Jump to content

Piracy Discussion


nuget102

Recommended Posts

YAR HAR FIDDLE DE DEE DO WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE A PIRATE IS FREE I AM A PIRATE...............sorry

 

Do what you want cause a pirate is free - you are a pirate!

 

 

lol-limewire-o.gif

 

YAR HAR FIDDLE DEE DEE

BEING A PIRATE IS ALRIGHT TO ME

DO WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE A PIRATE IS FREE

YOU ARE A PIRATE

 

Ahhh, that takes me back. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

disingenuous

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

 

I know what he meant. He could have explained himself without making a comparison to the devestating emotional trauma of rape, much less in a condescending tone.  We're all better than that, I hope.

 

Speaking of logical fallacies... just because you can't define how much someone has been hurt by something doesn't make it any less real. Can you define how much rape hurts someone mentally? No? That doesn't make it any less true. I can prove to you right this very second that 'feelings' have been hurt, if you want to call it that. There have been plenty of public outcries, sincere sadness, and outright outrage via Twitter, Blogs, Forums, etc. from any number of game designers.

 

 

I didn't identify any condescension in his post. You might want to point out which part made you felt condescended to.

 

Once again, the point of the analogy was to make the point that emotional harm can be considered real and damaging to the victim of the act. When making such examples the concern should be whether the example is actually relevant and applicable to the point in question, not the "devastating" nature of the example itself. It's sounding increasingly like you're splitting hairs over the repugnance of rape to avoid addressing the main issue here - The consideration of emotional harm as part of the damages a developer endures.

 

Just for emphasis - The point was not to draw comparisons between a rape victim to a piracy victim. The point was to showcase that emotional harm is generally considered by society to be a valid consideration when evaluating overall damage done to a victim. Pirates are not being compared to rapists, here. 

 

...Also, you're saying that posters should not behave in a condescending manner, and then turning right around and quoting the dictionary definition of a word in your post. Unless you were putting it there as an extraneous reference for yourself, the only other reason for that is that you're assuming that I or another person reading is not able to understand its meaning on our own, despite - in my case - actively using the word. What was that about condescension again?

 

 

 

 

As mentioned earlier, I believe where you were misunderstood is when you made an argument for losses needing to be material to be considered real.

I never made an argument like that and I really can't explain myself more simply than I already have. Go back and quote where I say "losses need to be material to be considered real."

 

I think you'll find that all I say is "potential profit is not the same as loss" and "I don't want to argue about things like hurt feelings when we could be debating with facts."

 

I don't understand how everyone continues to think i'm arguing anything other than the words I've written in my posts.

 

 

...You're acknowledging yourself - right in this very post which you're trying to refute me - the veracity of my claim. By your own statement, emotional hurt does not constitute "facts".

 

I'm going to assume that I miscommunicated my meaning of the word "Losses", so here it is - I'm defining "losses" to include a reduction of a person's emotions and mentality to a lesser state, from a previously more complete state of mind. "Hurt Feelings", "Loss of perception of control", "Loss of feeling of dignity", all constitute "losses". This is in addition to observable losses in the material world, of course.

 

Also, once again your declaration here proves that the horror of rape itself in the example given by Rathlord is not really the issue here - The real issue is that you're rejecting potential emotional damages as a consideration offhand, without really getting around to justifying why. So here, now - Would you explain why emotional damages, which are considered very real and due consideration in real - life courts of law, are being written off by yourself as "non - facts"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

disingenuous

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

 

I know what he meant. He could have explained himself without making a comparison to the devestating emotional trauma of rape, much less in a condescending tone.  We're all better than that, I hope.

%

 

I'm missing something  . . . are you just pointing out the irony in calling someone else condescending, then following it up with "we're all better than that, I hope?"


Oh, never mind. Suddenly there's a post . . .

Please don't generate placeholder posts? I can understand if it was unintentional, of course.


As far as my interpretation goes, Rathlord wasn't making a comparison of the "devastating emotional trauma of rape." He was saying that pain and mental anguish is a subjective; that it emotional turmoil vary drastically between each individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only assume he's being intentionally obtuse in his reading of my post, which pretty much means this discussion is drawing to an end. Sev already pointed it out quite nicely, and I hardly think it possible that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would read it the way you interpreted it, meaning the only logical explanation is that you're a dunce or you're just trying to latch onto a straw man argument to deter discussion of the actual point. Neither bodes well for the continuation of intelligent, thought provoking content. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've always believed piracy was OK if you're a kid who couldn't pay. But as an adult - it's a definite no-go.

An adult earning minimum wage? Who can't possibly pay for games due to other money constraints?

 

 

Still no justification for thievery. If you can't afford a book, you don't go rob a bookstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If you can't afford a book, you don't go rob a bookstore.

 

 

Except the latter bears real world consequence.

 

When someone pirates something, there's very little risk involved, hence the appeal of it. Although your analogy is still correct.

 

Problem with piracy, and the basic fundamental reason why people do it (even if they proclaim they do it for other reasons) is because its easy. It's easy for them to sit behind their computer, type a few words in google and get something for free. It's still wrong to do it regardless.

 

It really all comes down to the level of risk which is the deciding factor. Know those fruit stands outside a shop? The ones that are left unattended most of the time while the shopkeeper is inside. Well occasionally you might see a kid or even an adult swipe a piece of fruit of its stand, only because it was easy with relatively little risk.

 

If the risk factor ever went up when it comes to piracy (talking about downloading here, not uploading!) then I'm pretty sure those who pirate would think twice. If there was a lot more risk involved, then yeah the analogy of robbing a bookstore would carry more weight. Right now its about swiping fruit; albeit more expensive fruit.

 

Personally, I don't judge people who pirate because how much blame can you place on someone if the temptation to save money is presented to them in an easy medium? The problem is access, and its incredibly easy for them to get something for nothing. People love getting free stuff, and can anyone blame them for giving into the temptation? While technically its not free, to them it is; sometimes the temptation for it is too much. It's just how people are in a society ruled by money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Xydonus, and to further expound upon your point, a society driven by greed. It's the conceit that we 'must' have this game even though we can't afford it/don't want to pay for it/it might not be good/whatever that really drives this. The idea that because we want something, therefor we deserve it. It's a side effect of the silly, privileged lives we lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum won't let me use this many quote boxes so here are some italics instead. :D
 
I didn't identify any condescension in his post. You might want to point out which part made you felt condescended to.
 
"Can you define how much rape hurts someone mentally? No? That doesn't make it any less true."
 
Maybe I simply felt condescended to.
 
I defined the word "disingenuous" because  - and yes, I did have to look it up, which is partly why I put it there - by using it you were accusing me of deliberately playing dumb so I wouldn't have to respond to an argument.  I wanted to make sure we both understood that.
 
Once again, I know what his point was.  More on that later.  But if we're not talking about rape, why did he need to make such a comparison? If I remove those three sentences from his argument it's exactly the same without making some flawed analogy.
 
At the risk of breaching Goodwin's Law, using rape to make an example in a discussion is like using Hitler and the Nazis. It's not fair and there are plenty of better ways to make a point - as Rathlord himself proved with the rest of his post.

 

No, using rape as an example does not disqualify his argument.  It just bothered me that he took that paragraph out of context, interpreted it, and then responded.  I never made the claims he thought I made.
 
 
...You're acknowledging yourself - right in this very post which you're trying to refute me - the veracity of my claim. By your own statement, emotional hurt does not constitute "facts".
 
...
 

Also, once again your declaration here proves that the horror of rape itself in the example given by Rathlord is not really the issue here - The real issue is that you're rejecting potential emotional damages as a consideration offhand, without really getting around to justifying why. So here, now - Would you explain why emotional damages, which are considered very real and due consideration in real - life courts of law, are being written off by yourself as "non - facts"?
 
You're reading between the lines again. I didn't say emotional losses aren't real - I said they're subjective. I made an unfortunate implication that emotional loss wasn't a fact because I was in the flurry of defending myself from everyone who misconstrued my posts, but that wasn't my point. It's what happens when you write an argument in less than an hour.
 
When I said "facts" I meant things that could be more easily measured: profit margins, piracy statistics, the effectiveness of anti-piracy measures taken by publishers and developers or the effects of piracy on the video games market as a whole (to give a few examples).
 
I neither consider emotional loss "not real" somehow nor do I reject it as a consideration - but I do believe it's not as easily quantifiable.

 



 
As far as my interpretation goes, Rathlord wasn't making a comparison of the "devastating emotional trauma of rape." He was saying that pain and mental anguish is a subjective; that it emotional turmoil vary drastically between each individual.

This is exactly my point. It was the point of the paragraph he quoted. That's what's annoying me about this whole conversation.  So far almost everyone who's responded to me is misinterpreting or misreading my arguments somehow.  I try to explain myself and I'm either ignored or misinterpreted again and a new argument starts.  :(

 


 

If anyone is confused, ignore everything I have written in this and any posts prior to this line.
 
Do we really want to get into a discussion about how much piracy hurts game developers' feelings?  We totally can.  I just think it'd end in arguing in circles forever without drawing any conclusions we didn't already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that's not true. You're trying to play it off as you being misconstrued because something you said was incorrect. You said that we can't know if any developers have had their feelings hurt by rape and that the logical next step was that we could not let that factor into the debate. That is what you said, not something you implied or that was left to interpretation.

 

The reason I brought up rape was obviously not to compare piracy to rape; the entire point was a direct contrast to your assertion that because emotional trauma can't be quantified, that it has no merit in our arguments. I used an extreme example to clarify the issue, not as some misguided comparison. It was not a 'flawed analogy' as you so preposterously claim. It is a perfectly valid analogy- it's a direct 1:1 comparison (a situation in which feelings are hurt: those feelings being hurt are showed to have value [which, to my amusement, is furthered by your own vehement reaction to the topic]). The only difference between the two is the extremity of the trauma and the extremity of people's reaction to the trauma (which is exactly what makes it an analogy, not a description). There is no flaw there, the only flaw was in your reaction to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I'm wrong that we can't know.  You proved that much.

 

I didn't say it had no merit, I said I'd rather debate less subjective things.  If I implied that it was invalid to our discussion that was entirely by mistake.

 

I mean, how could I have followed a game like PZ for so long and not think that TIS were emotionally harmed by its piracy?  I'd look pretty foolish.  I was trying to be careful not to make that assertation in my posts but I guess my words got away from me.

 

I apologize for the drama i stirred up in this thread; I honestly wasn't trying to.  I have a tendency to get angry when I think I'm being ignored or repeatedly misunderstood and maybe I let that get the better of me.

 

I'd be perfectly willing to discuss the effects of piracy, in any sense of the word, if that's where the thread is moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to let frustration take the reins in a controversial discussion. I'm sure plenty of us our guilty of the same. I'm not sure there's a whole lot less to say, as it's essentially boiled down to:

 

1) Everyone agrees that on some level piracy is a morally reprehensible thing to do, and

2) Some/many/most people will continue even knowing that because it is easy, convenient, and they're unlikely to face consequences

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to let frustration take the reins in a controversial discussion. I'm sure plenty of us our guilty of the same. I'm not sure there's a whole lot less to say, as it's essentially boiled down to:

 

1) Everyone agrees that on some level piracy is a morally reprehensible thing to do, and

2) Some/many/most people will continue even knowing that because it is easy, convenient, and they're unlikely to face consequences

I think we all can agree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1) Everyone agrees that on some level piracy is a morally reprehensible thing to do, and

2) Some/many/most people will continue even knowing that because it is easy, convenient, and they're unlikely to face consequences

I don't agree with one, at all. That's complete rubbish. I do it purely because I don't find it reprehensible. I think it's perfectly reasonable, in a lot of cases. There's actually less cases where it isn't fine by me than where it is.

 

 

Then you either have an innate failure to understand morality or logic. One or the other. The posts you've made in this thread have been solidly debunked with strict logical points that you've yet to give any sensible counterproposals to. And in the end, it's society that dictates morality, not your individual opinion. You may not think that taking someone that isn't yours that someone else has worked to produce isn't wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It still stealing, regardless of intent or harm done.

*Shrug*

Is it really? If I took your watch, and it was still there, would you say I stole it?

 

You just stole my post, you bastard.

Give it back!

Look, acex, I've put up a huge amount of pictures over the past year online. You copy one of those pictures and use it for your own purposes, despite them being my intellectual property.

I'd say you still stole it.

The question is, how much do I care and how much does it affect me? Obviously the answer is "not very much" for both counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God ... it is hilarious how some people try to justify their actions even if they know they do wrong.

At least grow the balls to say that it is stealing :D

I don't know why we even have a discussion thread here. From a judicial standpoint there is no point in arguing.

Is a judicial standpoint always right, though?

Or can you not hear me over the MPAA's dongs slapping you across the face?

I don't think I'm doing wrong, stop trying to make it seem like I think I am.

Yes in this case it is right. I don't care what dongs you think about, but you are doing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said before- no one really gives a crap what you think, because that's not how morality works. You may thinking butchering children isn't wrong, that doesn't make it right. Even if from a moral standpoint in some fucked up world I don't want to be part of taking things that don't belong to you isn't wrong, it's still against the law. So... yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like I said before- no one really gives a crap what you think, because that's not how morality works. You may thinking butchering children isn't wrong, that doesn't make it right. Even if from a moral standpoint in some fucked up world I don't want to be part of taking things that don't belong to you isn't wrong, it's still against the law. So... yup.

But where are you getting this "fact" that most people agree piracy is completely morally wrong, so therefore it's morally wrong because society doesn't like it? You're using a baseless assumption to back up what you're saying. 

Although, the "no one really gives a crap what you think" is complete, utter bullshit. Why would someone start a thread about it otherwise? 

Your whole fallback to this was "It's clearly morally wrong, because I think so." 

That's not a reason. 

 

And once again, I'm not taking it. I'm copying it. Nothing is ever taken.

 

(Also, something being against the law =/= Morally wrong.)

So (as you seem to like these kinds of arguments) if society as a whole would condone acts like murder would you say it should be legal to murder another person?

I'm waiting for your facts here. All I hear is pirates defending their acts... "It isn't that bad so it isn't a crime". I don't know why this doesn't go into your dong-thought-filled head but no one is saying that copying is the same thing as taking, but that doesn't make it legal xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the first art - Personality I wouldn't endorse it, but if they're all for it then I'd be obliged to let them have their way, even though it'd speak up about it.

Interesting, then let me take this further: Would you still speak up against it, if most people would think it is okay to kill those who speak against murder?

 

I never said it's not a crime.

Well you are saying that the law isn't the scale here because most of the people think it is okay (still I wait for some kind of proof that you criminals pirates are in the majority :P).

 

To me "ah well screw the law if people think it is okay" then that sounds to me like "it is not a crime if people think it is okay" ... or am I seeing this wrong?

What I am trying to get at here is that while the law may not represent the same values you stand for it is a vital instance in your country. After WWII the law in germany was completely overhauled to ensure the rights of every human and those laws are unchangeable. If we could simply say, that the law doesn't count for situations in which the majority of the people thinks it would be right, then we might easily see a second holocaust in the future. Now I know that comparing genocide and piracy is a bit far off but they both have two things in common. They are laws that protect a certain group of people and both these laws were created on a more or less democratic basis. If you say that a certain group of people (for example game developers) shouldn't have the same rights as other humans then ... well you see where it gets you.

Excuse my english, it is pretty late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...