piracty always a sin

[Whyayeman]

I hear that this works quite well in many US cities.

Here too. It is still thieving.

On your point above about watching streamed movies and playing out of production video games: That is generally fine and above board because the copyright holders have relinquished any further rights for a fee in lieu.

 

[Nithavela]

but how about arcade games ported to pc like emulators MAME and similar ? or ported to other emulators

Morally speaking, I think that nobody would seriously expect you to buy an arcade cabinet on the secondary market and put it into your home just to play a game that is no longer available on the free market.

As with most morality issues, your personal motivation is a big part of the equation. In my opinion, the question you should ask yourself concerning the morality of piracy is "if I would buy this, does it still support the creators?". If there is no way to aqcuire a copyrighted material in a way that supports the creators or if there are already legal ways of acquiring the material for free, I don't think piracy is immoral. But if you do, maybe make a point of looking up the creators and supporting one of their current works, if possible.

What is clearly immoral is profiteering from copyrighted materials, like putting it as background music in a youtube video you then earn money with. And of course, if your only reason for piracy is that you don't want to or can't spend the money, then tough. Either earn more money, wait until things get cheaper or find a replacement.

And of course, this is only about the morality of such actions. Legality is a completely seperate issue. Legally speaking, any kind of piracy is wrong and shouldn't happen on a matter of principle. Nintendo might no longer sell that old NES game and have no plans of doing so ever again, but they'll still come for you when you offer it for emulators.

 

[AlexB23]

Just so you know, anytime a video with music is posted to Youtube! an algorithm scans its database to make sure that the copyright owner hasn't flagged it, and every major music studio has a list of songs that they don't want posted. If a song is on that list of flagged music it ain't getting posted on Youtube! You just can't sneak songs past Youtube's algorithm. So if it's a popular song, and it's on Youtube! it's because the copyright owner is perfectly fine with you downloading it. Youtube's copyright enforcer is very effective.

That is interesting, so any song on YT that is posted there can be converted into a music file? I never knew that.

 

[AlexB23]

How do you figure that this is an "ethically gray area"? Pirating music is the same as pirating video games. It is stealing. It is criminal. It is a sin.

(Partino's claim about the YouTube algorithm commits the fallacy of thinking that uploading to YouTube involves permission to download, which is clearly false. Her other posts contain similar problems.)

That is true, but there is a debate going on amongst folks online going about this, and it seems more of a gray area.

 

[Nithavela]

That is interesting, so any song on YT that is posted there can be converted into a music file? I never knew that.

There are websites and plugins for that. I think it's against Youtubes TOS, though.

Basically, it just downloads the video from youtube and then removes the audio track, turning it into an MP3.

 

[AlexB23]

There are websites and plugins for that. I think it's against Youtubes TOS, though.

Basically, it just downloads the video from youtube and then removes the audio track, turning it into an MP3.

Yeah, that's the one that I use, cos the website says it is okay. I don't read TOS, but I should. To be fair, I always set the audio to medium quality (192 kbps), instead of high, as it feels wrong to use 320 kbps.

 

[Nithavela]

Yeah, that's the one that I use, cos the website says it is okay. I don't read TOS, but I should. To be fair, I always set the audio to medium quality (192 kbps), instead of high, as it feels wrong to use 320 kbps.

I fail to see how a change in quality is a notable difference in this act being morally right or wrong, except if it makes you buy the content in higher quality somewhere down the line.

And of course there's plenty of non-copyrighted material on Youtube that can be listened to, like podcasts, recordings of university lectures or just music that's made free to share by the creator.

 

[AlexB23]

I fail to see how a change in quality is a notable difference in this act being morally right or wrong, except if it makes you buy the content in higher quality somewhere down the line.

And of course there's plenty of non-copyrighted material on Youtube that can be listened to, like podcasts, recordings of university lectures or just music that's made free to share by the creator.

That is true also. Eventually, I'll buy some of the songs down the line, once I feel comfortable putting my banking info online. Also, Android does not have an iTunes store, and I prefer songs locally stored in case the internet signal goes out. And yeah, a lot of free stuff is on YouTube, especially podcasts and science content

 

[partinobodycular]

I am for the proper application of law,

That's a noble intent, but it's effectiveness is still dependent upon the threat of punishment... is it not?

The question is... is there a way of inducing moral/ethical behavior without the threat of punishment? Without the need for laws? This very thread would suggest that there is, because the OP seems to be concerned about what's morally/ethically correct... not about what's legal.

while you seem to think stealing is OK.

It's all a matter of perspective. For example, I'm about to pay my property taxes, which from an ethical perspective, would seem like a form of stealing. I assume that to you, since it's lawful, it's not stealing. So from some people's perspective you would be the one who thinks that stealing is okay, if one simply does it under the guise of being legal. Which would of course seem to make slavery ethical, if done within a system that deems it to be legal.

Personally, I decided many, many years ago to simply make it impossible for anybody to steal from me. I did this by simply deciding that whatever anyone wanted of mine, they were free to take it, and on rare occasions they have, something with which I'm perfectly fine, because if they had simply asked me, I'd of given it to them. This is actually a rule of mine which has been tested many, many times, mostly by people asking me for money, and I have never once failed to give it to them.

If I have it, and you're ethically comfortable with asking me for it, then I'll give it to you. One of two things will happen... I will have fulfilled someone's sincere need, or they will have learned a lesson in charity. Both of which, are in my eyes, favorable outcomes.

So whaddya think... which of us is more ethical?

 

[partinobodycular]

That is interesting, so any song on YT that is posted there can be converted into a music file? I never knew that.

Yes they can be downloaded. But you have to view this from the record labels perspective. That video may generate a billion views, from which they receive advertising revenue. Although that revenue may not be all that significant, we have to keep it in mind. But more importantly it generates interest in the song, which generates interest in things like streaming services. Because people would rather have access to millions of songs, than to have to download a song that they may get tired of in a couple of weeks, but is now cluttering up their music files. It's just easier to subscribe to a streaming service. With 3/4 of a billion people now streaming music, that's where the money is. It's a constant and predictable revenue stream.

So the record company weighs the positives and the negatives... i.e how many people are going to download the song from Youtube versus how many people will simply avoid the hassle of downloading, and get it from someplace that makes the process profoundly easier... and which pays a fee to the record company. History clearly says that the answer is obvious, let them download the song from Youtube, the record company will more than make up for it somewhere else.

 

[partinobodycular]

There are websites and plugins for that. I think it's against Youtubes TOS, though.

True... except.

In general, it is illegal to download videos from YouTube or other social media platforms without the permission of the copyright holder. However, there are some exceptions. For example, it is legal to download videos for personal, non-commercial use. Additionally, some social media platforms, such as YouTube, allow users to download videos for offline viewing.

So if you're just downloading it for personal use Youtube is perfectly fine with it. What I've found odd over the years is how I'll upload a music video which is perfectly acceptable almost everywhere in the world, except for some out of the way place like Turkmenistan or Papua New Guinea, where it's banned. I have no idea why, but then again I don't think that I've got a lot of followers in Papua New Guinea.

 

[zippy2006]

And once they learn that the shop they kept stealing from closes...

This is the logical key, namely, "The creator has a unique power and right over that which they create." Pro-theft sophistry will never outrun this fact of life, no matter how much it tries. In the long run, the best case scenario for the thief occurs when their parasitic activity destroys the motivation of others to create.

Gillian Welch has a lovely meditation on this theme, "Everything is free now."

 

[zippy2006]

That is true, but there is a debate going on amongst folks online going about this, and it seems more of a gray area.

That's not a reason for thinking it's a gray area. Humans have been rationalizing theft for thousands of years. See: this thread.

I think it's against Youtubes TOS, though.

Bingo.

 

[partinobodycular]

Bingo.

Wrong, as I noted above.

 

[zippy2006]

Ah, but you missed something, both are invoking the premise that might makes right. In which case they're very much the same.

So you double down on comparing those who oppose theft to slave owners? Such brazen trivialization of slavery should perhaps come to the attention of the moderators.

 

[zippy2006]

Wrong, as I noted above.

Downloading YouTube content in any way that does not adhere to YouTube APIs is a violation of the YouTube terms of service. See: Is downloading YouTube videos legal?

I don't see that you are much interested in telling the truth, and I am not much interested in speaking with those who are not interested in telling the truth.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the long run, the best case scenario for the thief occurs when their parasitic activity destroys the motivation of others to create.

Which is what early P2P platforms were predicted to do to the music industry, and the movie industry. But alas it never happened. In fact they both found a more lucrative income source... streaming. Now instead of paying for each individual song people pay for access to a whole library of songs. For which they pay a monthly fee. Which provides the media companies with a predictable revenue stream. Which is exactly the type of revenue stream that companies and their investors absolutely love.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't see that you are much interested in telling the truth, and I am not much interested in speaking with those who are not interested in telling the truth.

Great. Although to be honest, I long ago accepted the fact that people lie, so I don't have a problem with it. I learn just as much when you lie, as I do when you tell the truth. I'm sorry if the same can't be said for you.

 

[partinobodycular]

Such brazen trivialization of slavery should perhaps come to the attention of the moderators.

Be my guest. I could use a break.

 

[Nithavela]

So you double down on comparing those who oppose theft to slave owners? Such brazen trivialization of slavery should perhaps come to the attention of the moderators.

I don't think that having an unpopular opinion is against forum rules.

Threatening other people with moderators is, though.