I'm not going to say pirating is some morally superior act, but there is something to be said for refusing to support companies that have user-hostile distribution

And I don't think that act is cheapened by accessing the content anyways - yes, you are not contributing to the creators while enjoying their content. If you weren't going to pay into the stream that they get a small part of anyways, then you're not costing them anything - if you wouldn't have bought it and didn't, it's the same result on their end either way

Ultimately it goes back to piracy being a problem of accessibility, and rejecting an inaccessible service is the moral part, I see the piracy in this context as just neutral

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The problem is when people claim they were never going to buy an awful lot of content. If someone spends a significant amount of time playing, or consuming, pirated content, I call bullshit. They would have bought at least some of it if they weren't getting so much stuff for free. Considering the rewards and lack of consequences, I doubt the vast majority of people pirating are being really honest with themselves about what they "would never have" paid for, and instead use it as a simple excuse for bad behavior.

And rejecting a service you don't consider worth it isn't moral. That's just basic capitalism and self-interest. That's the standard decision to not buy something, which is a decision people make literally dozens of times when they go in the store. And pirating that content anyways certainly doesn't make it any more moral.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There's many reasons people pirate - sometimes it's a matter of means & availability, sometimes it's a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it's basically a hobby

Some people would surely buy some games if piracy wasn't on the table (assuming the terms were unacceptable to them), but I used to rewatch the same things and play the same games endlessly. I think the vast majority would do without

And rejecting a service you don't consider worth it isn't moral. That's just basic capitalism and self-interest.

This seems to be our core difference. I don't think capitalism is a moral system, and "enlightened self interest" only works with equity of opportunity and fierce competition - that's not the world we live in. And even then, I don't think it's a very ethical moral framework

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it's like enabling an abuser, however slight, you're contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

sometimes it's a matter of means & availability, sometimes it's a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it's basically a hobby

Very little of that justifies it to me. For means & availability, this isn't a mother stealing baby formula. Pirated content isn't a need (though I'd make an exception for things like school books). There's plenty of content made to be free and available, as well as libraries. And I'm completely fine with people pirating copies of paid-for content; there's an argument to be made that that isn't actually piracy and is personal archiving. It probably doesn't need to be said that "hobby" is not a justification in the least, just like people who shoplift for the thrill.

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it's like enabling an abuser, however slight, you're contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others

To me the real crux is that you believe that not doing something immoral is the same thing as doing something moral. Me sitting here is moral because I'm not murdering someone. Yay me. I'm also not blackmailing, gaslighting, stealing, etc. etc. Me sitting here might be the most moral thing anyone has ever done.

To me the case for the absence of activity actually being moral is it requires some amount of sacrifice to continue to do the right thing. Avoiding going to Walmart to support a local business, even if you pay more and it's further away. The difference between not wanting to see a movie and boycotting it. There's nothing moral about not going to a movie you didn't want to see. But I think it is moral to avoid going to a movie you wanted to because of labor practices; you made a sacrifice in support of your beliefs. If you then go and pirate said movie, it's indistinguishable from selfish behavior.

As I've said in other spots, if it's genuinely about not supporting hostile services and not about self-interest, donate however much you're saving by pirating to a union or charity. That's completely fair. But if not, all I see is people acting in their self interest and trying to justify it by saying that they are doing a bad thing to bad people so it's okay (and maybe they're doing a little bad to some good people as well, but that's a price you're willing to have them pay for you).