Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

  SOPA is an organization that stands for Stop Online Piracy Acts. In March 19th, if they don't have enough signatures for the petition, then, SOPA will ban fan art, fanfiction, fanmade stuff, things like that! It'll be illegal! Whole websites will be deleted because they're dedicated to fanfiction and fan art and stuff.

  I'm not sure if it's true, but if it is, fanfiction is doomed. We need about 11,000 more votes and March 19th is coming soon... Here's the link. Sign up for the website and stop SOPA! Please! If it's fake, that's a relief, but if it's not... Well... Let's just say that it's much safer to vote against SOPA!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-sopa-2014/q0Vkk0Zr

It's been protested and shot down ages ago by a year and two months.

You're late to the party, everyone's left.

Okay then! Phew! I'm always late! But... about Acta...

...if anything, get more concerned about the energy and sustenance crises happening globally, and the company-policy-like laws in other countries.  Even if the US falls, I don't want this world to end up like the one in Wall-E where government and company or synonymous.

Thorium ftw :D

In space or in underground Mid West US

This is horrible news! Now people will actually have to be creative and make up their own stories and characters! The HORROR!!!

... Oh wait, it's finished now. Yey! Stealing popular children's characters and using them to make yaoi porn is still legal! Praise the Lord! ^_^

Hahaha, my thoughts exactly!

We seem to be some of the very few people who like the idea of stopping online piracy.

>.>

See, the issue, from what I've heard/read, is that SOPA would allow the American government to shut down any website that were  just linked on a blog once, or some troll or a teenager who thought he was being helpful decided to pull up on say, CYS. And then... Well, a maximum of 5 years imprisonment wouldn't be what Alexp would be expecting for when he logs on ;P

Yeah, that's true. Plus I don't see anything wrong with fan art anyway. So long as people aren't making a profit from it, I don't see why the original creators would be bothered.

Well, the works can positively or negatively affect the image of the original creators but yes, I see your point.

Some websites however are so full of Piracy that they deserved to be shut down.
Let's face it, file sharing sites are not designed for or used for coworkers to share meeting minutes, or for some wannabe filmmaker to share his new creation. These sites are designed for active pirates.

They should stop whining about the fact that the law applies online too, and thank the heavens that they aren't being hung, drawn and quartered like the old school Pirates were!

This ofcourse assumes that theres anything wrong with piracy. Just because it is illegal does not make it immoral after all. 

It's stealing lol. 'Moral relativism' aside, it's immoral as far as I see :P

Exactly, even is you make another copy, so the original one never disappears, it's still an alternative form of stealing!

I personally think that any large scale piracy should receive punishment and rehabilitation to exactly the same stealing in the offline world.

Uhh... It kind of is immoral. The film industry loses loads of money 'cos people aren't buying DVDs anymore, they just watch everything illegally online.

That depends on your definition of intellectual property rights... I've no intent on starting a political debate on a site that isn't about politics, as out of hand as they often get, but I was just pointing out that not everyone agrees that it is stealing. Some people, myself included, see it as literally no different than libraries. Just on a bigger scale maybe. 

People work hard at something, they sell it, you get it for free and they don't even get credit. Do you really have no qualms about that? >.<

No I don't. I get it for free, but whoever uploaded it originally paid for it. That means they bought it. Now, to someone like me who sees property rights as absolute (if you own it, you own it completely and can do literally anything you want with it) that means that they then had the right to make copies of it and distribute them however they wanted. And they chose to upload it for free online. Besides, your money argument, it's not like they don't still make a massive profit off of it! Just not on DvD sales. Franchises, movie theaters, tv speacials, and yes, even some dvd sales still. I mean hell, just an example, the movie "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" grossed over a BILLION dollars world wide.  

 

That being said, if the companies want to embed anti piracy software in the movies they sell, fine go for it. They have the right to make their product any way they want. Or they could find some incentive or something to make buying it more attractive. But stopping piracy is entirely up to them, morally speaking. Once it leaves their possesion, the buyer has the right to use it however they decide to. 

Even if they embed anti-piracy software in the movies they sell, people will find a way to get around it xD heck, they could just film it off of their T.V. screen with an HDMI adapter and a computer, there's not a good way of stopping that.

So I think your partially right, the movies made make millions and billions of dollars anyways, but not everyone in the movie-making business is being paid a million dollars. That's where the anti-piracy arguments start, with the people who are in the film making business that aren't being paid over minimum wage such as prop-artists or costume designers for background extras in movies.

they make millions and billions of dollars already. What makes anyone think that by even say, doubling that, any of it will trickle down to the people who are not being paid well already? And you're right, you can always find a way around whatever they do to stop you. Never said that you couldn't. But they can make it hard if they want is what I meant. Regardless of the fact that they can't make it impossible, the main reason I think it is not immoral is because of the property rights thing I was just talking about. 

Those 'property rights' are contradicting copy rights. "..only the producer of the product or service that is bound by a patent or right may copy, distribute, or give permission to distribute the product." - CopyRight Law since 1979. "Under the FAIR USE section may the producer not give the correct distribution rights, but must be credited for the creation of the work and their contributions.." Fair use section of copyright law (in an understandable term [seems legal documents have to have really hard to understand grammar])

"..any of it will trickle down to the people who are not being paid well already?" It does, the more the movie makes - the more responsibility the producers and directors have to pay their workers. It's the people who aren't being paid the amount they're supposed to be paid because the movie hasn't made enough money to fill everyone's salary. Keep in mind it's not a year-round job, so people have to survive on a couple minimum wage payments over the course of 3months to a year. Also the amount of money to produce the film with all the mistakes people make costing more and more money and out-of-pocket expenses for the industry to survive, they have a reason they need millions and billions of dollars. If they don't make the money, then the first people to be paid are the 'talent' and the directors, everyone else is second or third to be paid for their work on the movie. That's why there are credits at the end of the movie, so that the movie makers can't be sued for not giving credit to everyone involved.

So pirate movies is illegal and immoral because you are downing the income of lower-class workers that are needed for the industry and society to run smoothly. Not because you are downing the income of directors and actors(or actresses). Although many people will still break copyright laws and watch whatever they want for free, it is frowned upon in society. It's not a top priority for government agencies (unless they really have nothing to do), because if it was a priority - anyone who watched a movie for free would be arrested because they are sharing the producers work without permission.

SOPA and PIPA (which is the subject of the original post) was to protect the product producers, although they were severely wrong because the way they formatted the bills/laws meant that anyone could be arrested for even talking about the film/product.

So in my opinion, I find it all a bit useless for large scale movies, but for smaller sub-industries in the entertainment industry, it goes a long way to protect their product and ideas. And the majority IS the small lesser known producers/directors, although the large movie franchises would love to protect their ideas with extremely strict copyright, they know that people will still have it for free no matter what they do - so they just move on with their lives.

That of course, assumes that copy rights are a valid form of property right. Property rights supersede copy rights as no matter how you figure it, copy rights are a part of property rights (if they are a valid right, which is not something everyone agrees on) The law says it is immoral, but the law at the time also said that Hitler's actions were moral. In an argument of morality, the law is not a valid source.

 

As for the downing the income of the bottom, if that is really the way it is done, then the problem lies not with piracy, but with the structure of the pay scale. If they are not getting paid, then they need to be paid if the movie does not make enough (as I understood it) than something needs to be done to make the studios keep their end of the bargain.  

 

(as for the credits bit, I THINK that was in response to my saying that they still got just as much credit? i'm not really sure... but if so, then I would like to remind you that most pirated movies (atleast in my experience) also include the credits. You can watch them just as much then.)

The copyright law was refined in 1979... Hitler died in 1945. I don't think anyone said that Hitler's actions were moral except followers of Hitler. -- -- Copy rights have been known as a valid form of property right for a very long time. Do you live on the internet where there are no laws and any morals are acceptable?

You're right, the structure of the pay scale is wrong. But it's related to the copyright laws being broken, I was displaying that many factors are the cause - but they all relate to piracy. SOPA and PIPA (if they were passed) would create huge problems, but one of the reasons they were thought of was so that the higher ups in film kept their side of the bargain. Insuring that the lower-class of workers in the entertainment industry were paid in full.

Yes most pirated movies have credits, that is to insure if the person distributing the movie is caught, they won't face as many charges. They'll still be arrested, but it won't be AS BAD as if they claimed the movie as their work.

Hitler's followers were the ones who made the law. My point was merely that just because something is legal or illegal does not affect whether it is moral. 

Copy rights have been known as a LEGAL form of copyrights, yes. Valid is not necessarily true. Unless you are saying that I should force myself to follow the morals of the majority? Which I most certainly will not do, what is right is right regardless of the will of the majority. A good example would be racism, which for a long time, was considered perfectly moral by the majority.

I do not live on the internet no, but I AM an anarchist. I do not recognize the law as any valid source of moral conduct. Something is right or wrong based on its own merits, not what some politician says is ok.

 

As for that, it is related in the sense that more money would mean they could afford to pay everyone more and still make a profit yes, but once again, the main reason piracy is not immoral is the rights bit. And I do not think it should be the public's responsibility to ensure that the entertainment industry keeps its bargains, by making sure it makes enough money. The responsibility is not ours.

Ah... I here am for democracy over anarchy in any society. Sometimes the law can be wrong, but I defend the majority morals which are derived from law. I think the problem is my morals are different than yours, it's all a matter of opinion in the end. I'll view copyright my way, and you are entitled to your perspective. Agreed?

Agreed. my intent was just that to begin with actually, I was just trying to let everyone know that not everyone even sees piracy as bad, and try to explain why. Nothing more lol.

And using Hitler and his followers as the definitive example of how corrupt the law is is both fallacious and an irrelevent point to the argument you are having.

-

Something which is valid is something which has a solid basis in logic and fact; which automatically makes it truth. No one is telling you to follow the morals of the majority (misquoting?), they're saying that making someone suffer for your entertainment is a douchey thing to do and so yeah, screw you for doing it. What they are saying is think before you start saying all this shit about how your piracy isn't hurting anyone or how it's perfectly fine to do because you aren't "stealing" anything.

I AM an anarchist.

*Nods head in understanding.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that makes more sense. So you're just deliberately breaking the law because you don't like being told what to do? (I mean, it's incredibly vapid, if you're so simpleminded as to believe that laws and order are not necessary for society to function then man do I want to know what drugs and/or brain damage you need to got through in order to be that deranged.)

I was using Hitler of an example of how corrupt the law CAN BE. Not what it necessarily is. If I were going to say how corupt the law was I would be talking about Monsanto. But since due to their own workings they are not considered eveil by the majority that would be a useless argument.

 

You are correct that something is valid has a solid basis in fact and logic, however some do not consider that copyright has a solid basis in logic and fact. it is a fact that the law says you have this right, that does not mean that you do. 

 

Yes i am an anarchist, no I am not deliberately breaking the law just because I don;t like being told what to do. As for how laws and order are not necessary for human life to function thats a WHOLE 'nother argument I do not want to get into. But an anarchist believes in having no rulers, not necessarily no order. And I would suggest you do research on anarchist political theories before bashing them right out the bat. 

I was using Hitler of an example of how corrupt the law CAN BE. Not what it necessarily is. If I were going to say how corupt the law was I would be talking about Monsanto. But since due to their own workings they are not considered evil by the majority that would be a useless argument.

Yes i am an anarchist, no I am not deliberately breaking the law just because I don;t like being told what to do. As for how laws and order are not necessary for human life to function thats a WHOLE 'nother argument I do not want to get into. But an anarchist believes in having no rulers, not necessarily no order. And I would suggest you do research on anarchist political theories before bashing them right out the bat. 

Even better! You're an anarchist who doesn't know what both the words "Anarchy" and "anarchist" mean.

An anarchist spreads anarchy, anarchy is the state in which there is no authority. Ergo, you deliberately disobey laws, not because they violate your rights (because laws are, in case you didn't notice, what protect your rights in the first place lol), but because you don't like being told what to do; you don't like authority.

There can be no order without a ruler, who would keep order then? Humans necessarily form a hierarchy wherever they congregate and have consistently done so through all of history, there would always be people at the top and people at the bottom.

I'll bash anarchists all I want, if you support the thought that "Hey, I don't like authority, let's live without it!" Then you are seriously disregarding any common sense and going down the "Moody teenager logic" route - and it's not a good one.

I was under the impression we were going to agree to disagree. So I am no longer going to debate piracy with you. 

 

The only thing I have to say is that you CLEARLY don;t understand anarchist ideology. Yes, some are just "Hey no rules woo hoo!!" but not most. Because there can, in fact, be order without a ruler. The average person does not behave the way they do purely from fear of reprisals. They behave the way that they feel is acceptable because it IS acceptable. Are there some bad apples? Yea sure. And anarchists generally have ways to let them be taken care of as well, but Im not trying to debate this either so Im going to stop myself before I go farther in.

 

As for laws protecting rights, I am literally laughing at that thought. 99.9% of laws protect the rights of literally no one. They DO violate your rights. For every law that you can name that protects legitimate rights, I can name 5 that do not.  

 

EDIT I'm not actually going to, as I have since posting this discovered that you are a follower of legal right's versus natural rights and if we continue down that path its just three to four posts before we're debating that, and as I explained in a different post I regret this debate enough, Im not going to one that is a hundred times more so.

It doesn't matter if not everyone agrees on it, if I start telling the two other people with me in a room that there are numerous talking elephants blowing rainbows into my face; then (in addition to being on some pretty good drugs) i'd be completely wrong lol.

"Everyone does not agree" has certainly never been a reasonable way to make a point, ever. 

You bring Hitler into this? Hey, not everyone currently agrees that Hitler was a shitty guy. Guess what? He was still a pretty shitty guy.

The law has never declared genocide or murder to be moral, nor does the law claim to define morality, it defines the rules and structure necessary to society, so... yeah, another misconception. 

In addition, the law supersedes morality, the law is what is necessary for society to function cohesively, not what society needs to be moral (though since the law is generally controlled by sometimes moral people, one might mistake law's objective to be one of morality, rather than one of order).

So while stealing someone else's work may or may not count as moral or immoral to you, it is entirely irrelevant, because morality is not what is in question - it is your negative effect on society as a whole.

"In addition, the law supersedes morality" and that is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. Morality supersede everything, Else there is quite literally no point in it existing. The law is a piece of paper enforced by a man with a gun. is it necessary? Maybe, maybe not. But where it is immoral, at the very least, it needs CHANGED.

 

As for it not mattering if everyone agrees on it, in part I agree with you. I suppose I should have phrased that better as in "it is not a foregone conclusion that piracy is wrong, it is still being debated" But you are correct, just because everyone agrees or disagrees on something does not make it true. In the same way, no matter how many say that piracy is wrong, that does not mean that it is.

 

And finally, morality is exactly what is in question here: whether piracy is immoral or not.  

Ahem - yes, yes morality has no point lol. There is no logical reason for it, we just made it up to feel good about ourselves, morality has no point and does not exist, it is an abstract concept.

The law is a social contract enforced and founded out of necessity.

And yes, it is immoral.

And that is why we will never be able to agree. You are a believer of the legal rights theory where as I believe in the natural rights theory. And that is an argument that I literally will not get into as it goes on for days and days on end and is impossible for either side to win as is impossible for either side to bring up even a shred of evidence that the other will accept (or atleast, as many times as I've debated it I've never seen it happen)

I think it's less about 'legal' and 'laws' as much as it is about respecting the fact that people work hard for things and you aren't giving them literal and figurative credit for it. :P

*Millions, you should stick at millions, because only a few rare movies gross over billions of dollars in profit. Don't over-inflate the facts to better your (flawed) argument.

How much do you think it costs to film a movie in the first place lol? You think CGI and location use permits and the payments for the actors and the myriad of other things you have to pay in order to make a movie are cheap? Have fun in that fantasy land lol. Many movies barely make any profits over the costs it took to make the movie in the first place.

You can list as many popular, successful movies and games as you want but that's easily the exception, not the rule. Thousands of great games and movies haven't finished development or have lost profits because of piracy, and because of that, all of those great ideas aren't pursued anymore. It's why you only get the same re-hashed crap time after time after time.

In my library you have to rent DVDs 

Actually, my reference there was to books. Libraries cost the book industry lots of money because smart consumers go to libraries instead of paying for the books, does that mean that libraries are stealing? I certainly don't think so. And I don;t think piracy is stealing either. (see my above post for why... I started typing it before you replied lol) 

You don't even need to go to the library to read a book for free, you can often do it right in the bookstore. A good example is the Manga section. You can see a bunch of people just parked there reading all the time, nobody says anything.

I've known comic shops that are more pro-active in telling people to not just read and leave.

It's kind of completely different because the industry doesn't lose any money. All the books in the library have already been paid for, and only one person can borrow them at a time.

If you buy a DVD, that particular DVD belongs to you. You can sell it online or to a second hand games store, or donate it, and it doesn't matter because it belongs to you, you paid for it. If you make a copy of that DVD, then you don't have the right to sell it, or even give it away, because you didn't pay for it. You got two DVDs, and you only paid for one. Whenever people watch a movie online, they're not watching the original, they're watching a copy.

That said, I still watch pirate DVDs online all the time... Doesn't mean it's not wrong 

Like I said, the pirate sites are definitely more effective at it than the libraries are. But I don't think something's morality should be based upon its level of *effectiveness*

Also, as for you only owning one copy, that's not quite right. Money is used as a medium to convert labor into something easily traded for good. What that money represents is your time. So when you buy something, you're really just exchanging pre-completed labor for that good or service, right? And you made the second copy of that DVD. You made it using tools you bought from someone else, (the original DVD) but *you* made the second copy. So it's original owner is you. And you also put your labor into it, albeit not much, you still did. So not only were you the original owner of that copy, as you made it and can therefore do whatever you want with it, but additionally, you even bought it from yourself, as you put your labor into it. 

 

EDIT: So back to your argument, in that sense not only does that person have a right to upload it for free, but he paid for each individual copy (just only paid the industry for the original)

 

And its actually kind of funny that you watch tv online frequently while thinking its wrong, and I who think its perfectly moral do it very, very rarely... Lol.

So, does that mean it's alright for people to sell pirate DVDs, because they put labor into making the copies? Is it okay to photocopy other people's artwork and then sell that, because you put labor into photocopying it? Would it be okay for someone to take a story game from the site, make into one of those Choose Your Own Adventure type books and then sell it, 'cos they put labor into copying the story and printing it out?

And I don't really think it's funny that I watch pirate videos online even though I admit it's wrong. It's not THAT wrong, it's just one of those things most people do whether it's wrong or not, like lying about why they don't want to go out with somebody, or pretending you're sick when you've really just got a hangover. I just think it's better to admit that sometimes you do things wrong, instead of coming up with really long, drawn out explanations of why everything you do is okay 

Yes it is ok for them to sell it. But not only because they put labor into making the copies but because they owned everything they used to make those copies (the original copy of the dvd they owned, as well as any tools) As for photocopying others artworks, that depends on if the original source was purchased or otherwise given to them. If they owned a copy of the artwork, and they gave credit to the original artist, than yes. Same with the story games, although considering the fact that this site doesn't actually give you a copy of it, merely letting you view it, getting a legitimately owned copy without talking to the original author would be impossible (as far as I can figure) as no one gave them an original copy to use. 

 

I never said that by pirating something you *couldn't* be stealing it, just that piracy in in of itself is not theft. And also note that there is a difference between piracy and plagiarism.

 

And calm down lol, when I said funny I didn't mean as in like laughing funny, just as in interesting... And I'm not making really long drawn out explanations of why everything I do is ok, as I said I almost never watch pirated content online anyway, I'm not really into movies. This is just what I think on the subject. 

My two cents :

I could've sworn there was a law saying that you couldn't get a copy of an existing piece of work and sell it for money without the expressed consent of the person you would copy from...

There is. But as I've been saying, legality has nothing to do with morality *shrugs*

...

That sounds so...broken...

What makes you say that? It's true after all. 

...well, I'll just leave you to it, since you'll probably never think of a situation that calls for it otherwise...

(or you simply don't care, mebbe)

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean... 

Beyond that, digital media is a different industry.
If a copyright on a CD/DVD explicitly says do not make copies, upload, publicly perform etcetera this media, then don't!!!

Stupid pox-ridden video pirates want to hide behind online anonymity and the made-up "online isn't bound by your laws" nonsense.

I wish to add that if online activity affects a particular country directly, then it is subject to the nation's laws.
A UK manufacturer (movie maker) UK distributor (pirate) or a UK consumer (cheapskate) is subject to UK laws. (Replace "UK" with whichever country applies to the exact circumstance.)

Online isn't bound by any laws of any country/province xD Rules of the Internet. which are more like standard morals of anyone on the internet, and describe the freedom of the internet as a whole.

Rule 38: No limits of any kind apply here [the internet] - not even the sky.

Rule 11: All of your carefully picked arguments can be ignored.

Rule 42: Nothing is sacred.

That assumes that a copy right is a valid right. As i've said before, this is not taken for granted by everyone. A different industry or not, it is essentially the same thing.

 

As to the laws, I've already made mention that legality does not affect morality.

Legality affects morality a lot... the majority of society follows the laws and creates morals upon the laws. So legality affects overall morality in all societies unless your society has no laws (such as the internet) in that case, you can have any morals you want. But in the outside world - laws are the base for morals and morals create laws.

You've got that backwards good sir. I was in the process of making a reply to your other post while you put that, but as I said already, under the law, the Holocaust was ok.

Morals affect the laws somewhat. Or actually, society's perception of morals does because if a significant enough people consider something immoral, they are likely to try and make it illegal. 

but something is either moral or not regardless of whether society recognizes it as such (this is going to get into natural rights vs legal rights I can already tell... I hate it when it does that because arguments of philosophy are impossible to prove...)

No it wasn't! there were no laws saying that the holocaust was o-k. xD the holocaust was ok to the people doing it, the majority of the rest of the world said it was not ok at all. I literally just stated that morals create laws, and people follow laws, which are the base of more morals.

There were no laws specifically saying that it was ok, thats not what I meant. What I meant was that there were no laws saying it wasn't ok. And there WERE laws saying that resisting it was NOT ok. My point merely being that laws do not define what is moral. They can affect peoples perception of morals perhaps, but what is right is right regardless of whether the masses agree or you stand alone.

 

<.<

>.>

Yeah, this.

Yea, wish i had seen this first, because we are definitely not going to agree on this. 

Only libraries i've seen carry old books; like, really old books. And outdated schoolbooks. In both cases, either the schoolbooks would be worthless since most schools wouldn't be buying them (also, internet, boundless information) or the authors were dead. Maybe I just have a really shitty library.

yeah, you've got a really shitty library dude. the city library where I live has the newest books, not quite as soon as they come out but within a month or so.

Nono, you're an asshole if you take someone's hard work and dedication from them and take pleasure from it without repaying them in any way, that's kind of how piracy works.

No, your thinking of theft. the original person loses literally nothing from piracy. Except (depending on how you want to look at it) maybe the possibility of that person giving them something for it. And there is zero certainty that they would. 

So Dracone, let's say you're a writer, and you live from the money that you get off of the books that you sell. Let's say that you put your books up for sale, and wait eagerly for the money that you can only get from the book sales. Then you find out that, after buying one copy, some major asshole just decided to release it so that everyone in the world could read your books without having to pay you for the work that you did. 

That is what you do when you pirate shit; be it a game, a movie or a book, you're stealing someone else's work without having to do diddly squat for it. How do you miss this?

Apparently it's okay, because... Nazis! 

I didn't miss this. I just don;t consider it relevant. I have never once said that no one lost money from pirating. Although, you are NOT stealing anything. The person who bought it had the right to release it, and you are getting it for free yes, but it is not theft. 

If you OWN intellectual property, and distribute said property at a price, and someone TAKES the intellectual property and gives it away, it is a form of stealing, by definition. Even if they bought the copy beforehand to give away, the act of taking the pirated copy is stealing, making whoever downloads something pirated effectively a thief, while the torrenter can still be labeled a pirate. Stealing is the act of taking something that does not belong to you, which is a matter of how you look at things. In the eyes of the laws in most countries, pirating qualifies as stealing, since one owns the intellectual properties and physical properties under the rules of several papers, and downloading pirated versions is pretty much taking something you didn't buy, which does not belong to you, which is stealing.

IF you own intellectual property, and IF copyrights are a valid form of property right, then yes. If these are not valid property rights, if when you own something you own it completely, then whoever purchased the original copy owned it completely and has the right to distribute it as they see fit. So in this case the downloader is not stealing something that did not belong to them, but being given something that previously did not belong to them.

 

As for the bit about the laws, as I have said before, legality has nothing to do with morality.

It's annoying how you keep bringing up the line "Legality has nothing to do with morality." Piracy isn't immoral because it's illegal, it's immoral because there are victims.

Like people keep pointing out, if you buy something or are freely given something that an aspiring writer wrote or artist drew or independent film maker made and you start selling their work or giving it away freely without permission, whatever profit they would've made from their creation gets lost because people can just get it for free, and obviously this person suffers for it, because all the time and effort they put into their work gets wasted.

The difference with piracy is that most of the really high up people like the lead actors, directors, producers and stuff don't actually feel the effect of what piracy does to their profits. That doesn't mean their profits aren't affected. It's estimated that piracy costs the movie industry $20.5 billion a year. So effectively, people who upload or watch pirate videos are stealing a small percentage of that $20.5 billion a year. Sure, most of the people are rich enough that they don't even notice the money they lost, but they still lost it. Saying it's not immoral because they don't notice it is like saying "It's okay to steal $100 from a billionaire because they'll never notice it's gone." 

I only keep bringing that up because people keep brining up the laws. Trust me, I'm just as annoyed that I have to keep repeating myself.

 

But as I keep pointing out, its NOT stealing, because the original uploader had a right to upload it if they wish. It doesn't matter if they notice its gone or not, because it was "taken" if you will, by someone who had a moral right to do so. They own everything they used to make the copy, so they can do whatever they want with it. Whether the movie business loses money or not is irrelevant, because they have a right to do with their property as they please, and I highly doubt anyone (or atleast the majority) with the intent of hurting the movie business. They don't sit at home uploading it like "Yeah! Now this fuckers gonna lose money!" No, its "Uploaded, now people who can't afford to buy it can still watch it :)"

 

yeah, I'll happily admit that the first is immoral, your deliberately setting out to hurt someone and that is immoral. But the second, is not. And since you have a right to use your property however you want, it is definitely not immoral.

Depends on what makes something immoral, the intentions or the results.

A man who cheats on his wife could say, "I never wanted to hurt my wife, I just really wanted to have sex with a 19 year old supermodel!" Does the fact that he didn't intend to hurt anybody mean that his actions weren't immoral?

Results are what determine if something is moral or not as for the action itself, but intents can make something that is not immoral, immoral by way of the intent itself being immoral. I wanted to be clear that that was not what was going on here as I thought that is what you were getting at.

 

As for your cheating parallel, the fact that he didn't mean to hurt anybody is irrelevant in this case as his actions themselves were in violation of an agreement he had with his wife. AKA "Marriage." As unless otherwise agreed upon marriage by definition is monogamous. (and before you say anything, the same can be said for dating, though less so as the agreement is not considered as binding, but when you call someone your girlfriend or boyfriend you are in effect asking them to agree to be monogamous with you, constituting an agreement) 

So you, who dares say that piracy isn't immoral, also say that you don't claim you aren't depriving people of their earned money?

They are releasing it in exchange for money. You are taking it, and then effortlessly (or not, doesn't matter how much effort you put into it) copying it and then sending it to everyone else. This isn't akin to you just buying a product and sharing it with people, this is you buying a product, going through the effort to reverse engineer it so that you can produce the exact same thing, and then give it to everyone for free and drive the other person's business to the ground. 

The Oatmeal has a comic about this...

Speak for yourself. I write fanfiction and draw fan art and support people who do. I see nothing wrong with it. :P

You do?

... Yes. I even state that very clearly in my profile. Why?

Also, if you guys haven't noticed, this site supports fanfiction. Why else would there be a "Fan Fiction" category for story games? :P We would've ended up getting destroyed, too.

lol As I was scrolling down this thread I was hoping I wasn't the only one who noticed that.

Personally I think it's up to the Internet to regulate itself. Punishing the entire Web for the actions of a few would do nothing but piss off people and cause us to look elsewhere for entertainment or to bite back at the government.

Also I don't think it would be fair to other nations for the American Government to regulate the internet.

SOPA and ACTA go way beyond "fan fiction." Bills of this sort will continue to crop up and finally get passed until we live in an Orwellian nightmare replete with heavily armed "police," unarmed citizens, and dystopian privacy violations in the name of security. Good work paying attention but try to see the long view.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/notice-and-takedown-gets-its-day-congress

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree, but it's my opinion that we're going to eventually get to "dystopian privacy violations in the name of security" regardless. (Haven't they already started in other countries?)

Yeah, exactly my point. Hahah, yep they started all right. They're well into the action in tons of places. 

Well I just saw Hitler and the Holocaust brought up in this debate, that didn't take long.

Yeah they like to use scare tactics for pretty much all changes in government, and the changes are always incremental and slow. Look at cigarette bans and the mass of propaganda that still continues; and that's just a small topic which most people don't care about. 

The threats will be "cyber terrorism" and "identity fraud" that they will continue to push in the name of security. Gun violence will continue to escalate at they cut education and mental health services, and more deaths will be reported on the news, until in the name of security and convenience we all give up our basic privacy, both online and off.

LOL! Godwin's Law was spot on!

Draco loses 

Actually Godwin;s law does not say anything about it invalidating the argument (can't actually watch the vid as my headphones are out but I assume its simply explaining Godwin's law)
Godwin's Law is: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" ^[2][3]—? that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

 

And there is virtually no better way to show that legality and morality do not necessarily have anything to do with one another.

... And there's virtually no better way to show that you've run out of valid points to make 

Don't actually understand the law itself though. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." ... What is 1? 

1 is "out of a fraction of 1" would be one way to look at it.

The longer an internet argument goes on, the higher the certainty that someone will reference the Nazis. It does not necessarily mean that they are out of valid points to make, but Hitler is one of a very few things that are near universally accepted as evil, so therefore eventually someone will use it to demonize their opponents. (although in this case my intent was not to demonize people who think that piracy is not ok, but to merely point out that the law does not guarantee morality)

That's true, you didn't actually compare anytonr to Hitler... Still, I do like the theory that whenever someone brings up Hitler or the Nazis, it means they lost the argument... Unless they're having an argument about Hitler and the Nazis. 

Its the easiest way to show that legality and morality are not one and the same *shrug* 

Oh yeah, SOPA's overboard, don't agree with it one bit.

I believe we have found our next idiots from this thread 

I dunno, having an opinion other people don't agree with doesn't make someone an idiot.

... That said, the whole discussion did kind of remind me of my pointless arguments with my slightly autistic little brother who takes himself way too seriously and says a whole bunch of really offensive stuff without realizing it's offensive. He'll start an argument about religion or politics or conspiracy theories that's complete and utter bollocks, and I'll try to explain to him that it's complete and utter bollocks, but he's convinced he knows everything about everything because he saw a crazy person ranting about it on youtube... And the crazy ranting people on youtube are always right 

Actually, my intent was *not* to start a debate... I even said as much in my first post... I merely wanted to show that the discussion was far from closed... I didn't expect it to get this out of hand... partly because I overestimated my ability to just leave a post alone... I am having a very hard time not responding to them >.< 

Lol. Nah, I get it. When someone disagrees with me, I do feel the need to explain why I think what I think. That said, I don't get why I argued so long for something I don't actually care about. Obviously I don't think watching uploaded videos online is a big deal, or I wouldn't do it. I'm just... Really, really stubborn when I think I'm right. One time I had an hour long argument with a friend over whether Jessica Rabbit's hair was jet black or ginger... It wasn't because I cared what colour her hair was. I just knew she was friggin' ginger 

They ARE always right!  It's like we have the right to determine whether or not a fellow human being is the Antichrist!  Like Hitler!

(But seriously, God has the final say on most shit concerning afterlife and morality.)

But what if there is no God? Does morality even exist?

... What was the original topic again? 

OT: Soap, start talking about soap.

SOPA lol.

I wasn't going to discriminate people who pronounce it differently. I prefer bar soap when washing my hands. I prefer liquid soap when washing my body. Unless I'm taking a bath instead of a shower, in which case I'd prefer bar soap to wash my body instead of liquid soap. Although if I wanted bubbles in my bath I'd probably want liquid soap. A nice relaxing warm bubble bath would be great.

Edit:: I'm joking o-o no one actually has to talk about soap... although I was telling the truth about my preferences for soap.

What the...

  Wait, how did we get to nazis and soap?

Well the Nazis did make soap from the fat of dead Jewish prisoners.

Isn't that paradoxical since you're spreading sub-human worm-filth on yourself?

Maybe they made the other Jews use it? I could see the Nazis doing something like that.

I could also see a few really twisted ones taking some sort of fucked up pleasure in bathing in the "blood" of their hated enemies.

Eh, I guess that would work.

I prefer liquid soap for all. Just seems more sanitary... I mean, Im using the soap to get clean, so at the time I use it, Im still dirty, and if its bar soap, it'll pick up all that dirt. Liquid on the other hand is a one shot.

Plus its harder to drop.