrenting (uploading) whereas DDL is no problem

3 more...

I look at it this way: A company's goal is to generate revenue from some product's sale. So, I could ask myself two questions regarding digital items:

Am I making money from the piracy of that product? Is this product something I would have otherwise purchased?

As I'm not making money from it and they are not being deprived revenue as I would not have bought it anyway, my actions are therefore ethical.

Any instance in which I'm purchasing through a publisher or producer. Wherein I have no reasonable belief that my money is actually going to the people who developed the work.

Do just to dig into this a little, I'm assuming that's the Apple itunes, Spotify, Amazon etc levels and probably ticketek, we're it plausible (now there's a fantasy!!).

Where do you sit with regards to the better players such as bandcamp or gog.com?

It really depends on the particular developer right? Like, CDPR for example, whose parent company owns gog.com, pays its employees based on contractual obligation and initial sales. Beyond that, however, all money gets fed into the publisher and into the pockets of executives. Executives don't make games. Executives do next to nothing and make nothing for it. I personally consider it patently unethical to support parasites like that.

I completely agree to the pyramid scheme of managers.

I'd like to believe they funded the development while it was happening, but I suspect that's rather naiive...

If you couldn't afford to pay for it in the first place, then they're not losing any money.

IMO pirating media from anybody but indies is moral, correct, and good. The big companies have trade representation and lobbyists which they use to push their insane copyright agenda. Consider the Mickey Mouse act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act which extends copyright to such an absurd term, only corporate lawyers could have devised it. Which they did. Disney is a great example, in fact, since much of their media empire relies on adaptations of public domain works which are then copyrighted basically indefinitely. If our copyright laws today were more similar to what copyright laws were back then, we could have a lot more remixes, adaptations, and takes on well known stories and media.

Anyway, by purchasing from these copyright pushing companies I am funding their agenda, which is against sensible patent law and copyright law, and against me. They also promote vile DRM schemes, as their industry pushes ever onward away from personal ownership of anything and toward rent seeking behavior. If it were up to them we would all have tivoized boxes that we not only have to pay rents for, but must also consume ads on. Literally against my own interests to give them money, ever.

It's too bad that so much of our media is produced by a shrinking number of companies, because pirating their shit isn't even worthwhile. Most of their garbage is unwatchable slop.

As for any other form of piracy, I consider intellectual property to be mostly bullshit. But I can appreciate the time that goes into creating a work one wishes to sell and having some domain over that for a period of time after initial publication. But like many other things about our world, it's the stupidest version we have to live with.

P.S. and that's just one aspect of copyright law. Imagine trying to copyright the fundamental advances of human knowledge and science. God bless Sci-Hub!

I expect to pay a fair price for things. Unfair pricing are profits made from monopolies which are illegal. Copyrights exist to enforce monopolies, and thus are unethical in my view. It is especially evil when lobbying pushes laws that develop mass surveillance, private militia and automatic justice. While these laws exist, piracy is an act of resistance against oppression.

And it must be mentioned : science should be free. Especially medical science.

What pisses me off with copyrights is that the unethical or outright evil behaviour come from the copyright owners, but they turned the laws so the evil behaviour is legal and we now have these questions about the ethic of so called piracy.

For me I have rules I set for myself when pirating, and generally try to reserve it for if it's something I'm unlikely to see or get otherwise (like how stuff is exclusive to a million different streaming services now, or older games that don't have an official re-release) or there's ethical reasons I don't want to support it (Like some EA stuff and Adobe, though so far the only [arguably] accessible PC games I've pirated are the Sims 3 and 4)

If it's indie stuff and [non-text]books I try to avoid it if possible.

Everything on a streaming service that attempts to limit password sharing. They made traveling with a streaming stick a completely unnecessary faff. Everytime I go to use a service they make me reverify the device multiple times a day. So, fuck you asshole now I'll stream your content for other sites and stop paying you!

I’m against ending password sharing but I don’t think it’s an unethical stance.

Perfectly ethical:

  • Content that is Inaccessible legally such as old games, abandonware, delisted media, banned stuff etc.

  • Digital copies of physical content you own

  • Digital Content that you already own such as ebooks or movies, but are restricted access due to DRM or single-copy rules or other dumb stuff. If I paid for something I should have the right to access it however I want (as long as I don't distribute it)

Gray Area:

  • Pirating work that benefits a publisher but not the creator. Movies, Shows, and Songs released by studios that exploited the creators of that material and not giving them a cent. This includes scientific work and research.

When I don't want to give money to a specific company that I dislike. EA is an example.

I really wish we could get a EA and Actiblizz boycott going for a while to force some change on the industry as a whole....

Paying for the product after viewing/using it if you like it or it's good.

My favorite refrain as a kid was "we'll buy a copy at the show" lol. In our defense we often did!

It wasn't uncommon for me in my pirating days to buy a game or a CD if I downloaded it and really liked it. I wanted to support the creators, I just couldn't afford to buy everything and learn that most of it was trash.

Considering I'm pretty pisspoor at the moment everything is. And tbh if I had money I still wouldn't pay for movies but I would buy a lot on bandcamp(so I can make torrents out of it)

I wanted to watch the Clarkson-Hammond-May "Top Gear". Only on BBC iPlayer. Only in the UK.

The roundabout 22 series' and specials simply do not exist outside of that. What are you supposed to do? I would have paid the BBC, but they even discourage the use of VPN's themselves.

I genuinely believe that stealing is stealing and anyone justifying it is doing so to not feel guilty about it.

I download things I haven't paid for. It's wrong. I can rationalize this because the stuff I'm stealing has already made their money and me enjoying it on my own time likely has zero impact on the content creators. Also, fuck the non-skippable intros and commercials on blurays.

The one exception to this, what I would argue is unquestionably "ethical piracy", is content that's actually important to the progress of humanity. Things like well researched scientific papers, studies about the humanities, psychology, the affects of technology, mechanization, artificial intelligence, etc. This should never be held behind lock and key. You whining about not having access to How I Met Your Mother is not a valid reason to steal content.

Also, people need to spend more time at their public libraries. If you want free shit, a lot of it is there explicitly for the purpose you all espouse.

I'd like to add a couple preservation-adjacent scenarios for you to consider. If a product is no longer made available by its rights holder, would it be unethical to acquire it through other means?

A: Pirating Abandonware

This would be software that was once sold, but is no longer made available by the rights holder. The creator of the software is no longer profiting from new or existing sales, and it's no longer possible to acquire a copy through legitimate means. At that point, does pirating the software actually hurt anybody?

  • Argument against: not letting the software fade into obscurity stifles the market by providing freely-available competition to products that are actually being sold.

  • Argument in favor: preventing piracy of the software will do more harm, as it stifles the growth of any community around the software.

B: Pirating Discontinued Software

This would be software that is no longer officially sold in its original form, but has been superseded by other software available from the same rights holder. For example, older versions of Adobe Photoshop.

  • Argument against: pirating discontinued software hurts sales of the currently-available software.

  • Argument in favor: currently-available software may be inferior to older versions. (example: licensed music being removed from remastered games)

C: Digitally Pirating Out-of-Circulation Physical Media

This would be acquiring digital archives of out-of-circulation physical media such as video games or out-of-print books. The media isn't sold by the rights holders anymore, but it would still be available through used goods resellers.

  • Argument against: by pirating out-of-circulation media instead of paying for the physical copies, the individual is preventing the flow of capital through the second-hand market.

  • Argument against: the rights holder may consider selling the media again in the future, and digital archives will prevent prospective buyers from purchasing the media when it eventually does become available.

  • Argument in favor: it is financially inviable to acquire the media through the second-hand market. (as in: it's overpriced)

  • Argument in favor: as the physical media degrades over time, it would become more scarce and may eventually be lost entirely.

  • Argument in favor: under the assumption that second-hand resellers exist primarily for profiteering, giving them money does not contribute to humanity or culture in any meaningful way.

D: Removing DRM Technology

In this scenario, the individual has already purchased the media, but it is encumbered by DRM. Suppose the DRM either prevents the media from being accessed entirely^1^, or it hinders its usability^2^. Would it be ethical to use a "crack" on your purchased copy or acquire a pre-cracked copy from some other party?

^[1]^ Examples include: lifetime activation limits or activation servers being shut down after the expected lifetime of the product.

^[2]^ Examples include: always-online DRM, unnecessary resource usage

  • Argument against: the existance of a crack could mean lost sales, since some individuals may choose to illegally acquire a pre-cracked copy instead of purchasing the media.

  • Argument in favor: the DRM is hostile to the consumer. For example, the Sony BMG rootkit that caused excessive resource usage and provided a way for malware to conceal itself.

  • Argument in favor: if the DRM is never removed from the media in the future it will hinder preservation efforts.

Public library near me is more expensive than amazon prime... I call that criminal.

Uh, yeah. I would think that is criminal. Your library isn't free?? Do you not have one in your county?

Nope...

Welcome to European capitalism guised as a social democratic monarchy... (The Netherlands)

It costs 54 euro per year... Not much, but amazon prime here costs 3 euro a month.

Sadly bit is, as a new immigrant, I'd really love to have free and easy access to local literature... But between the relatively high cost, and the library being open 3 hours a day (and closed on Sundays)... It's just a little tricky to actually make it work.

As someone who grew up in the "golden age of piracy" who remembers those stupid FBI warnings on VHS tapes, I've never been able to wrap my head around that point of view. To me, it's always been propaganda that creates this so-called anti-piracy morality.

The idea that piracy is stealing is so foreign to me. Stealing/theft is a very specific behavior. Nobody called it Theft when competitors followed around Shakespeare and made copycat plays. Nobody STILL calls it theft when we see stupid copycat movies come out. Nobody called it theft if you got a "copy painting, signed by actual painter" before modern copyright law. Now they call it things (not usually quite theft).

To me, piracy just lacks all the hallmarks of stealing. Hell, I've been in lawsuits. In every other realm, the Law draws some very clear lines between real damages and potential ones, and in many cases if I have to sue somebody, the law might even PREVENT me from seeking the latter. So what's so special about piracy that so many people's headspace have this attitude the "how the world works" goes out the window and it's really stealing?

To me, it's always going to be a matter of propaganda. Very successful propaganda. And I think your last sentence backs that. The big media IP owners started pushing the bubble of "it's stealing" to libraries as well, and only backed off when it didn't work. They were somewhat more successful with "used games" and have largely succeeded in killing the used game market off in some domains. I consider it stealing if a game company locks a physical product behind a single-use code so that they can seize part or all of the product if you purchase it used.

But here's my counterpoint to all of the befuddlement. The companies don't call these things products anymore, but licenses (so they can seize them at will from people who paid for them). How can you steal something that you can't own in the first place?

The idea that piracy is stealing is so foreign to me.

It's literally the definition. Do you think pirates were invited on board to take a ship's volume of goods without compensation? I'm at a loss how you believe the acquisition of something with a price tag on it without paying for it is not theft.

Your Shakespearian example is very clearly theft. If you sit down at a theater and transcribe the entire show then produce the exact same show, you have stolen intellectual property. What example of "copycat movies" are you considering? I've never heard of such a thing nor can I comprehend how it might exist. If someone is literally copying the exact same movie, if someone is producing a movie with the exact same script, it's theft. Intellectual Property is a thing that can be stolen (hint, it's in the second word).

You're right in regard to licensing. We no longer purchase a product but a license to consume that product for a period of time. This was established in the DMCA as media moved from physical to digital formats. When you buy a DVD, you purchase the license to view the content on that medium. If you sell or give away that medium, you are transferring that license to the new owner. There's a company called Kaleidescape that takes all your physical movies and rips them to a local server. You have to sign an agreement that confirms you own a physical copy of that movie and if you give that movie away you must delete the file from your server. So, you can watch the movie however you like on whatever medium you like, provided you've paid for and currently hold the rights to that license.

I'd like you to further explain your philosophy of original content being of no value and everything being free.

I can't count how many times I have to explain to people that etymological roots of words are not a foundation for an argument. The term "Piracy" was adopted by movie studios back when it wasn't really illegal... the same ones who also tried to make used media illegal (and eventually succeeded in a way).

Your Shakespearian example is very clearly theft

Except it's not, nor was it ever. Here's my metric. Anyone more property-focused than Adam Smith is wrong by default. If you're more capitalist than the founder of capitalism, maybe you have a problem. It's like Marx looking at someone and going "OMG is he too communist for me".

@oxjox @vis4valentine

I'm not bashing you, just pointing out our differences, but I think it's really interesting that you say "me enjoying it ... has zero impact on the content creators" but you also think you SHOULD feel bad for it and that it's wrong.

My view (that cannot possibly be theft) *feels* natural to me, and your viewpoint (if I tried to have it myself) would feel way more like "rationalizing" or "justifying".

Also you're right, public libraries rock :)

Just because I know something is wrong does not mean I feel bad 🏴‍☠️

Software wise, anything without a demo. The support from companies is dire at the best of times and if something doesn’t work on your system your screwed. In shops you can test the suitability of something by testing it (sitting on a couch, laying on a bed) but with software they take your money and run.

Also anything abandoned is fair game.

It's only ethical if you need the thing you're pirating, which doesn't apply to much. Pirate of you want, but look for ethics elsewhere.

Calling it ethical is a higher bar than calling it ethically acceptable. Ethically acceptable is a higher bar than practically acceptable.

If you are factually incapable of getting it otherwise, it is ethically acceptable. If, at the same time, you need the material, it is ethical.

Without the need and unavailability or unavailability, I would always be careful about calling it ethical - I would not call it ethical.

In those cases it is at least subjective and a weighing of various morals, costs, need or desire, and practicality. (By pirating you are a beneficiary without supporting the thing - which one should at least be aware of and weigh.)

I have never heard this take and I really like the framing. Going to borrow this

If I’ve paid for it once, but the Powers That Be make it unavailable or want to charge again to continue using it, I have no problem with finding a copy that works to make my purchase whole.

Pirating anything from nintendo since they won’t release anything from the gamecube era and the new games never drop in price.

It generally comes down to convenience of access mixed with some ethical consideration for me personally. Out of print books, textbooks, and history or research titles that are in the hundreds I’m simply not going to buy. I use JSTOR where I can, but will get academic research as I need if it’s not readily available. I tend not to pirate indie publishers for any media if I can help it. Sometimes I do to check it out before I purchase it. I try to support creators wherever I can, whenever I can. I like that options are available, and I don’t think anything should truly be off limits.

Truly agree, my steam games are mostly indie publisher. Ironically, the games from indie publisher tends to be less buggy then well know 3A titles publisher.

I'm always having bad experience playing those 3A title games (except GoW as I don't see any major bugs). Thus I do not want to support those famous publisher.

The one time I felt truly justified is when I bought quite a few vita games digitally and Sony took me not signing in for a few months as an excuse to wipe my account. They did email but I didn't see it until the account was gone.

So yeah hacked my Vita and downloaded everything I had owned and more.

All piracy is ethical since all information should be free.

I think most anti-piracy arguments are completely ridiculous but your logic is so absolutist that it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine why this could hurt artists/small devs/etc. Not everyone who sells a thing is Walmart.

For me, I mostly rationalize my piracy as something generally unethical that I choose to partake in anyways. People often cite piracy as an issue with the service being provided, but there's just a lot of instances where I'd rather pirate something than pay for it, not because the service is bad, but because "Why pay for something when I can just get it free, eh?"

Though I think there is one specific case where I'd undoubtedly consider piracy ethical, which is for products that are not being sold on the market currently. Take a retro video game for instance. If it isn't being sold by any company, then there is no way to legally play the game apart from getting a secondhand copy. Either way, the company that owns the rights to it won't derive profit, and they aren't involved in secondhand markets whatsoever, so pirating the game effectively results in 0 negative consequences for any party, compared to legally acquiring it.

As long as you're not reselling or appropriating others' creations as your own, everything is ethical.

If the copyright holder no longer provides a legal way to acquire any piece of media directly from them, making it so that the only way to acquire it legally is in a manner that prevents the copyright holder from seeing any profit, and the legal option is essentially a grift where you’re sometimes paying 100x the sticker value for something where the copyright holder won’t see a single cent…

When you are a student and cannot obtain a reasonably priced copy of software- as a company I would see this as a sure fire way to onboard a new generation into my product which will then be paid for with company money later on.

A lot of folk bring up (correctly, imo) indie creators and end up mentioning Stardew Valley as an example - especially within the first couple years of its release. SV as an example has fell off, as it's had it's years to rake in cash.

But I absolutely pirated SV for YEARS, multiple times. I was in a place where I was utterly broke, could not always afford food, and only had internet because of assistance programs. My laptop couldn't run much, not even minecraft at that point. It could, however, run Stardew Valley. So I re-downloaded it multiple times over the handful of hand-me-down hard drives that I used in a laptop that kept frying hard drives. (eyeroll)

I did eventually get to a place financially where I could afford to buy SV, so I did. Then it went on sale on console so I bought it again, knowing I'd never play it (console without the aiming mod is awful), but it helped pay it back how much play time I'd enjoyed back when I couldn't afford the game.

That, to me, is ethical.

For me anything Nintendo is fair game, I also dont bat an eye at any movie or show piracy.

For games if there is no way of buying it new and supporting the developers I’ll just download a ROM. It makes absolutely no difference to the developer or publisher whether I buy it used or pirate it. They aren’t getting any of the money either way.

Or if it’s a PC game and I’m not sure it will run on my system I’ll pirate it and if it runs they get my money.

As for movies and TV if it’s available to buy on physical on DVD, Blu Ray, 4K Blu Ray I’ll buy it. But if it’s only streaming or on VOD I’ll pirate it. There’s been too many cases of purchased content being removed from peoples accounts.

Basically if they want my money it needs to be available to buy brand new in a way that won’t just disappear one day.

If it is a product/software from a large company/corporation/organization that already has "fuck you" levels of money, then I feel it's way more than ethical since a few thousand people pirating their shit will absolutely not cause even the tiniest of cuts in their company for one, and because they treat their customers the same way an extreme germaphobe would treat the world record holder for dirtiest man in the world.

Same goes for any form of college/university textbooks.

Pirating content with the intent to buy it after trying it out using the pirated version (e.G indie games)

i have downloaded tens of thousands of dollars of audio recording software. i always told myself that, if i were to ever make money from my efforts and usage thereof, i would be happy to pay the author.

i never made any money. but i hope the right people got paid by those that did.

I can't really trust that a game is worth the price tag anymore. So I treat piracy as a extended demo. If I feel the fun to price ratio is solid I'll buy the game.

I think the system of Steam letting you try out a game for 2 hours/2 weeks is pretty fair. You can return it without further reasons.

Two hours isn't enough for most games, at least for me. I couldn't count how many games I've plunderer and never touched again after a few hours.

I get you, there are some games where you can barely pass through the tutorial in 2 hours, other games are super complex let's say Paradox strategy games. On the other hand, 2 hours is much more than nothing. And it's hard to balance, think of some indie games where 2 hrs is like 25% of the game, it can be abused easily.

The system is especially useful for shitty games that were hyped but get released as unstable alpha or old games that just won't run on your system for whatever reason. I know, a lot of publishers are pure evil with their release and DLC policies and I can understand people develop anger towards the whole industry. But all in all I think it's a nice-have.

I believe online piracy is the uploading part, not the downloading. I think uploading has a much more narrow use case, but if everyone stopped we wouldn't be able to download.

I stopped going to cinema when the Hollywood movie cartel started messing with freedom on the internet, and I don't feel any remorse pirating Hollywood movies.

When I started earning enough to have disposable income, I made sure to buy ebooks and audiobooks, as well as supporting my favourite musicians on Bandcamp or by buying merch.

I find it's very context dependent. In the 3d model/printables, a lot of people who release the pirated content so a 3-4 month embargo to allow the creator a chance to let people get it legally before it's available everywhere.

Downloading a copy of media or software is just a copy. You can make infinite copies, and you're not taking anything away from the creator for copying it.

Thus all piracy is ethical.

1 more...

Even in the very strict sense of "ethical" (pretty much a simpleton's "Ethics == Law"), I would say that Abandonware is abolutely ethical to pirate.

By its own definition it's software that is not being commercialized anymore, so nobody "loses" (if you use the current intellectual property legislation to defined winning/losing) any copyright income when somebody else copies it without paying them because there are no options for those people to get it by paying - even by the most fantastical definition of it, it's not a "lost sale".

Now, if the copyright owners resume commercialization of it, then it stops being abandonware hence stops being ethical to pirate it under this definition.

That said, for me anything that's outside the copyright length in the original legilsation (14 years) before Disney bought themselves extension after extension until the current "lifetime of the author + 70 years" (which adds up to around 150 years) is absolutelly ethical to pirate (or if you want to ponder on the Ethics of it: "Is it ethical to obbey a Law or a change of it which was bought?!").

Piracy is always ethical unless you undoubtedly show proof that it harmed someone.

I give you a hint: it almost never actually does.

To me it's like buying a physical book, but then downloading a drm version of the ebook.

Hoo boy, opening up a can of worms with this. I'll give the "hot take" here and don't bother replying because I'm not going to be drawn into (another) debate. Feel free to downvote away.

I think most piracy is unethical but it depends on exactly what you're pirating.

The top comment here is about scientific papers. I think that's also totally unethical unless the research is publicly funded. You are not entitled to that information. It usually requires a large amount of funding and wouldn't be possible without it.

I think piracy is okay for items that are otherwise unavailable for purchase, or put behind arbitrary hardware limitations (looking at you Nintendo).

Also I pirate from YouTube (ad blockers) because Google is an incredibly unethical company and the official app is abhorrent and even if you pay for Premium the "official" method of watching videos (YT app) is abhorrent and does not respect any of your input on what you actually want to see. There are unofficial apps made by nerds in their Mom's basement that are 10x better at showing you that, while also respecting your privacy and not logging your activity for use in profiling you and showing ads, so that's what I use. I budget $30/mo to donate directly to my favorite creators on other platforms.

There is no value in spending money anymore, you used to get some long term benefits. You bought movies, music and games for example and got to use them however long you want to. Now you pay significantly more under the guise of: "it's only x amount per month" and own nothing.

For me, something like Spotify is far too expensive, considering i could buy an album from the discount bin for like €2 and play it for a full year until i got slightly bored (you still owned and got to use it after that). Spotify is €11 a month, times 12 compared to a single €2 permanent purchase. I usually only bought one or 2 albums per year.

I'm not saying you need to agree with this, but for me it makes absolutely no sense to pay this much especially when i look at my wage not going up and the cost of living having doubled over the past few years.

I'd like to ask myself the opposite, when is it unethical to pirate? Because it's just data, and how many copies there are of it shouldn't change anything. If I want to support a developer I'd 'buy the product', regardless of already having it or not, and I would never in my life buy a product (Not a service, just the data) just because I cannot get it otherwise. I believe it's pretty much the same for most people that knows how to download pirated content.

But I believe that early leaks are strongly unethical, as you end up interfering in the creative and production process before it's ready. Furthermore, a lot of people whom usually won't pirate will jump at the possibility of doing so just for the hype of getting the product NOW, and maybe will not feel the necessity of buying later. I cannot think any case in which a leak is ethical or even beneficial for anyone, and I'm surprised that I've never seen much push against it by pirates.

I just commented something similar, asking for examples of when piracy is unethical, because I couldn't think of any myself, but your example of leaking is really interesting.

I can see how pirating/leaking an unfinished work could be really harmful to the creator and I know that would feel horrible if it happened to something I'd created.

I'm not sure why there's so much acceptance of (and even enthusiasm for) early leaked unfinished products.

But at the same time, people know that leaks aren't finished so I don't think anyone expects it to be the finished product. And in the case of tears of the kingdom, it was actually already finished so the leak was exactly the same as the game that came out at launch.

We're not entirely rational creatures so even though logically we may know it won't be the finished product, it can still massively impact how something is perceived. First impressions can always make a big difference no matter how much you try to rationalise them away.

I don't know what tears of the kingdom is, to be honest, so I can't comment about that.

Nintendo games getting leaked helps emulator developers to iron out issues before most people start playing. Most recent example is tears of the kingdom.

Well, this is a good example of the leak being beneficial for something, but I still think it's extremely unethical. I think it's pretty fair to have a little patience to play a game that just released, for free, on an emulator.

Everyone wants us to subscribe. This a.m. I listened to some guy on the internet rant about HP shutting down his printer remotely b/c he'd bought a subscription, when he bought the printer (didn't read fine print in contract/TOS--that's another rant), to a certain number of pages/month. His credit card number changed, HP didn't get their tithe, so they remotely disabled his printer. Entertainment moguls suck up all the money in that industry, leaving little for artists--to wit, the strikes--and streaming subscriptions are expensive. Cable prices are ridiculous. Corporate greed and having every subscriber subsidize sports channels probably account for that. Everything costs too much, and my budget is small. Original Star Trek and original Doctor Who were broadcast over the air. In exchange for commercials, we got to watch for free. If I could subscribe to iplayer, that would satisfy my needs. Alas, I don't live in UK, and BBC's arrangements with multinational entertainment corps preclude my subscription. So I pay for a good VPN. That's still more than it used to cost to watch. Tropicana OJ used to have a commercial showing people sticking straws right into an orange to suck its juice. I often feel like the orange. Piracy is ethical.

When I can't buy it in a reasonable way lol

Simply wanting to save money is a valid enough reason to pirate. The only time you should have any second thoughts is if its a product you REALLY want to see more of or if its made by a smaller group that could really use that money.

Even then though, you can always help without spending money. Easiest way is to spread the word.

You enjoyed that game?

Tell others its a good game worth getting. In many cases, that might help more than buying the game and saying nothing about it.

If a product can be offered without much issue on a pay once and own-as-is forever model, then I think there is an ethical imperative to pirate it.

I would be willing to pay a few hundred bucks for a perpetual license to look 2023 version of Adobe Lightroom. Unfortunately the only place to find such a product is on the high seas. Adobe will only let you buy a subscription based equivalent. I like the actual software product, and I've gotten good at using it, but if I can't just buy it, I'm not going to pay for it.

I actually have a plug-in for Lightroom called topaz Labs AI enhancement suite. I pay for a single year's worth of updates, but I can still use the software as of the final update forever. If Adobe actually offered something like that I would be all over it.

There was a television show from another country that I wanted to watch. It wasn't available to stream in my country from the source, and wasn't available on any other streaming platforms. I even tried making an account, but they wouldn't accept my credit card because of the billing address.

Pirating that would be justified; the argument isn't just that, if I can't buy it then I should be allowed to take it, but that if I can take it without causing financial stress on the artists, then it's OK. They are refusing my money, so pirating it wouldn't deprive them of a sale.

I also strongly agree with what others have said, that my ethics require me to purchase something once.

Where I get fuzzy is on the right for producers (studios and distributors) to make profit. Money going to artists is clear to me; and production studios need to fund projects, some if which will fail. But the existing, purely profits-driven, risk-averse, homogenizing movie production industry... I'm not sure I agree that they deserve the lion's share of the profits.

I'll pirate music via Soulseek. If I listen to something a lot I may pay for the music but more likely I'll see them when they tour then buy stuff from their merch table. This is small stage stuff, the big mega acts not so much

I used to be a lot less lenient in the past, but as I've gotten older and DRM and streaming services have gotten worse I've been sailing the high seas more. Now I'll do it if there's no reasonably easy/convenient way to buy it in my country, if the work is old/big enough that nobody creatively involved is going to notice, or if I already bought the same or similar version in the past (such as wanting a movie for my Plex server that I know my parents have on DVD somewhere). Sometimes I'll "acquire" something and end up financially supporting it down the line if I like it.

I do agree with some of the other comments though, that for things like software where there's an alternate FOSS or independent version, I'll go for that. I've begun getting in the habit of donating or paying one-time purchases (such as ad removal) on software I use a lot.

Anything under a proprietary license, never support people who do that

All of it. Piracy is in no way unethical.

I don't think it can be that black and white. You probably have some kind of framework in mind where that makes sense. Otherwise you would be arguing that the very thing you wish to obtain a copy of, should not be rewarded in a way that allows that work to exist. So, is the framework you have in mind some kind of egalitarian world that unfortunately doesn't exist?

It is to me. Most content is corporate generated consumerist garbage anyway so it doesn't matter. Our right to access content is more important than a creator's right to restrict access to it for profit. It's information and ideas. And we are entitled to all information and ideas. I am entitled to it simply because I say so, and if you want me to stop, you'll have to kill me.

It's as simple as that.

You are awfully reductive in your reasoning.

  • Most content is corporate generated consumerist garbage anyway so it doesn’t matter
  • Our right to access content is more important than a creator’s right to restrict access to it for profit
  • It’s information and ideas, and we are entitled to all information simply because I say so

I find none of these statements to be particularly accurate, and as such also your reasoning. I'm sure there are good arguments for it, but the solution and approach you've presented is flawed. I had hoped for something more enlightening. Now, I don't disagree with your ultimate goal or conclusion, it just needs different circumstances than reality currently allows. You either shoot yourself in the foot where creative work dies out, or we manage to create a society where such pursuits are motivated by the art itself and not the gain. But to me, you have not argued that piracy is "ethical", you just make a point of not really caring about the ethical component of it, because the end goal of you getting access to it without making an effort towards the contribution and the sustainability of creating it, is what matters to you.

It's reductive because it's not meant to convince you. It's simply what is. You asked me why I thought it is moral and those are my reasons why, and they're gonna stay that way whether you like it or not. They don't have to be reasonable or sensible or in line with your worldview. You don't have to agree with them. They don't even have to make sense to you. They're MY reasons, and they are valid simply because I hold them, because I say they are, because I decide what's ethical to me and what's not. That's all.

And you have to put up with that whether you want to or not.

I get what you're saying. But, do you get what I'm saying? If someone asks "why is X Y to you", the answer "because it is Y to me", doesn't add much. Now, the OP asked for a reasoning for why it was ethical. You have pretty much said "fuck ethics, I do what I want". And, as you very much point out, you do not care what anyone thinks. Which... I find weird to point out in a discussion forum. FYI, ethics tries to be a little bit more general than "anything I want is by definition ethical to me". I'm sure we're both happy to leave it at that.

No you don't get what I'm saying, because I am explicitly telling you I am not playing your game. My ethics are my personal boundaries, not trivialities up for debate. OP wanted to know what they were, so I shared them. That does not make it open for debate, nor is my refusal to allow it to be put up to debate, up for debate.

Take the hint and go away.

Hard for me to say. In most cases I pirate the game first and only then buy it if I think it's worth the money. Sometimes I finish the game completely on the pirated copy, buy it and never play again. Some games I buy the original game but pirate the dlc since I despise the dlc model.

Hard for me to say. In most cases I pirate the game first and only then buy it if I think it's worth the money. Sometimes I finish the game completely on the pirated copy, buy it and never play again. Some games I buy the original game but pirate the dlc since I despise the dlc model.

Hard for me to say. In most cases I pirate the game first and only then buy it if I think it's worth the money. Sometimes I finish the game completely on the pirated copy, buy it and never play again. Some games I buy the original game but pirate the dlc since I despise the dlc model.