I think there is a difference between a person who is using something to make their life better, and is willing to do what it takes, and one who is using something to waste time for no fucking reason. I guess it is a complex idea for some people.
Oh I see. So you're applying your own moral relativism to maintain the outrage and harm you feel for those that infringe on your copyrights, but support them when they infringe on copyright for the sake of improving themselves. What's the standard for defining what improves a person through the use of content? You're straddling a blurry line there. It could be just as easy to claim that an unpaid game played purely for enjoyment is just as enriching to mankind as is learning from it to attain a new skill. So I don't see how you can justify one and condemn the other. Maybe you're the one that isn't grasping the concept properly?
EarthQuake I hope you understand that we were not talking about what he has done, but rather about his statements about what is and what isn't acceptable piracy.
EarthQuake I hope you understand that we were not talking about what he has done, but rather about his statements about what is and what isn't acceptable piracy.
I see Ninjas' mindset, if someone is going to improve the games industry by pirating games and learning from them THEN get a job in that industry, its no big deal, its pretty much the same thing as pirating 3d software to learn it.
Mr QA pirate COULD just rent games if he wished to study a wide range of games, but then again, renting and buying used doesn't really help the industry either.
Have you ever pirated any professional software? Anything from photoshop to 3ds max to windows?
Did I imply I haven't? And before you derail this discussion you joined let me remind you we were talking about Ninjas statement of (not word for word quote)
"It is acceptable for a person learning to become a QA tester and has a stable job to support himself while doing so, but not for a person to whom 60$ game is the same as 2/3rds of a months pay."
NOTE: Not sure if Ninjas thinks in such a way about people who can't afford games since he didn't respond to that one yet, but I assume he does since they would be
"one who is using something to waste time for no fucking reason."
"It is acceptable for a person learning to become a QA tester and has a stable job to support himself while doing so, but not for a person to whom 60$ game is the same as 2/3rds of a months pay."
This is awesome. You make up some absurd bullshit and put it in quotes like I said it.
My company started the Humble Indie Bundle, where you get to pay what you want.
Before that we were using TrailPay, which allowed people to get our game by signing up for a local deal, bypassing fucked up currency exchange rates entirely.
So while you are making up shit about me, I am actually solving the problems that you are talking about.
People should have the option to pay a fair price in their local currency obviously.
I made it quite clear in my post that it was not in fact a word for word quote nor was I sure it was your end opinion... And just so you know.. Companys ideals don't always mean every worker there shares those ideas.. So no need to get your panties up in a bunch...
The problem with trying to knock down Ninjas arguments by calling them morally relativisticis that it is not.
The morality he's espousing isn't relative at all -- Stealing is universally wrong, and his argument does not claim otherwise. That's the moral portion.
The grey areas creep in when you can justify the cost of doing that bad deed. What an artist does pirating photoshop and what a dork does pirating skyrim are ethically equally bad -- but the artist has arguably good justification to do a bad thing, whereas the dweeb with skyrim just wants to jack off to a power fantasy for cheap.
"The morality he's espousing isn't relative at all -- Stealing is universally wrong, and his argument does not claim otherwise." Holds true only if absolute moral laws exist. And not everyone shares that world view just saying.. (referring to the world view of absolute moral laws existing not meaning to imply stealing is right)
I made it quite clear in my post that it was not in fact a word for word quote nor was I sure it was your end opinion... And just so you know.. Companys ideals don't always mean every worker there shares those ideas.. So no need to get your panties up in a bunch...
Just so you know, when I say "my company" I mean I own a significant part of it.
Look up how to properly paraphrase in English-- quotation marks are reserved for actual quotations in English.
That's reductio ad ridiculum, though, that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about.
If we assume there are no universal moral standards (which may be a valid world view in its own right) than this entire discussion is completely irrelevant, and nothing is true, everything is permitted.
If we assume that there are any universal moral standards then every agreed on morality thinks stealing is pretty wrong.
Just so you know, when I say "my company" I mean I own a significant part of it.
Look up how to properly paraphrase in English-- quotation marks are reserved for actual quotations in English.
Well excuse me for not knowing your name so I wasn't able to check if your statement "my company" held truth but usually I don't automatically hold stock in such statements on online forums. Especially when person in question seems to be taking a discussion about obviously thought provoking matter personally.
And also excuse me for not speaking english as my native language, even though I made it quite clear in the post that it was not a direct quotation. And if you actually would of read the post in whole, you would of catched that.. You know.. It was right after the CAPSed "NOTE".... And in brackets right before the quotation.
If we assume that there are any universal moral standards then every agreed on morality thinks stealing is pretty wrong.
You can't steal data, you can copy and pirate data, but that isn't stealing, 1 copy pirated doesn't equal 1 sale lost. There's an idea that everyone has the right to data use data (and have access to the internet) to learn and better their lives. Information that is not censored or controlled by their government. Piracy for entertainment is different that piracy for personal learning, that can teach them a skill or craft that will better their lives.
The problem with trying to knock down Ninjas arguments by calling them morally relativisticis that it is not.
The morality he's espousing isn't relative at all -- Stealing is universally wrong, and his argument does not claim otherwise. That's the moral portion.
The grey areas creep in when you can justify the cost of doing that bad deed. What an artist does pirating photoshop and what a dork does pirating skyrim are ethically equally bad -- but the artist has arguably good justification to do a bad thing, whereas the dweeb with skyrim just wants to jack off to a power fantasy for cheap.
We're not arguing the morality of whether infringement is stealing or not, we're arguing the contradiction of his comments to the effect that it's okay to infringe 3DS Max, but not okay to a game, unless you're learning to be a QA. It's clearly a double standard.
Here is Ninjas stance in a nutshell:
infringing to learn = acceptable
infringing to enjoy = unacceptable
These are arbitrary and relativistic standards. Either you're completely opposed to infringement or not at all. Saying that some kinds of infringement is okay is no better than the "pirates" who justify what they do for the reasons they often state. Saying it's okay to infringe for learning is no more ethical than saying it's okay you're broke, or the DRM sucks, or you hate the publisher, and so on. It's hypocritical. If the "pirates" aren't allowed to justify their infringement, those that infringe to learn don't deserve to either.
Piracy is the violent assault of cargo vessels for the purpose to capture their goods and sell them on the black market. That is stealing. What people do on the internet is infringement. That is the only term the law actually applies to the act. Anybody who uses "piracy" is trying to use semantics to conflate copying with wholesale theft, which it is not.
I meant no offense by it, I just get sick of the word being thrown around like its fact and feel the need to point out the error in its usage. Sorry if it came off that way. The comment was more for those that misuse it frequently anyway.
That's rather petty. I guess I'm not allowed to speak my mind or I might risk saying something you don't like. I'll check with you before I comment from now on okay?
infringing to learn = acceptable
infringing to enjoy = unacceptable
These are arbitrary and relativistic standards. Either you're completely opposed to infringement or not at all. Saying that some kinds of infringement is okay is no better than the "pirates" who justify what they do for the reasons they often state. Saying it's okay to infringe for learning is no more ethical than saying it's okay you're broke, or the DRM sucks, or you hate the publisher, and so on. It's hypocritical. If the "pirates" aren't allowed to justify their infringement, those that infringe to learn don't deserve to either.
I swear you always pick the shittiest angles to attack arguments from. It's absolutely amazing.
Instead of entertaining that he might have a legitimate point and trying to explore his gray area potential conflicts you attack him for the fact that he even has a gray area in the first place. As if being ideologically rigid is supposed to be a good thing. Or that intent should have no bearing on the acceptability of an action.
Do you ever actually stop to consider the implications of other peoples points of view? Why not just ask him how he feels about pirating materials specifically designed to train and educate people for their careers, say for example Xoliul's Dozer Part 2 DVD? If he says that's not okay then he's given you a real double standard without you having to desperately try to make this one fit. If he says yes he's stuck in the awkward position of endorsing piracy of a direct peers product. In either scenario he has to offer more counter-arguments to support his point. But instead you just stop the conversation at his first counterpoint and declare victory because his opinion has a "blurred line" in it.
In contrast, it seems like your opinions are frequently SO black and white that you get hung up on trying to prove the other guy is always 100% wrong instead of actually considering maybe he has a valid point that still has problems. As evidenced by the fact that you're now trying to argue over the definitions of words, seemingly because the same word can't ever have two different meanings, since there are no inconsistencies, contradictions, gray areas, or blurred lines allowed in your world view.
I swear you always pick the shittiest angles to attack arguments from. It's absolutely amazing.
Instead of entertaining that he might have a legitimate point and trying to explore his gray area potential conflicts you attack him for the fact that he even has a gray area in the first place. As if being ideologically rigid is supposed to be a good thing. Or that intent should have no bearing on the acceptability of an action.
Do you ever actually stop to consider the implications of other peoples points of view? Why not just ask him how he feels about pirating materials specifically designed to train and educate people for their careers, say for example Xoliul's Dozer Part 2 DVD? If he says that's not okay then he's given you a real double standard without you having to desperately try to make this one fit. If he says yes he's stuck in the awkward position of endorsing piracy of a direct peers product. In either scenario he has to offer more counter-arguments to support his point. But instead you just stop the conversation at his first counterpoint and declare victory because his opinion has a "blurred line" in it.
In contrast, it seems like your opinions are frequently SO black and white that you get hung up on trying to prove the other guy is always 100% wrong instead of actually considering maybe he has a valid point that still has problems. As evidenced by the fact that you're now trying to argue over the definitions of words, seemingly because the same word can't ever have two different meanings, since there are no inconsistencies, contradictions, gray areas, or blurred lines allowed in your world view.
The point is, there's no way to justify one form of infringement over the other. It's contradictory to a stance that condemns infringement in one form, yet gives it justification in another. The difference between the two are completely arbitrary. It could just as easily be argued the other way around.
There's an amendment in our constitution that says the law must be applied equally to all and I think that it's unethical to apply a law to some and not all based on arbitrary justifications. Either it applies to all or no one. You don't get to apply the law to things you don't like and then ignore the things that you have no issue with. So I guess I do take a black and white stance in this instance.
It's nothing to do with what you say Greevar. It's how you say it. You are trying to win a debate. The lingo, the way you say things....You are not trying to learn, you are not trying to change anything. You are trying to win an argument.
That's right. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest because you are a hardheaded self righteous prick who will only accept what they think to be correct.
The point is, there's no way to justify one form of infringement over the other. It's contradictory to a stance that condemns infringement in one form, yet gives it justification in another. The difference between the two are completely arbitrary. It could just as easily be argued the other way around.
There's an amendment in our constitution that says the law must be applied equally to all and I think that it's unethical to apply a law to some and not all based on arbitrary justifications. Either it applies to all or no one. You don't get to apply the law to things you don't like and then ignore the things that you have no issue with. So I guess I do take a black and white stance in this instance.
Is that why crimes have sentencing guidelines that scale based on the circumstances of the case? Is that why there are multiple different levels of offense for killing another person, all based on intent and circumstances? Is that why self defense is a valid justification for killing another person? Is that why marijuana is illegal in California -- unless it's given to someone to use it medicinally?
Intent and circumstances don't just matter in the legal system, they are arguably the most important aspect of it. It's the difference between being acquitted and getting the death sentence. Relativity is EVERYWHERE in the judicial system by design.
There's a reason there's 4 degrees of murder, its because it isn't a black and white issue.
First Degree Murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony Murder is typically first degree.[5]
Second Degree Murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.[6]
Voluntary Manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[7]
Involuntary Manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions.[8]
obviously infringement has different levels of degrees, you could separate them like "personal learning use, personal entertainment, distributing for free, selling for profit, clamming someone else's work as your own" etc, and you could argue each one of those is different, and should have different punishments.
It's nothing to do with what you say Greevar. It's how you say it. You are trying to win a debate. The lingo, the way you say things....You are not trying to learn, you are not trying to change anything. You are trying to win an argument.
That's right. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest because you are a hardheaded self righteous prick who will only accept what they think to be correct.
You will never grow this way.
I'm trying to point out an error in logic and gross misconceptions that leads people to form a negative opinion about an issue that is predominantly biased. The propagation of this attitude is creating very damaging behavior for the freedom of culture. Do I have biases? I'm sure I do, but I'm trying to point out how entitled the entertainment industry is with their belief that they are somehow special and are not subject to the laws of reality. It's wrong for those to hold the attitude that they can control and condemn those that share information when it's the very thing that enables us to learn, grow, and expand what it means to be human.
We are copying machines that use copying machines that enable us to access more information to copy and learn from. Games, music, movies, stories, art, performance, etc. are not things that you can put into a box and call them a product. They are all forms of communication and expression. Calling them a product is no different than calling an idle conversation a product and then equating them with property as if you can own speech. Getting pissed off at someone who shares one of those expressions to another and demands that they be punished under accusations of "theft" is demanding the power to censor people. Censorship for the purpose of profit is a low and despicable form of censorship.
The reality is, that the business was built around an impotent legal abstract that relied on nobody realizing that they can just make copies with their own tools. Had they built their business around the labor required to create new art, they'd have been much better off.
Throwing around the terms piracy and theft is completely dishonest.
I'm sorry if my opinions offend people and I make no illusion that my position isn't rigid.
Is that why crimes have sentencing guidelines that scale based on the circumstances of the case? Is that why there are multiple different levels of offense for killing another person, all based on intent and circumstances? Is that why self defense is a valid justification for killing another person? Is that why marijuana is illegal in California -- unless it's given to someone to use it medicinally?
That's a false comparison. There isn't a level of murder that allows the offender to go free, nor does anyone say that it should, and self-defense is not murder. All controlled substances (i.e. medicinal narcotics) are illegal to possess without a prescription, not just pot. Individual infringement for one reason is the same as another.
That's a false comparison. There isn't a level of murder that allows the offender to go free, nor does anyone say that it should, and self-defense is not murder.
Being acquitted of murder on the premise of self-defense is essentially being set free. The end result is the same, you killed another person. What's the difference?
Oh right. The difference is the circumstances.
And yet here you are arguing that people should apply their views of piracy without consideration of the circumstances. Because to consider the circumstances and apply the law differently would be a double standard.
It's quite a valid comparison.
If you still think it's not a valid comparison then just answer me this: Do you think it is justifiable to kill another person in self defense?
That's a false comparison. There isn't a level of murder that allows the offender to go free, nor does anyone say that it should, and self-defense is not murder. All controlled substances (i.e. medicinal narcotics) are illegal to possess without a prescription, not just pot. Individual infringement for one reason is the same as another.
Assisted suicide.
Also, all controlled substance means is that use is regulated by a government. Caffeine, alcohol, tobacco are just as much drugs as pot or cocaine, its another gray scale. A drug is anything that alters normal bodily function. Even sugar can be classified as a drug because it causes cravings and addictions.
Being acquitted of murder on the premise of self-defense is essentially being set free. The end result is the same, you killed another person. What's the difference?
Oh right. The difference is the circumstances.
And yet here you are arguing that people should apply their views of piracy without consideration of the circumstances. Because to consider the circumstances and apply the law differently would be a double standard.
It's quite a valid comparison.
If you still think it's not a valid comparison then just answer me this: Do you think it is justifiable to kill another person in self defense?
Killing another human being is not the same as murder.
"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being"
-Wikipedia
Killing in self-defense is not a malicious act. It is a defensive act. There is no intent to kill without the threat of imminent danger. If someone is released because it was self-defense, that means it was not murder.
Assisted suicide is not murder. So there are some laws that aren't applied equally. That doesn't negate my point, it just means they're unconstitutional.
You're conflating drugs with narcotics. It is always illegal to possess narcotics without a prescription, but not all drugs are illegal because they aren't all inherently harmful. But nobody gets to bypass the law against it due to circumstances.
Anyway, Ninjas's stance on infringement that is acceptable and unacceptable is akin to allowing murder if the victim is white, but not black. Or theft of property is okay because the victim is rich, not poor. That is what logic he is advocating and I think it's hypocritical. It's the same type of logic that some of the so-called pirates use. I can respect a stance where one says you shouldn't infringe at all, because it's illegal. At least that's being consistent. He's making up his own standards to fit his own opinions.
Now, I know you're going to say that my standard is crafted to fit my opinions. However, my stance is that the law is completely wrong and should be opposed, not that it's okay here, but not there. It should be the business's responsibility to form a case model and business model for the constraints of reality and adapt to it, not create laws to adapt reality to their business model. Nor should they make disparaging public remarks toward those that understand that reality with the intent of turning public opinion against them. I don't mean simply people that want free games. I mean people that want to take culture and remix it into a new creation that bears their own interpretation of source material. If Disney can copy "Snow White", then I should be able to copy theirs and integrate it into my own version.
As my signature says:
All art is derivative. There is no form of art that is totally original... 'originality' is a modern art construct... a silly concession to marketing concerns. - Paul deMarrais
You can't claim ownership of the expression of ideas, because the intellectual sources you used to create it are the common property of all human kind. I'm sure I'm not winning any friends here with this comment, but I am looking at how things will some day be, not as they are.
I'm just going to skip to the end and ignore your response to my very obviously leading question because it's irrelevant anyway:
Ninjas's stance on infringement that is acceptable and unacceptable is akin to allowing murder if the victim is white, but not black. Or theft of property is okay because the victim is rich, not poor.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in my conversations with you, this is a complete strawman. You've misrepresented his entire argument by focusing on the victim here which is a total 180 from your post earlier on this very page where you correctly identified "intent" as the key distinction in his argument, now you're claiming the victim is the key distinction in order to fulfil this nonsensical analogy.
If the analogy of killing black vs. white people were true, his argument would have read "It's okay to pirate steam games but not humble indie bundle games" But that's not the point he made. The point he made was focused on the intentions of the person, not the victim.
What makes killing in self defense different from killing for any other reason? The intent is different.
What makes pirating for education different from pirating for any other reason? The intent is different.
It is virtually the exact same argument, you can split hairs all day by drawing distinctions between murder and homicide but it all boils down to a justification by intent. By accepting that you can justify killing someone in self defense, you are accepting that circumstances are important to action and by extension circumstances should be important to other things as well. So why not software piracy?
I'm just going to skip to the end and ignore your response to my very obviously leading question because it's irrelevant anyway:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in my conversations with you, this is a complete strawman. You've misrepresented his entire argument by focusing on the victim here which is a total 180 from your post earlier on this very page where you correctly identified "intent" as the key distinction in his argument, now you're claiming the victim is the key distinction in order to fulfil this nonsensical analogy.
If the analogy of killing black vs. white people were true, his argument would have read "It's okay to pirate steam games but not humble indie bundle games" But that's not the point he made. The point he made was focused on the intentions of the person, not the victim.
What makes killing in self defense different from killing for any other reason? The intent is different.
What makes pirating for education different from pirating for any other reason? The intent is different.
It is virtually the exact same argument, you can split hairs all day by drawing distinctions between murder and homicide but it all boils down to a justification by intent. By accepting that you can justify killing someone in self defense, you are accepting that circumstances are important to action and by extension circumstances should be important to other things as well. So why not software piracy?
Fine, I clearly misused the analogy. I should use the analogy that murdering someone for food is okay, but murdering for malice is not. Neither which of those are justifiable, neither is infringement for education over enjoyment. Yes, the intent is different, but it doesn't justify it as he seems to claim.
I guess I just don't like his idea that infringement for one reason is okay and another is not just because he has more respect for the intent of one over the other. I think it's arbitrary and unfair to apply in such a way. Law was never meant to be applied like that. That's why I don't like the application of fair use either. It says one intent is permitted and another is not. He might think his distinction is acceptable, but it's an unfair distinction. If you infringe copyright, it's no more "okay" to do it for learning than it is for entertainment. If you want to justify one intent, you should accept that you must allow for all. Whether or not they merit an exception is purely an opinion.
I may disagree that it's morally or ethically wrong to download software for without compensating the author, but I do agree that it is illegal for whatever the reason. It is my opinion that the law be changed in a manner that requires the entertainment publishing industry to adapt their business model to something that doesn't rely on a special government-granted monopoly privilege. Monopolies are dangerous and destructive. They should be opposed without distinction. Rigid? Maybe, but it's to protect the liberty of art and freedom of expression.
Replies
Oh I see. So you're applying your own moral relativism to maintain the outrage and harm you feel for those that infringe on your copyrights, but support them when they infringe on copyright for the sake of improving themselves. What's the standard for defining what improves a person through the use of content? You're straddling a blurry line there. It could be just as easy to claim that an unpaid game played purely for enjoyment is just as enriching to mankind as is learning from it to attain a new skill. So I don't see how you can justify one and condemn the other. Maybe you're the one that isn't grasping the concept properly?
Have fun with your meaningless argument on the internet!
Hehe, the best part about this:
A. Ninja's actually does make DRM free games.
B. I've seen his massive pile of legitimate content creation software that he actually paid for.
I hope you guys see the irony in going after him for being a "hypocrite".
This.
I see Ninjas' mindset, if someone is going to improve the games industry by pirating games and learning from them THEN get a job in that industry, its no big deal, its pretty much the same thing as pirating 3d software to learn it.
Mr QA pirate COULD just rent games if he wished to study a wide range of games, but then again, renting and buying used doesn't really help the industry either.
Have you ever pirated any professional software? Anything from photoshop to 3ds max to windows?
"It is acceptable for a person learning to become a QA tester and has a stable job to support himself while doing so, but not for a person to whom 60$ game is the same as 2/3rds of a months pay."
NOTE: Not sure if Ninjas thinks in such a way about people who can't afford games since he didn't respond to that one yet, but I assume he does since they would be
"one who is using something to waste time for no fucking reason."
This is awesome. You make up some absurd bullshit and put it in quotes like I said it.
My company started the Humble Indie Bundle, where you get to pay what you want.
Before that we were using TrailPay, which allowed people to get our game by signing up for a local deal, bypassing fucked up currency exchange rates entirely.
So while you are making up shit about me, I am actually solving the problems that you are talking about.
People should have the option to pay a fair price in their local currency obviously.
The problem with trying to knock down Ninjas arguments by calling them morally relativisticis that it is not.
The morality he's espousing isn't relative at all -- Stealing is universally wrong, and his argument does not claim otherwise. That's the moral portion.
The grey areas creep in when you can justify the cost of doing that bad deed. What an artist does pirating photoshop and what a dork does pirating skyrim are ethically equally bad -- but the artist has arguably good justification to do a bad thing, whereas the dweeb with skyrim just wants to jack off to a power fantasy for cheap.
Just so you know, when I say "my company" I mean I own a significant part of it.
Look up how to properly paraphrase in English-- quotation marks are reserved for actual quotations in English.
If we assume there are no universal moral standards (which may be a valid world view in its own right) than this entire discussion is completely irrelevant, and nothing is true, everything is permitted.
If we assume that there are any universal moral standards then every agreed on morality thinks stealing is pretty wrong.
Well excuse me for not knowing your name so I wasn't able to check if your statement "my company" held truth but usually I don't automatically hold stock in such statements on online forums. Especially when person in question seems to be taking a discussion about obviously thought provoking matter personally.
And also excuse me for not speaking english as my native language, even though I made it quite clear in the post that it was not a direct quotation. And if you actually would of read the post in whole, you would of catched that.. You know.. It was right after the CAPSed "NOTE".... And in brackets right before the quotation.
You can't steal data, you can copy and pirate data, but that isn't stealing, 1 copy pirated doesn't equal 1 sale lost. There's an idea that everyone has the right to data use data (and have access to the internet) to learn and better their lives. Information that is not censored or controlled by their government. Piracy for entertainment is different that piracy for personal learning, that can teach them a skill or craft that will better their lives.
We're not arguing the morality of whether infringement is stealing or not, we're arguing the contradiction of his comments to the effect that it's okay to infringe 3DS Max, but not okay to a game, unless you're learning to be a QA. It's clearly a double standard.
Here is Ninjas stance in a nutshell:
infringing to learn = acceptable
infringing to enjoy = unacceptable
These are arbitrary and relativistic standards. Either you're completely opposed to infringement or not at all. Saying that some kinds of infringement is okay is no better than the "pirates" who justify what they do for the reasons they often state. Saying it's okay to infringe for learning is no more ethical than saying it's okay you're broke, or the DRM sucks, or you hate the publisher, and so on. It's hypocritical. If the "pirates" aren't allowed to justify their infringement, those that infringe to learn don't deserve to either.
@ZacD
Piracy is the violent assault of cargo vessels for the purpose to capture their goods and sell them on the black market. That is stealing. What people do on the internet is infringement. That is the only term the law actually applies to the act. Anybody who uses "piracy" is trying to use semantics to conflate copying with wholesale theft, which it is not.
I meant no offense by it, I just get sick of the word being thrown around like its fact and feel the need to point out the error in its usage. Sorry if it came off that way. The comment was more for those that misuse it frequently anyway.
@Esprite
That's rather petty. I guess I'm not allowed to speak my mind or I might risk saying something you don't like. I'll check with you before I comment from now on okay?
Let's just lock this thread. It's turning nasty.
Instead of entertaining that he might have a legitimate point and trying to explore his gray area potential conflicts you attack him for the fact that he even has a gray area in the first place. As if being ideologically rigid is supposed to be a good thing. Or that intent should have no bearing on the acceptability of an action.
Do you ever actually stop to consider the implications of other peoples points of view? Why not just ask him how he feels about pirating materials specifically designed to train and educate people for their careers, say for example Xoliul's Dozer Part 2 DVD? If he says that's not okay then he's given you a real double standard without you having to desperately try to make this one fit. If he says yes he's stuck in the awkward position of endorsing piracy of a direct peers product. In either scenario he has to offer more counter-arguments to support his point. But instead you just stop the conversation at his first counterpoint and declare victory because his opinion has a "blurred line" in it.
In contrast, it seems like your opinions are frequently SO black and white that you get hung up on trying to prove the other guy is always 100% wrong instead of actually considering maybe he has a valid point that still has problems. As evidenced by the fact that you're now trying to argue over the definitions of words, seemingly because the same word can't ever have two different meanings, since there are no inconsistencies, contradictions, gray areas, or blurred lines allowed in your world view.
The point is, there's no way to justify one form of infringement over the other. It's contradictory to a stance that condemns infringement in one form, yet gives it justification in another. The difference between the two are completely arbitrary. It could just as easily be argued the other way around.
There's an amendment in our constitution that says the law must be applied equally to all and I think that it's unethical to apply a law to some and not all based on arbitrary justifications. Either it applies to all or no one. You don't get to apply the law to things you don't like and then ignore the things that you have no issue with. So I guess I do take a black and white stance in this instance.
That's right. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest because you are a hardheaded self righteous prick who will only accept what they think to be correct.
You will never grow this way.
Intent and circumstances don't just matter in the legal system, they are arguably the most important aspect of it. It's the difference between being acquitted and getting the death sentence. Relativity is EVERYWHERE in the judicial system by design.
obviously infringement has different levels of degrees, you could separate them like "personal learning use, personal entertainment, distributing for free, selling for profit, clamming someone else's work as your own" etc, and you could argue each one of those is different, and should have different punishments.
I'm trying to point out an error in logic and gross misconceptions that leads people to form a negative opinion about an issue that is predominantly biased. The propagation of this attitude is creating very damaging behavior for the freedom of culture. Do I have biases? I'm sure I do, but I'm trying to point out how entitled the entertainment industry is with their belief that they are somehow special and are not subject to the laws of reality. It's wrong for those to hold the attitude that they can control and condemn those that share information when it's the very thing that enables us to learn, grow, and expand what it means to be human.
We are copying machines that use copying machines that enable us to access more information to copy and learn from. Games, music, movies, stories, art, performance, etc. are not things that you can put into a box and call them a product. They are all forms of communication and expression. Calling them a product is no different than calling an idle conversation a product and then equating them with property as if you can own speech. Getting pissed off at someone who shares one of those expressions to another and demands that they be punished under accusations of "theft" is demanding the power to censor people. Censorship for the purpose of profit is a low and despicable form of censorship.
The reality is, that the business was built around an impotent legal abstract that relied on nobody realizing that they can just make copies with their own tools. Had they built their business around the labor required to create new art, they'd have been much better off.
Throwing around the terms piracy and theft is completely dishonest.
I'm sorry if my opinions offend people and I make no illusion that my position isn't rigid.
That's a false comparison. There isn't a level of murder that allows the offender to go free, nor does anyone say that it should, and self-defense is not murder. All controlled substances (i.e. medicinal narcotics) are illegal to possess without a prescription, not just pot. Individual infringement for one reason is the same as another.
Oh right. The difference is the circumstances.
And yet here you are arguing that people should apply their views of piracy without consideration of the circumstances. Because to consider the circumstances and apply the law differently would be a double standard.
It's quite a valid comparison.
If you still think it's not a valid comparison then just answer me this: Do you think it is justifiable to kill another person in self defense?
Assisted suicide.
Also, all controlled substance means is that use is regulated by a government. Caffeine, alcohol, tobacco are just as much drugs as pot or cocaine, its another gray scale. A drug is anything that alters normal bodily function. Even sugar can be classified as a drug because it causes cravings and addictions.
Killing another human being is not the same as murder.
"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being"
-Wikipedia
Killing in self-defense is not a malicious act. It is a defensive act. There is no intent to kill without the threat of imminent danger. If someone is released because it was self-defense, that means it was not murder.
The comparison is invalid.
@ZacD
Assisted suicide is not murder. So there are some laws that aren't applied equally. That doesn't negate my point, it just means they're unconstitutional.
You're conflating drugs with narcotics. It is always illegal to possess narcotics without a prescription, but not all drugs are illegal because they aren't all inherently harmful. But nobody gets to bypass the law against it due to circumstances.
Anyway, Ninjas's stance on infringement that is acceptable and unacceptable is akin to allowing murder if the victim is white, but not black. Or theft of property is okay because the victim is rich, not poor. That is what logic he is advocating and I think it's hypocritical. It's the same type of logic that some of the so-called pirates use. I can respect a stance where one says you shouldn't infringe at all, because it's illegal. At least that's being consistent. He's making up his own standards to fit his own opinions.
Now, I know you're going to say that my standard is crafted to fit my opinions. However, my stance is that the law is completely wrong and should be opposed, not that it's okay here, but not there. It should be the business's responsibility to form a case model and business model for the constraints of reality and adapt to it, not create laws to adapt reality to their business model. Nor should they make disparaging public remarks toward those that understand that reality with the intent of turning public opinion against them. I don't mean simply people that want free games. I mean people that want to take culture and remix it into a new creation that bears their own interpretation of source material. If Disney can copy "Snow White", then I should be able to copy theirs and integrate it into my own version.
As my signature says:
All art is derivative. There is no form of art that is totally original... 'originality' is a modern art construct... a silly concession to marketing concerns. - Paul deMarrais
You can't claim ownership of the expression of ideas, because the intellectual sources you used to create it are the common property of all human kind. I'm sure I'm not winning any friends here with this comment, but I am looking at how things will some day be, not as they are.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in my conversations with you, this is a complete strawman. You've misrepresented his entire argument by focusing on the victim here which is a total 180 from your post earlier on this very page where you correctly identified "intent" as the key distinction in his argument, now you're claiming the victim is the key distinction in order to fulfil this nonsensical analogy.
If the analogy of killing black vs. white people were true, his argument would have read "It's okay to pirate steam games but not humble indie bundle games" But that's not the point he made. The point he made was focused on the intentions of the person, not the victim.
What makes killing in self defense different from killing for any other reason? The intent is different.
What makes pirating for education different from pirating for any other reason? The intent is different.
It is virtually the exact same argument, you can split hairs all day by drawing distinctions between murder and homicide but it all boils down to a justification by intent. By accepting that you can justify killing someone in self defense, you are accepting that circumstances are important to action and by extension circumstances should be important to other things as well. So why not software piracy?
Fine, I clearly misused the analogy. I should use the analogy that murdering someone for food is okay, but murdering for malice is not. Neither which of those are justifiable, neither is infringement for education over enjoyment. Yes, the intent is different, but it doesn't justify it as he seems to claim.
I guess I just don't like his idea that infringement for one reason is okay and another is not just because he has more respect for the intent of one over the other. I think it's arbitrary and unfair to apply in such a way. Law was never meant to be applied like that. That's why I don't like the application of fair use either. It says one intent is permitted and another is not. He might think his distinction is acceptable, but it's an unfair distinction. If you infringe copyright, it's no more "okay" to do it for learning than it is for entertainment. If you want to justify one intent, you should accept that you must allow for all. Whether or not they merit an exception is purely an opinion.
I may disagree that it's morally or ethically wrong to download software for without compensating the author, but I do agree that it is illegal for whatever the reason. It is my opinion that the law be changed in a manner that requires the entertainment publishing industry to adapt their business model to something that doesn't rely on a special government-granted monopoly privilege. Monopolies are dangerous and destructive. They should be opposed without distinction. Rigid? Maybe, but it's to protect the liberty of art and freedom of expression.
Thanks for playing