Piracy Ethics Debate

If I understand your position correctly, you feel that even if someone does not have $40 or would not have paid $40 for something that can be freely copied, it is both immoral and unethical to ignore the author's wishes and copy it anyway. Even though you as the author are unaffected by this action. You also feel that it's justifiable to seek out people who do this and tell them that they should not do this, i.e. how to live their life.Is that an accurate summary? I am trying to res

You've fallen into the classic trap:No one is obliged to give you free content in the form of movies, music, books, video games, television shows, etc. Just because you can pirate or steal something doesn't mean it's morally or legally justifiable.

You can't deprive someone of something that was never there. Consider the following sets of situations:1: An album is available for $10. It is worth $5 to me. I don't buy it.2: An album is available for $10. It's worth $5 to me. I pirate it and obtain it for $0.The second set of circumstances is better for everyone: I have gained total welfare of $5 and no one has lost out. I don't see how this is worse than the first option, or morally wrong..

You're not insane. I think the near-victimless nature of this crime makes it easy to compartmentalize away. Arguments such as "zero distribution costs," "it's just numbers," and "don't call it stealing!" tend to oversimplify the discussion in the hopes of avoiding the vast moral chasm that exists between enjoying media, compensating creators, and being part of a sometimes exploitative system.Contrast the easy-going attitudes exhibited towards major IP rights holders ("it doesn't matter if I c

"Pirating is not right. Most people would agree with that, too."The biggest problem I see today is that there are so many people who aren't even bothering to justify pirating, and instead insist that it is natural, good and just -- not just as a means to get access to content they otherwise wouldn't be able to, but for everything.To draw my line in the sand, I have no problems with people pirating works they simply don't have any other access to. American shows that aren't broadcast overs

Legally, it is stealing. However, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.However, you could also think of it like the digital equivalent of sharing. If someone purchases a movie or TV series on physical disks, they could loan it to you without breaking the law. In fact, they could even make a copy of the disk and not break the law. The only way to break the law this way is by having multiple copies in use at the same time. This is just digital sharing without checks in p

no, you are trying to make the case that piracy is merely sharing, which is wrong.

I'll be pedantic: it's unethical (ethics are set by the society you are in). It's questionably immoral (based on personal values) depending on your views of piracy.

Because you're an adult who understands that software, films, music, art, books, etc all have (significant) financial costs to produce and the people who make them have a right to the fruit of their labor as long as those fruits are required for them to continue eating. And because it's obvious you are not making an exact copy, because the original is legally licensed and the copy is not.I'm sure you'd feel this way about someone stealing your identity, right? After

You're welcome to do that. That's assuming you have the power to press a key and duplicate data that comprises a home and materialize it for your use. I'll even throw in a housewarming gift basket and a helping hand.The unethical people in these equations are the ones who try to bend the world to their whims of "intellectual" order. They see no problem with violence on human beings over literal duplication of information. Economically speaking, a lesser degree of unet