The morality of piracy

[GodfatherPartTwo]

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.

I hear your many examples of how the technofeudalists want to move you to a subscription-based model. This is all true. But I don't know how this then makes your piracy-based model ethical. It's like paying rent for an apartment, then coming to the belief that you somehow are entitled to own the apartment. You should've bought a house instead. You might scratch a few people's ears by rallying for this, but no legal system will recognize that as legitimate. They will tell you what I'm telling you now, it was all there in the contract.

To give you an example, I wanted to have the Adobe Creative Suite, but I didn't want to pay for their ridiculous subscription-based model. So I found a different company, Affinity, that sells you their software to have, no subscription necessary.

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.

Word of mouth doesn't pay the bills. Sales do. Just because you steal the music while others pay doesn't mean you are somehow not culpable.

You are correct to point out that musicians usually earn pennies on the dollar for their work, so why are you compounding this problem by not even giving them the pennies?

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.

The Bible is not there to simply give you moral advice. It's the standard that you'll be judged by. It's the standard that the tech-savvy priest will be judged by too, whether he gives you an answer that is consistent with the Bible or he tells you what you want to hear.

Not that it's necessary, but can you cite any priests who agree with you that piracy is ethical? From glancing online, there doesn't seem to be any.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

I hear your many examples of how the technofeudalists want to move you to a subscription-based model. This is all true.

You are correct to point out that musicians usually earn pennies on the dollar for their work, so why are you compounding this problem by not even giving them the pennies?

Again, its called "situationally based ethics." Most normies use the term "situationally based ethics" as a negative term to shame you into JQ submission, but it is actually a high IQ form of discernment and rebellion. When is it okay to kill another human being? When that human being is "bad" and attacking you. Likewise, if a musician or content creator is not a Christian and watches pornography and is a "bad" person then it is just to punish them by refusing to issue them payment that helps them to continue to afford such an ammoral existence. You are actually doing them a favor by "stealing" from them, thus denying them further financial power to defile Christ.

All the problems you outline are put forth by a jew based economy that is always trying to charge us the most for the least (((they))) can get away with giving us... It's a big scam... Ever notice how a McDonald’s cheeseburger has gotten smaller yet the price has doubled while (((their))) corporate profits continually rise? These artists sign jew contracts, produce jew mind viruses, and have already reaped their financial benefit by the time a plebe takes their revenge in the form of refusing to issue them further payment. Ever heard of the term "The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer"? Well, this is how they do it. The System is continually stealing from us and yet you call it "stealing" and anti-Christian to fight back. This is not sound logic. You can only fight fire with fire (and water). Laying down and "taking it" is not a solution and only furthers the anti-Christian JQ lawfare "copyright" agenda.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

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.”

They do know that they are crucifying someone at least. The charge is blasphemy based on the law of the Prophets.

Can you explain what went wrong in this situation and how we can avoid the same mistake?

 

[homersheineken]

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.


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.

 

[homersheineken]

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.

The Golden Rule!

Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Jewish Media moguls lobby for copyright laws that benefit only them.

So, our morality is determined by Jewish billionaires.


Ad Blockers are now illegal in Germany btw (just like VPNs in many EU countries), so they have now been deemed immoral (piracy).

'Ad Blocking is Not Piracy' Decision Overturned By Top German Court * TorrentFreak

Legal action by publisher Axel Springer, which aims to outlaw ad blocking on copyright grounds, has been revived by Germany's top court.

torrentfreak.com

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Ad Blockers are now illegal in Germany btw (just like VPNs in many EU countries), so they have now been deemed immoral (piracy).

I recommend you actually read the article before you cite it.

 

[Thomas More]

The Golden Rule!

Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Jewish Media moguls lobby for copyright laws that benefit only them.

So, our morality is determined by Jewish billionaires.


Ad Blockers are now illegal in Germany btw (just like VPNs in many EU countries), so they have now been deemed immoral (piracy).

'Ad Blocking is Not Piracy' Decision Overturned By Top German Court * TorrentFreak

Legal action by publisher Axel Springer, which aims to outlaw ad blocking on copyright grounds, has been revived by Germany's top court.

torrentfreak.com

I've always heard that the Golden Rule is to do unto others as you would have done unto you. If I held the copywrite for any IP and had it for sale, I would want users to pay me and not get it from file sharing. Therefore I should pay for it, and not get it by file sharing.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Likewise, if a musician or content creator is not a Christian and watches pornography and is a "bad" person then it is just to punish them by refusing to issue them payment that helps them to continue to afford such an ammoral existence. You are actually doing them a favor by "stealing" from them, thus denying them further financial power to defile Christ.

By your logic, would it be just to cheat your employee out of his wages because he is not a Christian, watches porn, and is a bad person? Wouldn't you be doing him a favor by denying him further financial power to chase his sin?

 

[Thomas More]

By your logic, would it be just to cheat your employee out of his wages because he is not a Christian, watches porn, and is a bad person?

Might as well rewrite the whole Sermon on the Mount. If you think someone is about to strike you on the cheek, strike them first!

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Can you explain what went wrong in this situation and how we can avoid the same mistake?

Treating the Bible for what it is, the Word of God. Not empty words for you, but your very life. It would've saved the Pharisees, who would've recognized Christ as the fulfillment of the Scriptures and it would've saved the disciples from running away:

Luke 24:25 And He said to them, “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Treating the Bible for what it is, the Word of God. Not empty words for you, but your very life. It would've saved the Pharisees, who would've recognized Christ as the fulfillment of the Scriptures and it would've saved the disciples from running away:

So, the issue is that the Pharisees didn't believe the prophesies? They didn't believe the prophesies because they don't know any better?

 

[Blade Runner]

Contrary to what Blade Runner says, actions are indeed moral and immoral in themselves.

I can believe this and agree with you even, and still hold that there is also a subset of actions and judgments that are situational. You do realize that, don't you? Also, it's not like God has this checklist out when you face him and are judged, with the final tally that you hope goes 1, "good" over "bad." This is the type of bad thinking I'm trying to expose here. All too common in the mental assent community, or the "What's the least I can do to be saved?" which is basically how people approach the topic.

Again, its called "situationally based ethics." Most normies use the term "situationally based ethics" as a negative term to shame you into JQ submission, but it is actually a high IQ form of discernment and rebellion.

Yes.

If I held the copywrite for any IP and had it for sale, I would want users to pay me and not get it from file sharing.

I find this to be a moot point. I disagree that it should be like that in the first place, so of course if that's the game, you don't want to be excluded from it while others are rewarded for it. Got it?

 

[Judoka]

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.

You don't own the media on a physical disc. You own the disc, not the content on the disc. It's the same concept as buying digital media expect the method of delivery is different.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I can believe this and agree with you even, and still hold that there is also a subset of actions and judgments that are situational. You do realize that, don't you? Also, it's not like God has this checklist out when you face him and are judged, with the final tally that you hope goes 1, "good" over "bad." This is the type of bad thinking I'm trying to expose here. All too common in the mental assent community, or the "What's the least I can do to be saved?" which is basically how people approach the topic.

There you go again. No, you don't agree. Your "situationally based ethics" is not compatible with objective morality.

And yes, you will give an account to God some day. That's not "bad thinking" from the "mental assent community." That's just the Bible. You should read it sometime.

 

[homersheineken]

I've always heard that the Golden Rule is to do unto others as you would have done unto you. If I held the copywrite for any IP and had it for sale, I would want users to pay me and not get it from file sharing. Therefore I should pay for it, and not get it by file sharing.

Not in terms of law and how laws are created - which was what you were using as justification.

 

[homersheineken]

There you go again. No, you don't agree. Your "situationally based ethics" is not compatible with objective morality.

And yes, you will give an account to God some day. That's not "bad thinking" from the "mental assent community." That's just the Bible. You should read it sometime.

Just as your ethics are based on the situation for piracy.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Just as your ethics are based on the situation for piracy.

Have you read the article you posted yet?

 

[Blade Runner]

There you go again. No, you don't agree. Your "situationally based ethics" is not compatible with objective morality.

And yes, you will give an account to God some day. That's not "bad thinking" from the "mental assent community." That's just the Bible. You should read it sometime.

Read what I wrote again. You don't treat any of the topics I mentioned, which is key to actually understanding what's going on, or at least another person's thesis - mine in this case.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Read what I wrote again. You don't treat any of the topics I mentioned, which is key to actually understanding what's going on, or at least another person's thesis - mine in this case.

I've already treated it. "Stealing is ok because Jews" is not a Biblically based, moral argument. Wouldn't hold up in any court of law and won't hold up when you give account to God.

 

[Blade Runner]

I've already treated it. "Stealing is ok because Jews" is not a Biblically based, moral argument. Wouldn't hold up in any court of law and won't hold up when you give account to God.

That's not what I've given as an argument. Not even close. Come on, man.