[hotnfresh]

The ethical distance between this and littering is about as large as the one between littering and murder, though.

If it’s unethical, it’s somewhere around running a stoplight that’s plainly not registering your presence and hasn’t turned for ten full minutes, with perfect straight mile-long views either way and not a car or person in sight. Not really unethical at all.

[WendyTheWillow]

I like the littering analogy because it's a kind of tragedy-of-the-commons problem. If everyone pirated, clearly there'd be a problem around capitalistic incentives for making intellectual property, similarly to how if everyone littered, there'd be a problem around environmental cleanliness.

But I don't think most people would argue that everyone should pirate IP.

That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable?

[vonjuice]

Littering is actually a terrible analogy. First of all, a place becomes littered, everyone there is affected. Piracy only hypothetically harms a select few who probably make more money you can imagine.

Furthermore, in a world where everyone pirates, everyone is still free to give money. You can pirate and buy a steam game or a bandcamp album. They're not mutually exclusive. Here the littering analogy breaks down again.

I don't believe "everyone should pirate", I think the model of ownership as archaic, it is trying to uphold an old model of material goods, through power alone, into a technological model.

If I make a ceramic cup, and you steal it, I don't have it anymore. I can't drink my tea or look at it and smile.

If you made an exact replica of it, if I find out and I'm petty maybe I'll be mad, or maybe I'll fantasize about how you were maybe gonna buy it from me, but I sure can't complain that you took my cup away from me.

Being able to reproduce media at virtually no cost is a new concept. As such, it deserves new mindsets, not old models based around material goods.

I believe this exposes that the new model should be one of higher trust, where customers use their money as reward, not to obtain.

In regards to b) I think it's pretty simple. A steam game currently could take 20% or 2% of minimum wage based solely on where you live. There's emulated games too, what benefit, what real consequence is carried upstream to anyone that deserves it, when I take my time to find a used copy of an old game, buy a used CD reader, and rip the game legally, as opposed to two clicks from a torrent site. Show me the real harm, where in that chain is anything of consequence being done? Is it just about performing the dance that the authorities tell you to do?

[zlg_codes]

> That's a good follow-up question though; for those who believe pirating is ethical, do you a) believe everyone should pirate, and b) if not, what makes your pirating acceptable but other pirating unacceptable?

Pirating something, I see as gaining access to something when the official or preferred channel is either unreasonably expensive, or the product itself is unknown.

Piracy is an effective way to try before you buy, at your own pace. On one hand, sure, once you pirate something you don't need to buy it, but my own dabbling has resulted in MORE purchase activity, not less. I could buy games or movies or shows knowing I would enjoy them and be satisfied with my purchase.

There were totally games and whatnot that I downloaded, tried, and then ignored or deleted. Was anyone really damaged by that? I see that as the equivalent of window shopping. It's what you do after you try it that forms the ethical stance, in my opinion.

Are you a struggling student pirating AfterEffects or something else so you can earn money and then buy a real copy? Some might say that's ethical pirating because there's an intent to be legit about it but there are obstacles. "Don't buy or get it" one might say, and forever lock themselves out of opportunity.

Choosing to keep a pirated version of something is as much a social and political commentary as it is a technical violation of monopoly. Someone who can afford something they pirated, that they liked and kept, may be seen as a cheapskate.

But honestly, there are many games and music albums and shows I would never have tried out if I didn't have an easy and accessible means to just give'em a whirl.

So you could say I see no harm in "explorative" piracy, or pirating that then gets deleted when you find out you don't like it. In the rights-owner's world, that person should be out money, and disappointed in their purchase! Seems like more moral harm than making sure you like what you're buying.

[garfij]

Following the example from the original comment, I would argue that if the content is otherwise unavailable for purchase or rent, then yes, it is ethical for anyone and everyone to pirate it.

Conversely it is unethical to retain the rights to shared cultural artifacts and _not_ provide a way for people to access them.

I'm papering over some grey area where if it's not available for purchase but you could get it from the library, maybe via inter-library loan, then maybe in aggregate it's better ethically to do that.

[Dylan16807]

Weren't we talking about the situation where there's no way to buy? Piracy there isn't going to undermine the incentive to create.

If everyone litters in public areas where trash cans are reasonable to expect, but have not been installed, a likely and good outcome is that trash cans get installed. (But in a more accurate analogy, the trash cans would cost negative money to install!)