The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE=chrisbid]it was only recently when the definition of piracy was changed to include these types of situations. before, piracy implied people [I]profited[/I] from an intellectual property that did not belong to them.

it amazes me how self righteous people get about this topic. its as if you take the word of corporations (who got the laws and definition changed) as absolute. lighten up. morality stems from the real world harm your actions cause, and being a dick about this trumped up rule is far more immoral than breaking it.
[/QUOTE]

"Harm" isn't enough.  Someone can consent to harm.  What ethics is about is the rights you violate.  As for the corporations rant, corporations are just entities with multiple owners, like partnerships.  And since it represents people, it can own property just like people can.  Those developers who worked for those corporations sold their work to those corporations (not just a licesence, but the actually result), and this is their property not only to profit from, but to control.  After all, having a property right is having a right to control that which you own, not just profit from it.

 

If a corporation realizes that their past software has value, but wants to keep it back until they can find a good way to maximize that, well... that's their right.  It was their right before the laws were changed to allow it.  These rights are what should direct the law, not the other way around.  As an unavoidable consequence, those who steel the software ARE stealing from that corporation (and thus those stockholders).  Is it harm?  Definitely -- it harms their right to control their own property.

 

I am sorry if it sounds self-righteous.  All discussions of ethics are discussing what is right and wrong -- i.e. what is "righteous" vs. what isn't.  If defending the ideal here makes me seem self-righteous, well then that's a cross I'll have to bare.

so an IP owner should also have the right to control their content post purchase as well? the no-copy under any circumstance rule? that is infringing on the rights of consumers. thats the cross i bare, since jesus was obviously a champion of corporate property rights

[QUOTE=chrisbid]so an IP owner should also have the right to control their content post purchase as well? the no-copy under any circumstance rule? that is infringing on the rights of consumers.[/QUOTE]

 

It depends on what you bought.  Did you buy a copy of the software with a license for its proper use, or did you buy full rights to the software (including the right to sell it as you wish)?

 

Is the core of your argument here that buying a piece of software means you own it in the same sense that the company that produced it owns it in every circumstance?  A company could certainly sell the software to you in that manner, but it would be at a much greater price than $49.99, I can tell you that.  If that really is how you sum up what property rights mean, would you say that someone who rents property owns that property as well.

 

There are different kinds of ownership.  When someone buys gaming software, what the company is usually selling (and thus what you are usually buying) is a copy of the software and a license limiting your use of it.  They are almost never selling you 100% right to the software as if it was your IP to do with as you will.

 

Again, I am sorry if that's a hard pill to swallow, but that's the reality of it.  And like any property, I can sell any aspect of it I want to a willing buyer.  When I do, that willing buyer can't just come back later and claim that he didn't realize he was only buying a limited use and wants to start selling his own copies of it.  He certainly can't claim that preventing him from doing so is a "violation of consumer rights".

 

[QUOTE=chrisbid]thats the cross i bare, since jesus was obviously a champion of corporate property rights[/QUOTE]

 

He obviously was.  I don't see any situation where he differentiates between owning land and owning a design.  Do you?  I do think he was universally against theft though.

 

Here's how I summarize this particular exchange:  You would basically rather live in a world where you get to make the rules as you go along.  Too bad -- it's very unrealistic.

Glad to see everyone else here pretty much understands the difference between ethics and morality.  For those that don't I'll sum it up like this.

 

In the case of severe stupidity, many believe it is morally wrong, yet some of those same people also believe it is unethical to discriminate legally against a group of people by forcing them all to ride in the back of the short bus to school everyday.  Substitute sever stupidity with rainbow packers and it becomes clearer to the musically gifted.

 

Sorry Mozart but you keep throwing out ethics and morality interchangably.  They're not the same.  Morality is a personal choice only.  Ethics are the system in which morals are used and can be different.  It's a slight difference but one that keeps bugging me everytime you use it incorrectly.

 

Thanks guys for the feedback, I appreciate it.

All the rationalization in the world won't change the fact that piracy is piracy--regardless of how you slice it.

As a video game stockholder, I find it particularly disturbing when I see people cheat the system. Heck, even my brother-in-law "brags" to me about how he gets his PC games for free from some guy he knows. I tell him, "Why don't you just buy the game, then sell it when you're done?" Really irritates me. I guess it's that pesky conscience I have.

I stand with Mozart.

P.S. I do think companies can go to far, though (but that's their right). For example, when I went to Best Buy and purchased a copy of HL2 when it first came out, I couldn't play it when I got home. Why? Because Valve's Steam network would not allow me to play before the official release. I paid for it, but couldn't play it. Then, I had a powerful laptop, but couldn't play HL2 on it until I uninstalled it from my desktop. Just a lot of hoops to jump through, and I found it frustrating.

[QUOTE=Paul Campbell]I have a Commodore emulator on my Computer with plenty of software that is no longer available to the public.  I am not taking money from the developers pocket, and i am not taking it directly from them, so how is it stealing??[/QUOTE]

That's up to whoever now owns the software.  It might have been made public source.  It might have been sold en masse to a particular company for later capitalization.

 

Frankly, it is still theft unless it has been made public source (or you already own a license to use it).  Whatever price was paid when the software in question was sold was an investment on the part of the individuals/company/corporation which purchased it.  They may simply not have found a way to capitalize on that investment yet, but that doesn't give just anyone the right to take it as if they have a natural right to software they don't own.  And ultimately, it will hurt them.  Let's say that down the road the current owners decide to release the software for a download service, such as the Virtual Console or XBOX Live Arcade.  The fact that a huge proliferation of their software has been allowed to enter the market freely for years without their consent really hurts their investment.

 

There could be any number of reasons why a company which owns this software would want to hold it back.  It may be because it took a long time for the novelty value to reach a point where they could make enough money to justify their initial investment.  It could be that they just weren't ready in terms of infrastructure to do it.  Whatever their reasons, they are legitimate, because they are still talking about their property, i.e. something they have a right to control.

 

Yes the software is out there.  Yes, it exists.  But that isn't enough reason to just claim ownership of it.  Just because it exists doesn't mean that it's something we all have some natural right to use at will.

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]

Sorry Mozart but you keep throwing out ethics and morality interchangably.  They're not the same.  Morality is a personal choice only.  Ethics are the system in which morals are used and can be different.  It's a slight difference but one that keeps bugging me everytime you use it incorrectly.

[/QUOTE]

 

NOTE:  I am editing this post, because I am doing too many things at one time for the last post to really make sense.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

I think the difference you were trying to state is in terms of how they are used when treating ethics as a discipline, rather than in debate and conversation.  In that instance, there is a very slight difference.  Morality is used to refer to the actual standards derived from an ethical system.  When someone says "morals" in that context, they are referring to those actual principles, not just the taxonomical study of how those principles are formulated.  Ethics on the other hand refers to the formal study and derivation of those values.  When someone says "ethics" in that context, they are referring to the discipline used to derive "morals".

 

Now, in the context that we are speaking, they are interchangeable, largely because most philosophers have decided that the differences are too minor to specify in conversation.  Both ethics and morality are hypostasis of each other -- i.e. one is connected to the other in a fashion where it is impossible for one to exist without the other, and the identity of one is directly influence WHOLLY by the other.  So ethic and morality deal with the big question that they are founded on in philosophical discipline.  That question is: What is the correct manner in which a man should live his life?  It is a more general and individualistic question because it acts as a guide for personal choices, rather than just discussing what is bannable.  I can say that a man should live by his own rational self-interest.  This means that self-destructive behavior is wrong, for instance.  That would be a good example of something in the greater field of ethics/morality.  Additionally, there is a subset of that question that is just as important:  What is the acceptible manner in which men relate to one another?  That question deals not with individual choices or guidance, but rather with what is bannable in society because it violates the rights (property and otherwise) of another individual or group of individuals.

a corporation is not a group of individuals, it is a paper entity that is run by a group of individuals that is granted the same rights as a person, but is not subject to the same consequences (bodily harm, death, prison) as a person when they break the law, nor does the paper entity have any genuine emotions or empathy a real person has. when a corporation does something immoral, the people running the group can differentiate and compartmentalize their behavior. "well, its good for the company, i had to do it"

but back to the original argument, if a game has been neglected, its up to regular people to keep it alive through emulation, or else it can be lost forever. think of all the lost television shows from the 40s and 50s, had there been VCRs in the day and a consumer had a recording of a lost show, the owners that had lost the originals would be extremely grateful to reacquire the content. its no different for all of those computer and arcade games from the 80s that are in IP limbo. save them now, or lose them forever

bands that have been bootlegged at concerts have sometimes acquired the recordings and released them for themselves, with both the fans and the band happy that the recordings were made.

we dont live in a black and white world, we celebrate myths like robin hoods 'steal from the rich to give to the poor' for a reason

[QUOTE=m0zart] 

Now, in the context that we are speaking, they are interchangeable, largely because most philosophers have decided that the differences are too minor to specify in conversation.  [/QUOTE]

 

Mozart, I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one.  If ethics are derived from the majority of the morals of the present company.  You may morally believe it's wrong to emulate while realizing that ethically (based on ethics consisting of the majority) it's okay to do so under certain conditions.

 

In other words you can moraly disagree with homosexuality but you understand ethically that flogging them on a daily basis isn't very nice either.

 

Morally = Personal choice

Ethically = Majority of moral stake holders

 

The morally corrupt outnumber the morally righteous on this forum.  So, henceforth, it's decreed ethically acceptable to emulate when the game's no longer in the primary market.

 

Thanks for the debate

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]Mozart, I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one.  If ethics are derived from the majority of the morals of the present company.  You may morally believe it's wrong to emulate while realizing that ethically (based on ethics consisting of the majority) it's okay to do so under certain conditions.

 

In other words you can moraly disagree with homosexuality but you understand ethically that flogging them on a daily basis isn't very nice either.

[/QUOTE]

 

Actually that illustrates my point quite nicely about the separation of greater ethics/morality and that which is bannable in society.  Homosexuality has several characteristics.  It could be argued that it is self-destructive (I don't make that argument here, but at least some people have tried to argue that).  In that sense it could be immoral.  But there is no realistic argument that two consenting adults taking part in ANY activity is by its nature violating any non-consenting parties' rights at all, let alone their property rights.  Hence, whether homosexuality is "wrong" is a question of greater ethics, but it's outside of the field of what is bannable.

 

Violation of someone's property rights is not only wrong in terms of greater ethics, but it is also bannable in society.  It is both the subject of greater ethics and that subset that discusses the nature of law.  Now, it's become clear to me that many of you want to treat intellectual property rights as some sort of "not really property rights, but we call it that for lack of a better word".  I don't mince words in that fashion.  Either a man has property rights for the work of his mind or he does not.  In reality, though you haven't stated such explicitly, that's what this discussion has really become about.

 

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]Morally = Personal choice

Ethically = Majority of moral stake holders[/QUOTE]

 

Reinventing words with existing meanings to satisfy your own requirements won't work in this case.  Take a look at this definition of ethics vs. morality in the philosophical terms we are discussing, which pretty much summarizes what I said.

 

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/009050.htm

 

Again, what you are trying to enunciate is the difference between greater ethics ("How should a man live his life?"), and the study of the nature of law ("What is bannable in society?", a.k.a. legalism/politics).  The latter is a subset of the former, and both fit into the scope of the study of ethics.  The former is asking a very generalized question, while the latter is asking a more specific question in the same context as the former question.

 

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]The morally corrupt outnumber the morally righteous on this forum.  So, henceforth, it's decreed ethically acceptable to emulate when the game's no longer in the primary market.

 

Thanks for the debate[/QUOTE]

 

There was never some vote here that somehow can turn morality on its head and remove from property owners their basic property rights, nor could there ever be.  If the majority here thought any form of slavery was "acceptible", it wouldn't make slavery acceptible, for instance (for the same basic reasons as well -- that violating the property rights of self-ownership is by definition slavery).  In philosophy, there are basically two theories of rights that get circulated.  Either rights are objective and the properties of being a human being, or they are something granted to you and which can be taken away at the whim of others.  The latter is hardly what I would call "rights" at all, since the term right already implies the inability to take away at whim.  That leaves the former definition as the only non-contradictory one in the lot.  And as such, no amount of pontificating for the need to take a right away is going to literally justify taking that right away.  Indeed, all that can be done is that the right can be violated, and never actually taken away.

 

You could just wish very hard I guess, or click your heels together three times and repeat "There's no gaming like ROM theft!"  But it wouldn't change the reality of the situation one iota.