The morality of piracy

[Blade Runner]

I think the morality of piracy depends on the individual's stance on Intellectual Property. IP is a globalhomo tyranny scam with some exceptions. We are already seeing globalhomo abusing it. Patents are especially egregious.

Ironically, searching up "piracy" and "copyright laws" on YouTube yields a bunch of pro-piracy videos like these below...something is going on with YouTube lately...

Exactly, "AI" just lifted everyone's data and privacy without a single objection from the larger "governmental" or law structures. The same ones the behemoths lobby to unjustly ("through law") manipulate and charge you for doing X, considering Y, or attempting Z.

It's pretty clear at this point that little of this matters. It's basically the time old "principled" guy that is just a sucker. It turns out in life that one should treat humans in his interaction with them as is right and just. But even that can be contextual and situational (lying obviously isn't always wrong). When it comes to public spheres and nation states, it's an entirely different ball of wax, typically bigger picture entities vs. one another, not an individual somehow acting like he is, or can change, a country. A good example is acting like murder on an individual level is akin to fighting in wars. And even in those there is self defense, pre-emptive actions, etc.

It's an interesting thing that modern people don't really talk about many of the classically masculine realities of life, like leadership, war, women's roles, etc. We've gone far too soft and hippie Jesus pacifist, from what I see.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

I would say that yes it is stealing. If you get a "free" file shared copy of something that is has an active copyright, then you are stealing from the owners of the copyright. That's what copyright means.

I know that people used to record albums onto cassette tapes all the time, and people borrow books or check them out of the library, but I think this is different somehow. Files can be shared on a mass scale, which is totally different than recording a cassette tape or borrowing a single physical book and returning it.

Likewise, I know that some people say "information wants to be free", but this is just a rationalization and a rallying cry for file sharing platforms to trade in stolen data. Everybody does it, and it seems like a small sin, but when I consider the matter, I have to conclude it is stealing.

What about internet archives of public articles which were once considered free but since are archived? The creator took the risk of it being public (in order to maximize exposure), and later it was made private. Are internet archives illegal and/or immoral to view?

 

[Thomas More]

What about internet archives of public articles which were once considered free but since are archived? The creator took the risk of it being public (in order to maximize exposure), and later it was made private. Are internet archives illegal and/or immoral to view?

If somebody took the trouble to curate this material and paid for hosting on a server to make it available, and setup a website so you could find it and access it, them it is fair for them to charge for that access. In many cases this paid service will have also had to scan a paper book to create an electronic copy, and likely do some formatting to produce the final document.

If it is off copyright, and you don't want to pay to use the platform they created, then you should find a different source that is free. Of course if the free source is requesting donations to help cover their costs, the decent thing to do would be to make a donation.

If there is no other free source for this off copyright material you are seeking, then it's fair to say that the paid site is creating value and deserves to be able to charge for it.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

In a world where this model is widespread, taking action to access the content by some means of going around the pay wall can reasonably be considered stealing.

If this model wasn’t widespread, would it still be stealing?

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

My heart tells me piracy is wrong.

An analogy that comes to mind is fair dodging on the train.

Yes, the train runs whether you board it or not, so you're not necessarily taking anything away if you board without paying, but you're still supposed to pay.

Even if the train was owned and operated by puppy-murdering child molesters it would still be wrong to board without paying.

This comes from fear of God. So often we’re told morality is about what hurts other people, but in God’s eyes playing with our penis or being prideful in the mind are “wrong” despite not hurting others.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

There is no morality to piracy. Stealing is stealing. What is it that you need to pirate so bad? And where do you get off rationalizing it away? "The laborer is worthy of his wages." Do not complain about Jews then turn around and act like one.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

There is no morality to piracy. Stealing is stealing. What is it that you need to pirate so bad? And where do you get off rationalizing it away? "The laborer is worthy of his wages." Do not complain about Jews then turn around and act like one.

Nah. No way. That's beta cuck stuff right there. Fight fire with fire. Jesus doesn't want us to bend over and take it because he already did that for us. We're supposed to fight. We're supposed to resist. (((Who))) writes "the laws" and why? Why is it 250K and 3 years in prison for "stealing" God Father Part 2 yet you get off easier for raping someone? Because it's jew owned property and they wrote the piracy laws (Coppola is backed and owned by jews). (((They))) want to inundate us with their Hollywood filth and then cry "Thief!" when we burn a copy using legal technology (which they also own and put into the public sphere) to send to some friend living in the slums of Rio who can't afford one.

It reminds me of Lars Ulrich whining about NAPSTER users "stealing" Metallica's music. It is no longer "yours" when you release it out into the world. What, did Metallica invent the 1/3/5 chord? Is Lars giving a percentage of his royalties to Black Sabbath and the slave labor kid who made his drum set in Mexico in 1982? I mean how far do you want to take this "I own" this "because I invented it and it's mine"? You didn't invent sh*t. Metallica would be nothing without Sabbath (and the blues masters before them) and the kid who made Lars's first drum set. If you don't want it "stolen" then don't put it out into the public sphere to be stolen. Such a victim mentality. So cringe listening to millionaires crying about being stolen from. You got yours. Be happy people want your sh*t.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

(((They))) want to inundate us with their Hollywood filth and then cry "Thief!" when we burn a copy using legal technology (which they also own and put into the public sphere) to send to some friend living in the slums of Rio who can't afford one.

If it's nothing but filth then 1) why are you pirating and watching it? And 2) why are you making illegal copies to send to your friend to watch it?

The technology itself may be legal but the act of copying is not if the creator prohibits it. Just like the technology to make illegal drugs is legal, but you can't make the drugs without breaking the law.

Fight fire with fire.

Stealing from a thief only makes you a thief too.

If you don't want it "stolen" then don't put it out into the public sphere to be stolen. Such a victim mentality. So cringe listening to millionaires crying about being stolen from. You got yours. Be happy people want your sh*t.

Faulty logic. It'd be like saying if you dont want your goods stolen then dont put them in a public market. Its not a victim mentality to expect to be paid for what you worked for. Copyright laws aren't just for millionaires, but for creators in general. You may think you're hurting rich jews at the top but you're only hardening your own soul and more than likely hurting people on the ground too.

 

[FrancisK]

Conversely, there is no bigger jew racket than trademark/IP law. It's ambulance chasers on steroids.

 

[Thefinalepic]

There is no morality to piracy. Stealing is stealing. What is it that you need to pirate so bad? And where do you get off rationalizing it away? "The laborer is worthy of his wages." Do not complain about Jews then turn around and act like one.

It's not so cut and dry, and the creator/artist actually is the one that gets screwed over by the platforms, not by the "pirates"

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Faulty logic. It'd be like saying if you dont want your goods stolen then dont put them in a public market. Its not a victim mentality to expect to be paid for what you worked for. Copyright laws aren't just for millionaires, but for creators in general. You may think you're hurting rich jews at the top but you're only hardening your own soul and more than likely hurting people on the ground too.

You seem to have your mind set but it really depends on what kind of "stealing" we're talking about. Are you profiting off piracy? Are you passing the work as your own? Are you using it in some other way that benefits you? Are your actions overtly disrespectful like telling someone else's joke in their presence? The details matter.

I really don't like your argument because you're not identifying the transgression. You're identifying the rule and then applying it across the board. Is it immoral for me to listen to a concert if I'm outside the gate?

I don't care about the profit margins of companies. I'm willing to be judged for that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

@Thefinalepic @Sandalwood Peak

I agree that there is much nuance in this area. If you are copying the material in a way that infringes on someone's (creator/publisher) rights to make a profit, then that is stealing. It wouldn't be moral. For example, if you download an album that you haven't paid for or you are not listening to it through a platform that pays the artists and owners.

Let's say you wanted a book that is almost impossible to come by and the only way to get it is through some internet deep dive and no one had a stake in it. I think it can be argued that you aren't stealing. You're not infringing on anyone's right to make a profit.

I can't give you every theoretical case and tell you which ones are sinful and which aren't. Every case is unique but God's principles are consistent. All we can do is take the principles from the Bible and apply them to our case. These would be: not stealing, looking out for our neighbor's right to make a profit from his work, and the laborer is worthy of his wages.

I understand that we're not really concerned about a soulless corporation's profit margins, but the big publishers and production companies get their cut right out of the gate anyway. You're not really hurting them, but those percentages do make a difference to the lower-level songwriters, artists who get their checks, however measly they may be.

I would also argue that piracy in general works against your best interests. If you like an artist, wouldn't you want to support them? Vote with your dollar and all that.

 

[kevork]

Is denying the pedophile, gay and talmudic Hollywood money in this war immoral?

This has always been my main point. I used to watch lots of films, and then series. If I ever bought any its because I couldn't download them. I also hoarded lots of films and series I never watched.

In 2018, after being away from home for 6 months, I came home and deleted most of them. The reason being is that I view most modern media as pornography. That's the word I use for it. It's mostly perverse. Since I've almost only watched anything on planes.

I'm glad I didn't waste $5k or so on it.

It's kind of similar to the point on following your govt, unless it tells you to go against God. Let's say that you want to watch a film that is essentially innocent. But to do so you have to pay for it, and most of that goes to Harvey Weinstein types. Though you are still stealing from the actual creators.

If you are pirating media from that company that made the film about child trafficking in Colombia, which is specifically Christian, then I think it can only be seen as theft.

Similar if its innocuous content from small entities not part of the cartel.

It's not so cut and dry, and the creator/artist actually is the one that gets screwed over by the platforms, not by the "pirates"

I've had IP stolen from me and reproduced for commercial gain. It likely causes me a small amount of ongoing lost income. As just a guy its not overly feasible for me to do anything about it. While it's easier for content cartel entities to do so.


Another factor relating to size is there are a lot of content made by smaller entities. Like older TV productions and animations, for which there will likely be no more commercial gain possible for the IP holder. Much of this is on YouTube, and the owners don't care too much. But if its from big content, they are much more likely to go after infringement.

In short, the general space of content sales is permeated if not saturated with immorality. There are essentially good people involved with that. Then there are more independent entities, who may be more moral.

 

[Thefinalepic]

@Thefinalepic @Sandalwood Peak

I agree that there is much nuance in this area. If you are copying the material in a way that infringes on someone's (creator/publisher) rights to make a profit, then that is stealing. It wouldn't be moral. For example, if you download an album that you haven't paid for or you are not listening to it through a platform that pays the artists and owners.

Let's say you wanted a book that is almost impossible to come by and the only way to get it is through some internet deep dive and no one had a stake in it. I think it can be argued that you aren't stealing. You're not infringing on anyone's right to make a profit.

I can't give you every theoretical case and tell you which ones are sinful and which aren't. Every case is unique but God's principles are consistent. All we can do is take the principles from the Bible and apply them to our case. These would be: not stealing, looking out for our neighbor's right to make a profit from his work, and the laborer is worthy of his wages.

I understand that we're not really concerned about a soulless corporation's profit margins, but the big publishers and production companies get their cut right out of the gate anyway. You're not really hurting them, but those percentages do make a difference to the lower-level songwriters, artists who get their checks, however measly they may be.

I would also argue that piracy in general works against your best interests. If you like an artist, wouldn't you want to support them? Vote with your dollar and all that.

The issue with "streaming platforms" nowadays is that you as the consumer cannot "own" content. You get to pay for the privelege of renting and never actually having anything at all.

If "buying something" is not ownership, then piracy is no longer theft. I'm sorry - but not paying the "pimp" in the industry (record labels, streaming platforms) for a digital file that is replicable across time and space doesn't rub me as stealing. I am not going to even brush into IP stuff because I believe (as a creator myself) that the more people that my stuff is in the hands of, the better. I actively encourage people to share/pirate/ask me for a free download of my books - I make very little from amazon taking it's 70% cut!

I agree with you that if media is unobtainable then the moral quandry is zero. This is why I started this thread, I am not convinced there is a church teaching on piracy - it is a nuanced and hotly debated topic.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The issue with "streaming platforms" nowadays is that you as the consumer cannot "own" content. You get to pay for the privelege of renting and never actually having anything at all.

Sure, but you can buy the hard copy. I have a sizeable library of books, films, cds, records, on top of paying for streaming services, kindle unlimited, etc.

Record labels, production companies, and publishing houses assume a great deal of financial risk when they produce something. This is why they get first dibs if a profit is turned. Just because you dont like the person you're stealing from does not mean you aren't stealing from them when you are enjoying their product without paying.

I am not going to even brush into IP stuff because I believe (as a creator myself) that the more people that my stuff is in the hands of, the better. I actively encourage people to share/pirate/ask me for a free download of my books - I make very little from amazon taking it's 70% cut!

As a creator, you have the right to put your stuff out there and give it away for free. I know of a cartoon creator who did that with his own show. But other creators have the right to receive their profit if they so choose. One of the benefits of signing up for a publishing house is that they have the means to enforce this whereas most creators do not.

Its easier than ever to self publish material these days. All the more reason to directly support your favorite creators.

 

[Thefinalepic]

Sure, but you can buy the hard copy. I have a sizeable library of books, films, cds, records, on top of paying for streaming services, kindle unlimited, etc.

Record labels, production companies, and publishing houses assume a great deal of financial risk when they produce something. This is why they get first dibs if a profit is turned. Just because you dont like the person you're stealing from does not mean you aren't stealing from them when you are enjoying their product without paying.

You don't have the ability to "buy the hard copy" in many cases; Many music releases are digital only - not that I listen to new releases but the point stands. I would thus argue that If that is not possible, the moral quandry about pirating this material drops to zero. If you listen to classical music via Youtube and you download it locally to listen to, I again, see no moral issue here.

Its easier than ever to self publish material these days. All the more reason to directly support your favorite creators.

Of course, even a small donation helps a lot of small creators, and donating to open source projects I use daily is something I have started to do more and more of.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

@Thefinalepic @Sandalwood Peak

If you are copying the material in a way that infringes on someone's (creator/publisher) rights to make a profit, then that is stealing.

I don't need to concern myself with someone rights to profit. Same way people don't need concern themselves with whether I'm able to get a parking spot unless there is a reasonable expectation of good faith, such as neighbors who share a limited lot. You're infringing on someone's profit margins by competing with them as well. Not sure why you think we should be concerned with such things unless there's a reasonable expectation, like an artist selling his CDs on the street.

People pirate music because you need to go overboard to find an injured party. The artist wasn't inconvenienced, the artist didn't have to replace anything, he didn't lose his Saturday morning etc. The artist made less profit than he could have. In fact, you're probably helping an artist by listening to his music through the ripple effect. People usually pirate stuff made for mass consumption. There was also a huge precedent set with television and radio. Why am I paying for every digital song while they play music on the radio all day? Given their pricing models I can also say it's immoral for them to squeeze their consumers.

When you're dealing with these kinds of "crimes" the only thing worth considering is if it constitutes callous disregard. Circumstances where you can say there is a reasonable expectation to not behave a certain way. That's what separates the civilized from the uncivilized, our discernment. I've happily paid for stuff when it suits me. Some people refuse to pay for things they can get for free or cheaper. That's a character flaw.

Christians should be the most outspoken xenophobic racists based on this kind of moralism. There's no point making these kinds of arguments unless you propose a harsh enough deterrence. If you do think society should fight "piracy" then I already mentioned it should also fight "profiteering". I also don't understand how these unintended consequences fit in with Christianity. God is going to judge me for hurting someone's profit margins, not driving back to pick up the trash I forgot at the park, or stepping on ants?

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

@Thefinalepic @Sandalwood Peak

I agree that there is much nuance in this area. If you are copying the material in a way that infringes on someone's (creator/publisher) rights to make a profit, then that is stealing. It wouldn't be moral. For example, if you download an album that you haven't paid for or you are not listening to it through a platform that pays the artists and owners.

Let's say you wanted a book that is almost impossible to come by and the only way to get it is through some internet deep dive and no one had a stake in it. I think it can be argued that you aren't stealing. You're not infringing on anyone's right to make a profit.

I can't give you every theoretical case and tell you which ones are sinful and which aren't. Every case is unique but God's principles are consistent. All we can do is take the principles from the Bible and apply them to our case. These would be: not stealing, looking out for our neighbor's right to make a profit from his work, and the laborer is worthy of his wages.

I understand that we're not really concerned about a soulless corporation's profit margins, but the big publishers and production companies get their cut right out of the gate anyway. You're not really hurting them, but those percentages do make a difference to the lower-level songwriters, artists who get their checks, however measly they may be.

I would also argue that piracy in general works against your best interests. If you like an artist, wouldn't you want to support them? Vote with your dollar and all that.

If you believe in obeying higher powers (government) then you would be against the American revolution. You would also be opposed to white nationalists who oppose invasion by non white immigrants and take action.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

If you believe in obeying higher powers (government) then you would be against the American revolution. You would also be opposed to white nationalists who oppose invasion by non white immigrants.

Well, I do believe in Romans 13.

My argument against piracy is not of simple submission to governmental authority but the reality that you are stealing from and screwing over the content creators. It's not that the artist "made less profit than he could have," as if he is only losing opportunity cost. It's that he's morally and legally entitled to the profit that you are stealing from him by consuming his product without paying for it.

American Revolution and White Nationalists are too far afield for this thread. The American Revolution was justified. White Nationalism/Non-White Immigrants require too much to unpack for us here.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

Well, I do believe in Romans 13.

My argument against piracy is not of simple submission to governmental authority but the reality that you are stealing from and screwing over the content creators. It's not that the artist "made less profit than he could have," as if he is only losing opportunity cost. It's that he's morally and legally entitled to the profit that you are stealing from him by consuming his product without paying for it.

how are you “stealing” from him? How is he entitled in a moral sense?