The morality of piracy

Even if they are copying a file that can be copied infinitely, it is their owner's property, and that owner chooses to offer it for money.
I will not grant you this at all (at least in all cases). It is certainly not a maxim.
Basically, the fact that files can be copied has nothing to do with the morality of taking them against the owner's will.
We have to first agree that "copying" is bad or in a paradigm where it merits something, specifically money.
Righteously reclaim that which has been stolen from you (this includes your tax dollars which are used to fund Israel's genociding of Palestinians). Don't be a cuck. Fight fire with fire. God does not want us to be weak men who bend over and take it from the synagogue of satan.
The modern world has brought up these questions because they are not easily answered. When Urkel has points, even in gray areas, I must give him his due. One can go too far with these though, it is true.
Then what does it say about war? Is it okay to kill bad people? So it is okay to kill bad people but not take their belongings? What does it say about the death penalty? Or, when you are being attacked are you to put down your weapons and let an enemy slay you unapposed? We are being attacked, we are being murdered via theft. We are having our land stolen. We are having our hard earned cash stolen by banks and governments to fight endless wars that do not make our lives better and we are not to "steal" it back? Again, it is not theft from the innocent, it is taking back that which has been stolen from us by the synagogue of satan.
I've personally never bought the "interpretation" that we are supposed to "obey" (in all aspects) godless, demon inspired governments, and certainly not bureaucracies. I don't think any of us here buy what they are selling or are OK with it, certainly not across the board. Stealing from you and lying to you, as Urkel says, with aims and actions that we know are corrupted and evil (at least in certain circumstances) to me absolutely is akin to telling me to "go against God" - a commonly used minimum standard some "authorities" use as litmus test to be obedient to your government/secular leaders.
In my personal opinion music and other arts should be rewarded by donation - an artist puts out their content for free and it's up to the listener to reward him how he sees fit if he deems the content valuable, just like he would by throwing something into an instrument case on the street. Computer software is different because it's a tool and thus should have a price like a set of wrenches or pliers or what have you.
This is exactly the kind of thing I am saying, I agree with Ostrog. Again, I'm just saying there are clear exceptions and reserve the right to discern the differences, but music is entertainment for sure in the category of unproductive and should be a human experience and shared endeavor. Productive things like technologies that people build on are far different considerations.
If you reject these and say they don't apply to you, then you are an outlaw. I assume you are not an outlaw in every sense as most people think of the term. Maybe just a digital outlaw.
I have no problem with that, as law has nothing necessarily to do with morality. For example, if a government outlawed BTC I would consider it a duty to encourage others to understand how evil that action is, and how it is everything against human freedom and privacy, productivity. If that were impossible, I would of course leave that location/jurisdiction. You may have seen the other thread, so quick summary here - it's shocking to me that people know that the government is stealing from them in time and energy by printing money, and yet aren't outraged. Worse, they even cheer it on as something good. It's amazing to me and shows me just how broken so much of modernity really is.
 
I'm curious if anyone supporting piracy in this thread has ever produced any intellectual property themselves. Have you written a book? Recorded an album? Made a video game? When you look at the argument from the perspective of the creator rather than the consumer, you might see things differently.

And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?
 
And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?
A case like that would be essentially the same as: a normal dude stays in some parties (being a forum a private space for leisure and discussion) listening to other people, more interesting than him, have long conversations about different topics. Some time later he writes down a dialogue expressing these ideas without adding much of his own thought, and for some reason this gets popular despite him being a nobody with no credentials.

Would this be baffling as to why did people chose to care about him? Yes, but I don't find the idea morally illicit.
 
All money in the US and most of the world is fiat money. As I'm sure everybody here knows, fiat money is created from nothing. To some extent, fiat money is based on debt, but sometimes the central banks just buy debt with money they created from nothing.

Based on this, it certainly must be moral to steal money from a bank. Not cash, because you could get caught too easily. However embezzlement should be fine. Who could argue otherwise? Besides the fact the fiat money wants to be free, it's also true that bankers are bad people.

Likewise, it's clearly moral to embezzle from governments and large corporations. It just stands to reason. Right? It's really no different than any other data.

I'm sure this doesn't apply to embezzling bitcoin though. That's different!
 
The topic should be seen through the lens of contracts, fraud and giving the artist their reward (thing that is less true now as the copyright extends more and more years after death), not stealing which is material. By tailoring your own pants a pair of pants isn't stolen from Target, by 3D printing your own phone case a case isn't stolen from a mall, and by writing down a page in your notebook a page isn't ripped off a book somewhere.
The term "piracy" itself was pushed by corpos to equiparate making something for yourself to violent pillage.
 
I don't understand the point of piracy... Just pay for the media if it's worth that much to you...

"Piracy" by definition is the illegal distribution and/or downloading of copyrighted materials/products.

Taking a picture of the Mona Lisa is not piracy. Recording the radio on a cassette tape (for those of us old enough) is not piracy. Copying a legally purchased dvd for personal use is not piracy.

There are so many ways to watch/read stuff for "free" nowadays. What's the point?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the point of piracy... Just pay for the media if it's worth that much to you...

"Piracy" by definition is the illegal distribution and/or downloading of copyrighted materials/products.

Taking a picture of the Mona Lisa is not piracy. Recording the radio on a cassette tape (for those of us old enough) is not piracy. Copying a legally purchased dvd for personal use is not piracy.

There are so many ways to watch/read stuff for "free" nowadays. What's the point? Get a VPN.
watching a streaming service of other country via a VPN probably violates the terms of service or copyright if wanting to abide by the law is the priority
 
I'm curious if anyone supporting piracy in this thread has ever produced any intellectual property themselves.
Yes.
Have you recorded an album?
Yes.
When you look at the argument from the perspective of the creator rather than the consumer, you might see things differently.
No.
it certainly must be moral to steal money from a bank.
A bank owned by jews who debank people for wrong think and finance immigrant panjeets to buy up all our hotels? Most certainly then, yes.

We are under attack and I find it interesting that people are advocating for not fighting back. We are under attack by many forces one of which is media (i.e. propaganda). Our children's innocence has been robbed by jewish produced over-sexualized filth that pushes their globohomo agenda as seen by a 1000% rise in openly blatant homosexual behavior and "activity" by our youth since the 1980's and you are scared that "stealing" from (((them))) is "immoral"? No wonder we're getting are asses kicked up and down the battle field of life. (((They))) play with evil, malicious intent and we play by "rules" and with kid gloves.

I'm staying in a hotel tonight and was flipping through the TV channels and landed on the opening scene to this kids show "The Wizards Of Waverly Place." In the 60 second opening I saw a 12 year old mulatto girl dressed up like a goth whore in black leather bondage attire complete with thigh high mini skirt who was casting a ("black") magic spell with a wand that created a live dinosaur egg...
... Some hispanic/white mixed homosexual looking man entered the scene and threatened to take her phone away for two weeks if she didn't disappear the dinosaur egg, to which she responded to the camera (i.e. the children watching the show), "So much for telling the truth, I guess I'll have to start lying again" (canned laughter ensued)... mis en scene...
...Then the introductory titles and credits rolled introducing a cast of various blends of mixed race child actors to appear in the episode including one very gay and effeminate looking hispanic "boy."

Do you think that "pirating" episodes of The Wizards Of Waverly Place and editing them into example clips to use as an "illegal" underground campaign against teaching kids to lie, atheistic black magic, faggotry in media, and the over-sexualization of our youth by the usual suspects would be "stealing" or fighting fire with fire? Or should we ask our (((overlords))) of JQ copyright for "legal" JQ lawfare "permission" to attack this JQ produced filth first?
 
I'm curious if anyone supporting piracy in this thread has ever produced any intellectual property themselves. Have you written a book? Recorded an album? Made a video game? When you look at the argument from the perspective of the creator rather than the consumer, you might see things differently.

And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?

Yes I am a published author in a scientific journal.

My intellectual property was stolen from me by the Jewish mafia known as JSTOR and is behind a paywall, in which not only do I not recieve royalties for my work - they require a subscription and JSTOR gets paid - but also would need to pay to access my own work!

Intectual property laws are a joke in this country and only benefit 1 class, the owner class. Even the creators aren't necessarily protected. There are countless stories of artists not getting their fair share for their work - John Fogerty, Prince, most older Blues players who lost their catalogues for hot meal, musicians who only get 10% of an album sale, movie stars who never got their share of profits becuase of arcane financial setups so that a movie will ALWAYS be unprofitable....

This is all represented as the 'evil white man', but we know who really runs the Media companies.... So even if you claim it's hurts the artist, chances are they aren't getting what they deserve anyways, if anything at all - like in my case.
 
I'm curious if anyone supporting piracy in this thread
I don't support piracy, It looks like I'm arguing in good faith with moral grandstanding. We have people who think they're a good person because they don't use torrents. Their explanation is because it's not nice and you wouldn't steal a car. Of course these people don't seem to know anything beyond that. They don't know how much these entertainers should be compensated for their labor. They don't know how often they should be compensated. They don't know what constitutes proper compensation; are the CDs in the bargain bin proper compensation? When I formulate my posts in The Destruction of Women thread I blast "I need a girl" by Puff Daddy and Usher. It's available on YouTube but I use ublock. How can I make things right? I'm not even sure how many times I stole that song.
 
I'm curious if anyone supporting piracy in this thread has ever produced any intellectual property themselves. Have you written a book? Recorded an album? Made a video game? When you look at the argument from the perspective of the creator rather than the consumer, you might see things differently.

And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?
I have. Reselling work is not what we are discussing in this thread.

However, what you are talking about - ironically - is the publishing industry.
 
And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?
You speak as if Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' didn't happen.
 
I don't support piracy, It looks like I'm arguing in good faith with moral grandstanding. We have people who think they're a good person because they don't use torrents. Their explanation is because it's not nice and you wouldn't steal a car. Of course these people don't seem to know anything beyond that. They don't know how much these entertainers should be compensated for their labor. They don't know how often they should be compensated. They don't know what constitutes proper compensation; are the CDs in the bargain bin proper compensation? When I formulate my posts in The Destruction of Women thread I blast "I need a girl" by Puff Daddy and Usher. It's available on YouTube but I use ublock. How can I make things right? I'm not even sure how many times I stole that song.
A low quality, straw-man post from top to bottom. No one arguing against piracy here has argued the way you're presenting. If you're going to respond to an argument, then actually address the argument instead of making stupid posts.
 
And if the answer is that you've never created anything yourself (as I suspect it is in most cases), then try out this thought experiment: imagine someone has copied all of your posts on CIK and assembled them into an e-book, which they posted on Amazon and which has (miraculously, for the purposes of this example) become a bestseller and earned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, none of which they have shared with you. This individual has blatantly and shamelessly stolen your intellectual/creative output for his own benefit. How does that make you feel?
This is plagiarism, not piracy because in pirating stuff the people aren’t profiting (assuming no resale just consumption).
 
Yes I am a published author in a scientific journal.

My intellectual property was stolen from me by the Jewish mafia known as JSTOR and is behind a paywall, in which not only do I not recieve royalties for my work - they require a subscription and JSTOR gets paid - but also would need to pay to access my own work!

Intectual property laws are a joke in this country and only benefit 1 class, the owner class. Even the creators aren't necessarily protected. There are countless stories of artists not getting their fair share for their work - John Fogerty, Prince, most older Blues players who lost their catalogues for hot meal, musicians who only get 10% of an album sale, movie stars who never got their share of profits becuase of arcane financial setups so that a movie will ALWAYS be unprofitable....

This is all represented as the 'evil white man', but we know who really runs the Media companies.... So even if you claim it's hurts the artist, chances are they aren't getting what they deserve anyways, if anything at all - like in my case.
You're arguing a different issue. No one is claiming that the publishing business is squeaky clean. It's well known that many artists have been screwed over. How that justifies you in also screwing them over is what we are arguing. What happens between a publisher and an artist, no matter how you slice it, does not result in you, a third party, being personally justified in pirating media. It's just another excuse to steal something you haven't paid for.

As for your personal case, sorry to hear about that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top