The only piracy I've done and I can easily justify is restoring software to a working state by downgrading it to a pirated version.
I've pirated various versions of Windows to downgrade it to attempt to get a computer working.
The computer I was working with has a full Windows license. Windows just refused to work.

It's also really useful for obtaining compatibility, but that's a much weaker argument, because one could see the incompatibility as part of the price.
Often unintentional pirated versions have a wider platform support than non-pirated versions.

I used it to test ms office on Linux and discovered that while the office installer doesn't work, the important software behind it(Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc.) does.(I don't even use ms office, but I wanted to learn how to use winetricks)
Same is true for Photoshop(although there is a non-piracy workaround involving a windows vm)


Also according to Sam Altman it's justifiable when you use it to make cool stuff.

Eh. It don't matter to me either way. There are things I will never pay for. Never have and never will. If a game devs makes a game I want, the way I want it to be made and it work natively on linux without a launcher and DRM-Free and it works offline...they gonna get my coin.

Last edited by Mezron on 8 Oct 2024 at 6:29 pm UTC

Justified piracy like seizing weapons cargo to non-state actor with the blessing of a UN mandate or like disrespecting software license ?

In the second case, I think there is a gray zone when it is understood that you can use a pirated version of a software (with a ten of thousand of euro pricetag) while finalizing the buying of the license because de company in the receiving end of 50 000 bucks will not complain.

If no one involved with creating something will see a cent from a legitimate sale, then I have no problem with just downloading it. No point in paying hundreds of dollars for a secondhand copy of an obscure SNES game from a company that went bankrupt over a decade ago.

"Piracy" is the natural consequence of shoehorning an ownership model on a cultural product.

Shift away from "purchasing" and "owning" to "paying for something you enjoyed" and so-called pirates become dicks who don't want to contribute, as opposed to clever consumers going for the superior products at lower prices.

On the flip side, any developer/publisher that claims the right to restrict how we peruse the various media is a filthy cultural pirate that deserves to have every bit of their production "stolen".

Disclaimer: this is neither legal nor ethical advice. If you get into trouble for acting according to this philosophy, that's on you.

Last edited by emphy on 9 Oct 2024 at 2:45 am UTC

Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and “theft,” as well as expert terminology such as “intellectual property” and “damage,” to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public — a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.

As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software.

Richard Stallman

I live in a 2nd world country and some years ago, when we didn't have streaming services or even the ability to rent media online (when physical rental places have long gone out of business) I was wishing for a law that if something is not offered for sale/rental in your country it's legal to pirate it. As a way to entice all those foreign media companies to offer their stuff all over the world without making artificial barriers of licenses, distribution agreements, etc.

Note that I'm not making an incentive to piracy, only talking about it.

Oh mysterious starter of threads, what is your take on the issue?

and so-called pirates become dicks who don't want to contribute, as opposed to clever consumers going for the superior products at lower prices.

Yeah, pirates are terrible people. Don't tolerate them, actually we should give them all the death sentence.

and so-called pirates become dicks who don't want to contribute, as opposed to clever consumers going for the superior products at lower prices.

Yeah, pirates are terrible people. Don't tolerate them, actually we should give them all the death sentence.

Great way of selectively quoting out of context, I applaud your great righteous misreading skills. ^_~

Last edited by emphy on 10 Oct 2024 at 6:21 am UTC

and so-called pirates become dicks who don't want to contribute, as opposed to clever consumers going for the superior products at lower prices.

Yeah, pirates are terrible people. Don't tolerate them, actually we should give them all the death sentence.

Great way of selectively quoting out of context, I applaud your great righteous misreading skills. ^_~

I was messing around and joking.

Well...I do have some boxed games and some of these are Games for Windows live games. Which require a connection to that service. Which isn't there anymore.

Same counts for some games which require activation via internet or phone.

But to be honest, I often grab the GOG version as it is convenient that way.

But it is comical that physical PS3 games often have a better chance of working than their PC counterparts.

As I often mention, the EU Piracy Displacement Study found that pirates actually have a bigger legitimate games collection, on average.

Of course the bigger publishers would rather that you didn't know that.

As I often mention, the EU Piracy Displacement Study found that pirates actually have a bigger legitimate games collection, on average.

Of course the bigger publishers would rather that you didn't know that.

I guess they didn't count me.

I just don't agree with the premise here. Sharing culture and knowledge needs no justification. Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.

I just don't agree with the premise here. Sharing culture and knowledge needs no justification. Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.

So you're saying if you make something that took you hundreds of hours using your talent that not many people have you should be obliged to give it away for everyone to benefit from?

Copyright is totally justified, it should be fully up to the creator how it's to be used. And it mostly is.

However, in the western world, these protections are occasionaly taken way too far, with creators (or rather companies that stand in for them) profiting way too much and having way too much power over individuals who don't adhere to the rules they set.

I just don't agree with the premise here. Sharing culture and knowledge needs no justification. Though I guess sometimes copyright is justifiable.

So you're saying if you make something that took you hundreds of hours using your talent that not many people have you should be obliged to give it away for everyone to benefit from?

Copyright is totally justified, it should be fully up to the creator how it's to be used. And it mostly is.

However, in the western world, these protections are occasionaly taken way too far, with creators (or rather companies that stand in for them) profiting way too much and having way too much power over individuals who don't adhere to the rules they set.

No, I'm absolutely not saying that, do not fabricate stuff and attribute to me in bad faith. As a good practice don't even start arguments with "so you are saying", because unless you are directly quoting it is not true. Ask if I agree with your conclusions, or state what you think are the conclusions from my points.

Pirate copies are not generally "given away by creators", they are shared by others, generally after the author charged money from it at least once. Despite the existence of free pirate copies, authors continue to charge money for their work. The creator isn't "obliged" to do anything; I just don't think they should be given rights that severely detract from public interest (and that as a matter of fact are insufficient and ineffective at their stated purpose: few creators can actually sue violators, it does not block exploitation by publishers, and creators aren't well supported during the process of creation).

Copyright is very much not the same as the moral rights of the author, and in fact is often in direct conflict with those: the ability to completely sell your rights to your creation is extremely vile, and helps nothing but the exploitation of creators.

I believe in the public good of public libraries, the public domain, archiving initiatives, fan creations, derived works, and other ways to make culture and knowledge widely available to all, even if they don't directly reward the original creator. Sharing copies is, as has been widely repeated, not the same as "stealing": the creator loses nothing, they just don't gain something that maybe they should have, but was never actually theirs.

I believe what is called "piracy", a vague concept defined solely by it's opposite (piracy is that which violates copyright), is not substantially different from fundamental rights that everyone enjoys: sharing information with their friends and family, free access to knowledge, active participation in their culture by debating and building upon what they experience. Restricting these freedoms, enclosing the cultural commons, is an unacceptable compromise.

Thus, I believe that starting from the premise that violation of copyright (piracy) is fundamentally wrong, even though copyright is known to be unfair, is a flawed assumption. Searching for justifications for copyright violation, rather than looking for flaws in copyright, is an inversion of logic: rather than a law being created and then followed, it assumes the law just is, and anything not covered by the law is exceptional.

Edit: typos and grammar mistakes

Last edited by eldaking on 24 Oct 2024 at 5:03 pm UTC

There's a lot that's wrong with the law, sure, I think everyone here knows this. But OP wasn't just asking about copyright law in its current form, this is more a question of ethics. Do you think creators shouldn't have any control over how they monetize their work in order to make a living?

Some control of course, which is why I said cheekily that sometimes copyright is justifiable, and later I pointed the difference between copyright and the author's moral rights (which were implied to be a good thing).

But in terms of ethics, questioning the law should be the less controversial stance; neither condoning crimes (that should not be illegal, but are) nor condone unjust laws.

Never mind the law at all. Is it ethical to not pay for something the creator wants to get paid for?