Using drugs, "facilitating underage drinking" and even jaywalking are quite a bit different than stealing. You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if that makes it ok, but you are stealing. It's a different form of stealing, but you do steal, you lack empathy for the act, and you are usually hurting the creators of that material in one way or another.
Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble. You do steal, and you do hurt people. You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same.
"Stealing", as you call it, doesn't "hurt the creators of the material" any more than simply not buying does. In fact, if anything it helps:
Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results
suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases
increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of
approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD.
That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise. I'm pretty sure that's wrong in the same way that saying every single pirated copy of something results in lost revenue (as the MPAA and RIAA contend.) It might not be as wrong, but it's still wrong.
And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not:
In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.)
Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt."
So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.) It's valid to say that the creators have to suck it up and adapt, and that many of them won't be able to make money in the ways they did before. But they are getting hurt.
That only works if you contend that every single person who pirated something would not have purchased the thing otherwise.
First, downloading doesn't prevent purchasing.
Secondly, otherwise how? Either you download it or you don't. Do you mean, if it wasn't available to download? But that's not the "stealing" part. That's uploading/sharing, which is a different issue.
Thirdly, "hurting" potential sales is not inheritly wrong. In fact, that's what many - most? - startups try to do.
And while there are plenty of studies that suggest piracy might help sales, there are also plenty that suggest that it does not:
That's not a study, that's a joke. 30 movies of an extremely biased sample over just a three year period?
I'd rather have a more global view of the movie industry: for example, the five years of consecutive record profits that the MPAA had right during the Bittorrent boom.
In fact, while the issue is plenty debatable I'd say that most of the evidence comes down on the side of "yes, piracy hurts sales, just no where near as much as the MPAA would have you think." (Though even the article above suggests that piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if movies were released worldwide simultaneously.)
Most studies are paid by the industry. It'd be extraordinary if they said otherwise.
Furthermore, "hurting the creators" needn't necessarily be financial. There are many, many artists, programmers, etc. -- not big publishers, but creators -- who hate piracy with a passion. They often feel under assault by Internet companies the way that people here feel under assault by the MPAA. I think they're misguided, but it's irresponsible to just say "fuck you, this doesn't hurt."
I'm pretty sure file sharers feel offended by your inacurate accusations too, but that didn't stop you.
So no, "hurting the creators" is not false, probably not financially
Again, not buying is not buying. Whether you "pirate" or not is irrelevant - it doesn't affect the creator financially either way.
and certainly not ethically (you're doing something with their work they don't want.)
And I'm pretty sure MS doesn't want me to install LibreOffice on "their" work. So what? We, content creators, are not gods that have a right to demand whatever we want from our users. Is it unethical to lend or sell your car if e.g. Toyota doesn't want you to?
Downloading and consuming some content removes the primary reason of purchasing something—to consume that content.
Now, the ideas of people on here and in the tech world in general really can't be further than that of those in the 'outside world.' When people I know who aren't technical people speak of downloading stuff many often make note of how awesome it is to consume something without having to pay for it.
Not paying. It's a big deal to a lot of people who pirate.
Oh, I know plenty of people who say it's awesome to consume stuff without paying too. Of course, 90% of them wouldn't buy that stuff anyway since they're already struggling to feed and clothe their kids (Yeay for living in a country in a permanent economic crisis for the last 30 years!).
But the few I know that can actualy afford that stuff aren't spending less; at most, they moved to spending more on concerts and less on albums. Which is supported by real data in other countries:
I'm not hurting them - I would never have bought what they are selling. I'm just letting them benefit me, and thus increasing the level of happiness in this world.
>you would simply stop consuming all of these things //
If he continues to consume those things at the same level (ie spends the same amount of money on them) then the argument still stands IMO.
I've seen articles saying that those who download a lot are often also ones who consume at higher levels; a movie buff can spend a huge amount of income on movies and still torrent.
Removing the torrenting won't necessarily increase the amount spent, indeed it could decrease it under models that come readily to mind.
Most, yes. We would still have YouTube, though. Actually, I bought 1 CD this year, Parov Stelar's Princess, that I would have bought regardless, but that's about it.
Even if you would stop, I don't think most pirates would. They'd probably consume less, and be a lot more discriminating, but I do think they would buy.
You make one good point, but I think you overall misunderstand my stance. Firstly,
You say you "don't steal (physical things)" as if that makes it ok...
I don't think not stealing makes piracy ok, and I didn't say so. What I mean, and what I tried to say, was that I haven't decided whether I think piracy is ethical or not, and I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the forseeable future.
...but you are stealing. It's a different form of stealing, but you do steal...and you are usually hurting the creators of that material in one way or another. ... You do steal, and you do hurt people.
In my eyes (and maybe this is unreasonable of me, anyone else?), you lose credibility when you state, as fact, your own opinions that you know other people disagree on. The fact that everyone agrees on, is that you believe pirating is stealing, and that it hurts creators. Whether your belief is true or not, is not a fact that the participants of this discussion all agree on or stipulate too.
...you lack empathy for the act...
Minor point, but I don't think this makes sense, as a statement. My understanding of empathy is that it's possible to have empathy and do harm, if you don't realize you're doing harm and hence even though you would empathize, you don't. So I'm not lacking empathy "for the act", whatever you mean by that, but rather I think you mean that I don't realize I'm hurting people, as you say in the next part of your sentence.
Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble.
I had trouble phrasing this, since I had two things to say about me saying "it's wrong": I wanted to both contrast with saying "clearly unethical", and explain how I would go further. To clarify, I definitely did not mean I would "go no further", in fact I later went further, and said I'd say it's wrong because it's hurtful, and I don't like being hurt.
Now, the one good point you made:
Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. [...] You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same.
Well, yes and no. Would I ever beat and murder women if it were "socially acceptable" to? I want to think I wouldn't, but I don't know that, and you don't know that you wouldn't. A couple decades ago, in some of those United States, bus drivers made anyone who was visibly of African-American descent sit in the back. Was that unethical? I think we all agree it was. Was the bus driver an unethical person? Well, we sure don't punish everyone who ever engaged in acts that we now consider unethical but engaged in them simply because it was socially acceptable at the time, like these bus drivers.
I want to believe that everything I do that's socially acceptable is ethical in some absolute sense, and that all those things that are socially acceptable that I don't think we should do (and don't do) are unethical in some absolute sense, but both of those things are almost certainly false. For those things that are unethical but I don't realize and do anyway because they're socially acceptable, how is "socially acceptable" not a justification? Surely it's unreasonable to expect me to know what is absolutely ethical and what isn't.
In my eyes (and maybe this is unreasonable of me, anyone else?), you lose credibility when you state, as fact, your own opinions that you know other people disagree on.
You begin your comment by saying "You make one good point…" Is that a fact? No. Did you state it as a fact? Yes, in that you stated it without qualifiers. Does that mean you have no credibility? Of course not, come on.
For the rest of it, let's rephrase your own logic a bit: "I don't know if sending people to the back of the bus is wrong, but I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the foreseeable future" would be a pretty weak argument against declaring segregation unethical.
It hinges around the idea of whether or not you're hurting people. You started your original comment by saying that "clearly unethical" is a debatable point, but then you tried to draw an equivalence between piracy and a three more victimless acts. You then say "ethics don't matter" and follow that up with "I don't hurt people." I'm saying you do hurt people. It's debatable, but you dismiss debate of it by trying to argue that ethics don't matter and you're not going to think about it. That's not a good counter an assertion that piracy is unethical.
(As a side note, the Stanford Experiment and related studies suggest that both of us would beat and murder women if it were socially acceptable. Creepy stuff that, which is one of the reasons why I think it's important not to tie "ethical" too closely to "socially acceptable." It's also why your notion that "ethics don't matter, I don't really have to think about it" upsets me, perhaps more than it should.)
You begin your comment by saying "You make one good point…" Is that a fact? No. Did you state it as a fact? Yes, in that you stated it without qualifiers. Does that mean you have no credibility? Of course not, come on.
Do you disagree that you misconstrued my stance and only made one other point? If not, I don't see how that applies to me. If so, I'm sorry, I should have used qualifiers, it wasn't obvious to me it was a controversial statement.
Your statement that "piracy is stealing" is a controversial statement, you know this, right? That you stated it as fact is why you decrease in credibility in my eyes. I definitely did not mean you lose all credibility.
For the rest of it, let's rephrase your own logic a bit: "I don't know if sending people to the back of the bus is wrong, but I care little enough that I probably won't decide for the foreseeable future" would be a pretty weak argument against declaring segregation unethical.
I agree that it's unethical. What I ask is, is it not ok for me to send people to the back of the bus, in such a situation? edw519's original comment said something was "clearly unethical", and I responded by saying, maybe, but is it not ok for me to do it anyway, due to the situation?
I'm saying you do hurt people.
Whether this counts as "hurting people" in some sense is debatable, but I hoped it was clear from context that by "hurting people" I meant direct bodily harm, which piracy clearly isn't.
It's debatable, but you dismiss debate...
I don't think it's debatable that someone would have made more money if I paid for something I pirated instead. I also don't think it's debatable that it is impossible to avoid causing people to be worse off due to our actions and inactions. Where's the line? Seems to me, the line society draws is social acceptability.
That's not a good counter an assertion that piracy is unethical.
I countered the assertion that "piracy is unethical" with "ethics don't matter, social acceptability does, and piracy is socially acceptable". Why is this not a good counter?
...your notion that "ethics don't matter, I don't really have to think about it" upsets me, perhaps more than it should.
I certainly don't like the idea that I'm turning a blind eye towards, perhaps even engaging in, unethical actions. But I can't painstakingly decide the ethics of everything I do. I try to do good in the world, I really do. But sometimes I don't know and can't decide, and I have to fall back on the tired old excuse of "social acceptability".
For those things that are unethical but I don't realize and do anyway because they're socially acceptable, how is "socially acceptable" not a justification? Surely it's unreasonable to expect me to know what is absolutely ethical and what isn't.
There is no question that making decisions about what is ethical and what is not is difficult, which is why I question the fact that you don't care enough to decide whether your piracy is ethical. Acting ethically is difficult, and over the course of our lives we will all make many, many mistakes. But ideally I think we should at least try to act ethically, which requires that we put thought into our actions.
Even today, there are societies where it is "socially acceptable" to beat and murder women, to stone people for being heretics, etc. etc. "Socially acceptable" does not provide justification for unethical acts. Saying "it's wrong" and going no further than that makes you thoughtless, not humble. You do steal, and you do hurt people. You just don't care, because people around you are doing the same.