this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1367 points (95.7% liked)
memes
10482 readers
2265 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good luck finding one
If you can't find one then skip the game or accept the fact that you might lose access to it. That's the way the creator decided their game would be distributed, if you disagree you're treating them as slaves by getting the fruit of their labour without compensating them and without their agreement.
If you disagree with the original terms, i.e. the game is available on a platform with DRM, then just don't get it and completion to the devs. Our pirate it but don't pretend that you're morally right to do it.
Nah. DRM in its current version is morally wrong. Circumventing it is perfectly fine. It's essentially an industry wide price collusion, which I'll note is illegal, but will never be broken up because the US antitrust agencies have been hollowed out to nothing.
In the same vein, if an employer refuses to pay you for time worked, your chances of recovering that pay is slim. In that circumstance, I would say taking the amount you are owed from the till is perfectly fine, morally. You would probably disagree, because you're a boot licker and believe that whatever the law says is morally good. I understand the concept in abstract, but I will fundamentally never be able to put myself in the head space of someone like you.
Dude, in this example you're the employer stealing from the worker!
The only thing wrong here is people that are unable to admit that what they're doing has consequences on the people who created the media they're pirating and using mental gymnastic like I've never seen before to justify their choice and to feel morally justified to do it.
Separate example. Ignore everything else we've been talking about. I'm trying to illustrate where you stand on morality.
Would it be wrong to steal from the till?
I suspect you'd say yes, which means we have fundamental, irreconcilable differences in how we view the entire concept of morality. Which then, relating back to piracy, means we will never see eye to eye because we disagree about the most fundamental aspects of the argument.
It's an irrelevant example in this conversation because you're reversing the roles.
It's not related to piracy at all, it's just an illustration of your personal views. There are no roles. It's not an analogy.
Then in this case I would tell you that taking the money from the till also makes you a thief because you're getting an unverified amount of money on which you didn't pay taxes and there are legal means to get the money you're owed.
Laws would agree with me and if you want to live in society then I'm sorry to tell you that it's something we can't do without.
Like I thought, we just have entirely different worldviews at an extremely fundamental level. There's no seeing eye to eye because we're approaching it differently.
there is nothing immoral with letting someone share information with you.
There is if it's information that's for sale by its creator and what you're doing is copying it therefore keeping them from profiting from their work.
Some people do projects out of passion and let people do what they want with their creations, others create to make a living and by not paying them you're preventing them from doing so.
they can sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. I am not preventing them at all
You're still profiting from their work without compensating them, that's called slavery enter I'm from.
if someone tells you about the biggest play of the Superbowl, are they enslaving the NFL owners?
get real. sharing stories, songs, tools, and skills is a basic human activity. it's not immoral.
trying to prevent it is immoral.
You can share stories of when you played a game, it doesn't mean you can copy the game itself so you still have access to it and someone else does too without any compensation going to the creator.
if someone wants to share a game with me, I am doing nothing wrong by accepting.
That logic only works if you ignore the fact that someone had to put work into creating the game.
wrong
there is no profit, the labor isn't forced, it's not slavery
Consuming the fruit of someone's labor is "profiting from it"
The labor needs to exist in order for you to have access to the content you're pirating so yes in a way it's forced to exist otherwise this conversation wouldn't happen in the first place as there would be no content to pirate.
no one made them produce the game. they could have chosen not to do that, and there would be no consequences at all. it's not slavery.
Then no one should buy anything until we reach a point where no one produces anything because there's no incentive to.
this sentence makes me suspect English is not your first language because it makes no sense.
How? I mean, by your logic why should people buy anything instead of just copying/stealing it? No one gets hurt if we do so, you said so yourself!
stealing is another issue we could discuss, but I do fully endorse copying anything you want for any reason.
you're making up that definition of profit
To profit > to obtain an advantage or benefit
The entertainment you get from the product is a form of profit
you are stretching the term to meaninglessness
I'm using an official definition of the word
it's a logical fallacy called "equivocation"