I don't understand the level of cuckery you would need to purchase a vehicle that locks features behind a paywall. 1997 Toyota Carolla, here I come.
The morality of piracy
- Thread starter Thefinalepic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- church teaching morality piracy sin
There are all kinds of shades of grey being posted here. Is it moral to use ad blockers or to crack your Volkswagen software to unlock the seat warmer feature without paying a subscription? Probably yes.
Is it then moral to copy any and all copywritten material when you know the IP owner is selling it and enforcing their copywrite? I see this as stealing.
It's probably a lesser form of stealing. Does God care if we steal office supplies from work, or a piece of candy from the store? It's such a small sin he doesn't care, right? After all, nobody's perfect. Why would God care if I Torrent the latest Metallica album?
I'd say it's a grey area and a slippery slope. I can't agree that we're striking a blow against the forces of evil by doing it, as if it is a positive good.
Is it then moral to copy any and all copywritten material when you know the IP owner is selling it and enforcing their copywrite? I see this as stealing.
It's probably a lesser form of stealing. Does God care if we steal office supplies from work, or a piece of candy from the store? It's such a small sin he doesn't care, right? After all, nobody's perfect. Why would God care if I Torrent the latest Metallica album?
I'd say it's a grey area and a slippery slope. I can't agree that we're striking a blow against the forces of evil by doing it, as if it is a positive good.
There's an aspect of this new "pay to play" approach to commerce with motorbikes. You buy a new bike now in the knowledge that you'll have to buy a comfort seat to replace the painfully, uncomfortable, standard seat. And you'll need to fork out for a centrestand and crashbars and any number of parts to create a bike that's up to scratch. Motorbike companies also try to keep the official dealers happy by making servicing technically very difficult, thereby dissuading owners from servicing there own vehicles.
This is a peculiar thread because the elites use our morality against us. Thankfully, the western world is in the process of expelling this poison. What is the point of civility in dealing with the wicked? This is how we have retarded binary choices like giving away our homeland or being a "bad" person. Black people have a very interesting sentiment in regard to goofy white people being unnecessarily civil. Black people don't care, if they think you have hatred in your heart for them then they will be openly hostile towards you. Go check the Bible which group has the stronger theological position.
I don't understand this deference to the Bible. Is this holiness or sanctimony? The "golden rule" only works within the framework of your personal autonomy. The golden rule doesn't work as a requirement. As a requirement it immediately becomes a weakness. That's how we get these give an inch, they'll take a mile situations.
The golden rule is a tool to analyze your own behavior and a consideration in decision making. If you take it up a notch, it's about making sure your choices that are imposed on others have the value of fairness and justice to them, in the spirit of your heavenly Father. It is not some retarded, mouth drooling expectation that I as a morally superior person should never cause anyone harm because two wrongs don't make a right. We as a society literally mock the "golden rule" when it comes to things like school bullying. Only morons tell their kids to be nice to bullies.
In fact, there are even situations where things become some despicable that something in our spirit doesn't feel the need to be bound by morality. Blind rage boils inside us and crimes of passion ensue. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of something being irredeemable.
It is our job as men to make sure that others understand that this line exists. You can count on me being a nice guy or a Christian, you can push my boundaries and step over my lines, you can expect leniency from me and understanding, but there is a line. A line where your existence becomes irredeemable and you should fear that line, just like a Christian fears eternal damnation. A person should understand that the closer to the line you push the stronger the blowback, making the whole thing not worthwhile.
Last edited:
Sandalwood with the post of the week. I feel like we need to write a book on this topic so people understand it and point out also how we got here, so they don't think we're just coming up with this as some new, esoteric or gnostic idea. I've expressed these kind of sentiments before many times, but Sandalwood has explained it all with examples in ways that have been better than most of my posts on the topics in the past. I usually would bring up ideas that were quite obvious insane by conservatives, a classic example, where you keep playing by rules when the opponent doesn't, and in the end act like you're some kind of principle and good guy - who keeps losing (the culture war at least).
Do you not see something wrong with the new model (globally everyone "figured this out" from MSFT to now car brands, which is the subscription model. Isn't that entrapment and scammy, by definition?
This is the big picture idea, and it is so clear at this point, I'm not sure how people don't recognize it. It's our point above, to a tee.
This is what I was getting at with the pharisaical appeal, previously. Actions on their own don't constitute some clear and objective morality, life is about situations, discernment and how relationships are affected. Because guys like GodFather realize that the final point is the Orthodox one and that explains the world the best, and also explains God the best with us and the rest of His creation, he shies away from it because it exposes the bad theology protestants and some, or most, roman catholics have as well.
It was more of a question for the rest of the forum, like you, who is peculiarly particular about what's acceptable piracy
Ad blockers are expressly against the service agreements of content providers like Youtube/Google. So when you use one to avoid a commercial on a Youtube video or on a website, you're pirating their content since you're refusing to pay for the content and they have forbidden avoiding payment. In some countries, using a VPN or ad blocker is illegal. So to you, it's "sometimes" immoral and subjective? Morality has gray areas, depending on location?
Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it immoral. In the UK, you do not have freedom of speech and if you do criticize the gov't or talk to a girl or pray against abortion, you can goto jail. It's immoral (and illegal) to speak out against tyranny of speech and prayer???
Sure for now, but what about 20 in the future and all you can get are "smart cars" where you can't get a 97 Toyota without those features?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. So piracy is immoral and moral simultaneously? Depending on location? Depending on loss to the owner? Depending on the amount of tyranny of the owner (car won't heat seats or start)? Depending on legality?
What is the threshold?
The reason you don't understand this deference to the Bible is because you are not a Christian. It really doesn't get anymore simple than that. If you believe that God will one day hold you to account, that He has given a standard that He will judge you by, then you will reorient your life to follow Him. All other considerations are secondary. Some of us are Christians out of conviction, not merely because we think it's the best tool to fight with in the culture wars.
Ad Blockers aren't piracy and there isn't acceptable piracy. In any case, I pay for the subscription to YouTube, not just to avoid ads, but for the other perks that it comes with. The sky hasn't fallen so far.It was more of a question for the rest of the forum, like you, who is peculiarly particular about what's acceptable piracy
Ad blockers are expressly against the service agreements of content providers like Youtube/Google. So when you use one to avoid a commercial on a Youtube video or on a website, you're pirating their content since you're refusing to pay for the content and they have forbidden avoiding payment. In some countries, using a VPN or ad blocker is illegal. So to you, it's "sometimes" immoral and subjective? Morality has gray areas, depending on location?
In the case of piracy, it is immoral because it's stealing content, which is why it's illegal in every country.
As for your disanalagous UK example, I would recommend especially then that you follow Romans 13 unless you want to suffer the consequences. No one can stop you from praying privately against whatever you want. But they can stop you from making a show out of your prayers. Praying publicly against abortion would be moral, but illegal. Not telling you not to do it, just don't be surprised when they put you in a cell.
Would you be interested in “The morality of immigration”? Doesn’t seem like the migrants are impressed with Christian hospitality, neither are white Christian men becoming more reassured in the position of the Church. In fact there might be a case of stolen valor by the liberals. I don’t know, you would know better. My only question - if the rule led to less salvation, with what use was the rule?
Keep in mind that in the movie, the guy who asked this question became a serial killer. A utilitarian view of morality will allow you to justify anything. Contrary to what Blade Runner says, actions are indeed moral and immoral in themselves.
The Bible doesn't say anything about downloading non-tangible mp3's under talmudic law and if any protestant has a problem with that I can just claim sola scriptura and be done with it.
Last edited:
Piracy is not illegal because of that, it's explicitly not stealing which is why it has to be codified as a separate law (and I've argued the differences before in a previous post).
It also notably is an area of law where the rights of consumers are getting diminished over time (now most people don't even own their purchased books, games, music, etc anymore and they only have a temporary, limited and frequently revoked "license"), whilst the rights of the wealthy elite owners get continually strengthened via law and techno-feudalism.
And if you're wealthy enough to create your own generative AI models, then you're also free to steal everything - feel free to use all the proprietary licensed code, books, art, voice acting, etc you want and it's all allowed as "fair use". This then puts those same creators out of jobs because they now have to compete against technology which can 24 hours a day, 365 days a year pump out high-quality work which is comparable to their own (all because it was trained on their copyrighted work).
The reality is that what is lawful is oftentimes a poor indicator of what is ethical behaviour.
In this situation where your rights are continuously abused and diminished it's therefore often ethical to pirate in order to exercise your rights e.g. to be able to actually own games you've purchased, rather than simply having a temporary limited license to access them.
But you should still support the creators you consume content from whenever you can, because you paying for it helps ensure they continue to be able to produce more of what you like.
The law's language is a distinction without a difference. Copyright infringement is not theft in the traditional sense (taking a physical object from someone else). But it is stealing in the sense that you are infringing on the rights of the owner, which is why the law will heavily fine you and imprison you if it convicts you of either.
It's not ethical. If you pay for something to rent, it is not yours to own. The solution is to vote with your dollar and go somewhere else. You don't have to play the game.
You cannot support the creators if you are stealing their work. What do you mean by "whenever you can"? When can't you?
I think the threshold is when you're willfully downloading copywritten items when you know it is illegal. If you think the owner of the copywritten items is evil and you don't want to pay them money, then I'd say the moral thing is to go without the item. Stealing the item is not the moral answer.
Many of the grey area scenarios that people have raised in this thread fall short of illegality, like using an adblocker or recording your friend's CD onto a cassette tape. I would say that illegality is a reasonable rule of thumb for where to draw the line.
Can you explain Luke 23:34? Is their ignorance in misinterpreting the letter of law? What is that they don't know?
They don't know that they are crucifying the Christ.
It is not possible to own many things anymore due to the advance of technofeudalism. Before the norm was CDs for music, which you could freely gift to family or friends, could listen to forever with no ability for a 3rd-party to revoke your ability to enjoy it, and when you're done you could even resell it to others with no restrictions.
Nowadays however you either pay for a license for it from Apple Music/Amazon/Bandcamp, rent it from Spotify/YouTube Music, or in very rare cases it's available in vinyl. You're not able to gift your purchased music to others, except by purchasing them a license too. You're not able to resell your purchased music, as it violates terms of service. You're not even able to listen to it forevermore, as many of these platforms remove artists and songs as well as revoke access to personal accounts in many documented situations.
If there was indeed still an alternative option to actually pay to own it then I would take it. But there quite literally isn't with most media today.
Look at videogames as another example. Denuvo and other DRM significantly worsens the user experience by reducing FPS, limiting how many personal devices you can experience this content on and requiring an always-online connection so they can constantly harvest data about your usage patterns. They can even prevent you from modding the game or be at risk of having your account banned.
What is someone who has been a lifetime hobbyist of any of these forms of media to do? Just accept that you no longer are able to freely experience the content you enjoy in the way you want to? No, I believe it's ethical that if they're going to try and trick customers who think they're actually "buying" an album, videogame, book, etc then that individual is free is strip the DRM, download a pirated version, modify, resell, gift and do whatever they want with their purchase if they want to. Fuck this "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" future.
Imagine you're really into rock music. You listen to playlists for an hour a day on Spotify, which shuffles through all the various trending songs. Then you decide you want to start owning the media you enjoy, so that you can permanently enjoy it without anyone being able to take that away from you. How do you then start supporting all the various artists and songs you've enjoyed?
Do you try to go back through your listening history and buy a license for each individual song from Apple Music/Amazon/Bandcamp and then strip the DRM? A ton of work, and this continues whenever you want to obtain something new. Do you get a Spotify/YouTube Music subscription to relieve your conscience then pirate the songs? Artists receive only fractions of a penny for thousands of listens on their songs so you still might not be helping them as much as you think. Do you accept that the media you consume will forever be ephemeral and you might easily lose access some day to your favourite songs? Not what I'd opt for, but each to their own. Few artists have ways to directly donate to relieve your conscience that way because all the middlemen want their piece of the action.
An EU-funded study (which they tried to prevent the publication of) proved that piracy doesn't negatively impact sales. Back in the days before Spotify and when everyone was pirating music from Limewire, BearShare and the like there were just as many artists and bands becoming insanely popular and rich. This is because if you pirate then you're still becoming their fan who'll spread their music through word of mouth, and you're more likely to spend on their concerts, merchandise and future albums.
Our evolving technofeudalistic society focuses on access not ownership, and unfortunately the Bible isn't as easily applied to niche issues arising from technology like this so you're best off getting moral advice from a tech-savvy priest. I'd opt to financially support indie creators wherever you can whilst not feeling guilty for pirating a classic version of Disney's Snow White or any other legacy content from entertainment conglomerates. Everything between those two extremes is in the grey middle area, just do what's in your means to especially support the little guys which includes financial support, word of mouth, user-generated content, reviews, etc.
I'd like to expand my answer.
In Luke 23:34, the Jews do not know that they are crucifying the Christ. In their minds, they are crucifying a guilty criminal. They don't know He is the Christ.
This same author, Luke, also wrote the book of Acts. In Acts 2:36, he picks up on this same theme in Peter's sermon to the Jews:
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”