I think his point is that you can't get everything you want, when, where and exactly how you want for free legally. It isn't up to you since you aren't the content creator. It is funny watching the entitlement of people now who believe they can some how demand all of the above.
And I have the choice to walk into a store, lift something, and leave without paying. I could probably do it without any consequences. But it's morally wrong so I chose not to do it. Your choice to not pay for things has always been there. It's just now easy to do it without getting caught and it's easier than ever to ignore or excuse (it's not available on my terms/it's a copy/it's not stealing) the moral consequences.
It’s more like: Going into a bookstore, taking the encyclopedia britannica, reading the article about Elephants and the leaving again, without buying the encyclopedia.
Overall the store lost no sale. You wouldn’t have bought it otherwise anyway (For example as I had the choice between paying 20$/month just for Game of Thrones, or not watching it at all, I decided to just ignore that boring show).
It might even have made a sale, because as you were already there, you might have bought something else (Pirates tend to spend the most money on additional stuff like cinema tickets or merchandise).
And the store didn’t even lose anything, as you didn’t take something from them that they had, you actually didn’t even cost them any money.
I do get a laugh at of all of the mental gymnastics that have sprung up when people try to justify piracy these days. Everyone would respect you much more if you just said you are just downloading content since it is free and virtually risk free.
Exactly my point and the reason I get into these arguments. Most of us at some point have pirated something. I don't understand why some people feel the need to twist words and invent causes to justify it.
Your beliefs are not universal moral truths. I do not ignore or excuse the moral consequences of piracy. There are no moral consequences of piracy. I do not belief in imaginary ownership of data. I believe in personal freedom, so my moral obligation is to not harm others. Choosing not to give someone money is not harming them. Taking something away from them is. Piracy is morally acceptable, theft is not. You are welcome to disagree and have your own morals, but you can't pretend everyone else is obligated to live under your personal moral code.
It would take a lot less words if you just said you can download games/tv shows/music for free, and since you can get away with it with almost no chance of getting in trouble, you do.
I'm sure you would have a different attitude if your boss decided to randomly withhold part of your income whenever he wanted because he believes there are no moral consequences of doing so.
Saying "I don't want to listen" is not a useful contribution to the discussion. If I had a boss, it would be wrong for him or her to withhold income from me because we agreed that we would exchange my labor for his or her money. That is nothing like copying data. I find it interesting how people who push "intellectual property rights" so often do so by poor analogies. If you feel a moral obligation to pay people for copying data, then go right ahead. Pretending everyone else is also morally obligated to do so because "I can't tell you why so here's a terrible analogy" is not compelling.
Your moral high ground arguments honestly carry zero weight with me. I couldn't care less about some nonsense about your agreeing or not agreeing to some kind of contract.
Person A states that you should pay X for their product. You don't. There isn't any other argument other than you are just cheap and only do it because you can get away with it. If the same happened to you and affected your income you would be on here whining about how terrible the situation is.
Again everyone would respect you much more if you just said: yeah I'm cheap and can take content for free, so I do.
>Your moral high ground arguments honestly carry zero weight with me
I made no such argument
>Person A states that you should pay X for their product. You don't
Correct. I state you should pay me $20 for reading my post. Are you morally obligated to do so now? This is a serious question, your moral code is not clear to me. Mine is quite simple. I am not morally obligated to capitulate to random people's arbitrary demands of me.
>If the same happened to you and affected your income you would be on here whining about how terrible the situation is.
Yes, if I were a different person I would be a different person. That is not a very impressive insight.
>Again everyone would respect you much more if you just said: yeah I'm cheap and can take content for free, so I do.
I have no problem with how much respect I am given right now. Your need to try to rationalize your morality does not require making stupid assumptions about people you don't know.
>Correct. I state you should pay me $20 for reading my post. Are you morally obligated to do so now? This is a serious question, your moral code is not clear to me. Mine is quite simple. I am not morally obligated to capitulate to random people's arbitrary demands of me.
These types of idiotic pretzel logic statements only appear since you are trying hard to justify not paying someone for the content they create, there isn't much more to say than that.
If you could let go of your irrational fear for a moment and read what you respond to, you would notice I've made absolutely no effort at all to justify it. That's the point. There's nothing to justify. When I donate money it is to a cause I consider worthwhile. "I said so" is not a cause I consider worthwhile. You can send my $20 here: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
Great! At least we are in agreement that you are cheap and have no problem not paying certain people for their work since you won't suffer any repercussions.
So are you going to answer my question or not? I've very politely and patiently explained my perspective for you several times in spite of your consistent trolling. Are you donating $20 on my behalf or not?
No, my moral beliefs apply to me. Where on earth did you get the impression that they were universal truths when nothing I said even remotely suggested anything of the sort?
Morality isn't universal by definition. That's the point. Since I said what I believe, and only applied it to me, that is not making a universal claim. The person I replied to was saying what he believes and how it applies to me because he says so. Let me make it clear:
Person A: Oranges taste good.
Person B: No they do not.
These people are both making personal statements of their own beliefs/opinions. Even though the phrasing does not explicitly state "I personally believe oranges taste good", it is implied because it is a subjective statement and neither could reasonably make a universal claim.
Person A: Everyone like oranges.
Person B: I do not like oranges.
Person A is trying to make a universal claim. Person B is not. "I do not like oranges" is a personal claim. "I do not have a moral obligation to give money to people just because they tell me to" is a personal claim.
