If you think them trying to push computers with Windows preinstalled is even mainly to combat piracy, you're terribly naive. They could probably afford to give Windows away for free, and make up the loss selling tech support and Office and such. It might have hurt them before, but at this point, maintaining market share means that they have a pretty steady, almost guarenteed source of income in training people to use their stuff, selling stuff that only works with Windows, providing tech support, etc, etc.

Steam makes games that are difficult to pirate effectively by adding value to a real copy that isn't there in a pirated copy. Now, the thing is, I never supported pirating games, morally. Games are a luxury, and for the most part they're sold at a price that, in the right frame of mind, you might come to accept as 'decent'. Of course, I could also just say that either you're me, or the Sierra guy is you - Was he in a position to actually know? It seems to me that he's giving you the official company line.

Big companies charge to much for products like photoshop or windows for example. They charged to much before people pirated it and they charge to much after people pirated it, I don't buy into legal and illegal rubbish like that to many laws if they want to do stupid stuff like charging so much then I'm basically going to say nope I'll just use it for free.

There is no moral issue with using pirated software in my eyes, just like there is no moral issue with lieing to the police force or the tax man if you do not belive the police/etc are doing the correct job.

Pirated tv series, movies and other stuff like that on the other hand are amazing advertising and actually has a coralation indicating increased piracy increased the sale of product.

NOTE: Please remember one thing, just because you have a pirated copy of something does not in any way mean that you would have bought that game/movie/etc if piriating had not have been an option. I have many pirated things that I would never have dreamed of buying, I also have bought things that I would have never heard about if I hadn't had pirated copies.

Piracy Increases the ammount of money I spend on dvds/etc and I am not the exception to the rule I am the norm.

If we are talking about morals, just go with me on this.

Is slapping someone morally wrong? Or does it depend on the situation

Is pushing someone over morally wrong? Or does it depend on the situation?

Is deciving the tax man morally wrong or does it depend on the situation?

Is taking a car that you didn't pay for morally wrong odoes it depend on the situation?

See now I can think up a bunch of situations where I would consider all of the above to be the correct and moral thing to do and to not do them would be immorral.



Theft is a big part of the market environment. Compaines spend money to prevent it, discourage it etc. People don't generally prefer to steal a tin of beans over paying for it because paying for it is easier. On the other hand a lot of people generally prefer to steal or pirate software because its easier than buying it.

I've never seen so many people literally trying to justify theft. As I said before, the ONLY justification would be if it was a necessity (food, shelter) and you absolutely could not live without it. As far as I know, an OS is not a necessity. You people don't seem to get that it does NOT matter if the company can afford your theft. That doesn't excuse you or anyone else. How do you think companies get to the point that they can afford to be stolen from? What a shock...they actually SELL their product. Which means, people BUY it from them.

As for the question, is this form of theft morally wrong depending on the situation...let's see. Was your body in physical danger if you didn't steal it? Were you about to starve to death if you didn't steal it? Was someone standing behind you as you sat at your computer with a gun held to your head, demanding you steal it or die?

Orrrrrrrr, do you see an easier way to get something you want without actually paying for it? And just to add this small bit of information, it also doesn't matter if you would not have bought it if you couldn't steal it. You're still getting something for free that you shouldn't be getting.

Consider Lusternia's player demographic.

- Many are students, and thus poor.

- Many are teenaged, and thus poor + convinced that the world is fundamentally unfair.

- Verithrax is emo, and he likes to argue, irrespective of the merits of his case.

Should we be surprised that so many here are cheap buggers who prefer to steal?


As I am not Verithrax, am no longer teenaged, and am no longer a student... I find myself slightly shocked by the vehemence of the 'I won't pay' arguments. This is because with every passing week I am becoming increasingly part of the respectable middle class establishment. But I can reassure myself with the knowledge that in ten years they'll all be espousing establishment views. Except Verithrax.

Why is that people think that because we argue that stealing is not always 100% wrong, we're spoiled thieves who don't care about anyone but ourselves?

The vast majority of my piracy has been music, and 90% of that has been ripping copies of CDs from my library. I can legally borrow them, and they're still not making any money from me.

Also, answer the question. Is everything always right or wrong? Don't sidestep it by being amazed that someone might have different morals than you.

A relative moral case could be argued on the basis that charging so much for a product that is becoming more and more essential is in fact immoral and justifies stealing the product. Morals can be argued back and forth depending on who is doing the arguing.

The product is theirs though. They have the right to change it if they choose to do so. As I said before, I don't agree with their selling the product at such a high cost. But, it's theirs to sell. I'd have a bit more to say about it if it were something like gas (gas prices have been horrible, and gas IS a needed thing). However, you don't see me driving off with gas because it's so expensive. I'd find all this humerous, if I didn't know you folks were actually serious.

When I teach my own kids, I teach them that stealing is wrong in any form. Hopefully, that knowledge will keep them out of trouble. I'm sure you all were taught the same.

Why is gas any more "necessary" than an OS? You can bike or walk. I use the latter for work much more than the former; I take the bus in and back.

Heh, how did I know someone would ask that. Alright, gas provides me a way to get to and from my job. My job provides me with means to support my family. Gas provides me a way to get my children to and from their doctor appointments, etc. I live in a small town. We don't have busses or the like. We don't even have a taxi service. So, your points are useless to me. And I'd like to see how I'd put a nine year old and a ten year old on bikes when they are sick enough to visit the doctor.

Instead of arguing this, you should read where in the SAME post I stated that I do not steal gas.

And with this, I'm through with this thread. I'll leave you with this though. I do realize as someone already said, that most of you are rather young. Someday, you'll advance in life and your point of view will change.

A computer with an OS in the times linux wasn't something you just downloaded from a non existent internet (at least in my country) is what allowed me to study and hand in the homework through basic and high school (we were asked to print the jobs, not allowed to use typewriters besides a 10 years old just cannot write a perfect paper without mistakes on a typewriter wich cannot delete). Afterwards it allowed me to do the homework my computer sciences career demanded (still without internet at home), and I studied a career because in my country if you get good grades that I needed a computer to obtain the state pays most of the cost of studying. I know make a relatively good living off that career.

So, we can agree here that my OS was needed for me to make a living in the future and now not be one more of the "poor" homeless people. Is then a computer as necessary as gas? For me is it, even much more as I don't have a car because I cannot afford it.

About windows, I only use my LEGAL windows (that came preinstalled on my computer and included in the price and I am not removing unless they give me back my money just out of principle) just to play world of warcraft (also religiously paid for ).

Saying that they're stealing from Windows because otherwise they would buy windows it's like saying that I am stealing from some pop music group because I downloaded a song from them for its comic value as if I would have bought the entiere 49€ CD instead when it's crap.

I don't encourage software piracy but I won't be telling righteously everybody else than they're a bunch of thieves and inadapted angry teenagers as I am sure they know perfectly why they do it and the only person they have to answer is themselves. There's plenty of reprobable thigns about people but starting possible flame wars by exposing how antiecological are those who don't use recicled paper, wear animal skins, eat animals, drink coffee/tea that comes from abused farmers on third world countries or fail to pay all of their taxes while abusing the social benefits of the system it's just a lost battle as they know perfectly why are they doing it and choose to accept it as morally ok or irrelevant.

Now, let's continue with the OS comparative.

Curious. My post was intentionally general and not intended to victimise anyone except Verithrax. It was not a serious submission to the argument, but a humorous one. Nevertheless, it seems to have struck a nerve. This is causing some problems in my response, as on the one hand, I desperately want to wind you up, and on the other, some part of me greatly dislikes my inner troll.

You comment that the vast majority of your piracy has been music, of which nine tenths is making new copies of your own. Is this piracy? Personally, I don't regard that as stealing.. and I am surprised that you do. It seems to me to be a very weak argument to justify stealing by widening its definition sufficiently that a total ban on it becomes prepostorous. Nevertheless, I grudgingly take your point, as it continues to be illegal in England to burn your own cds for your own use, even though the music industry has repeatedly maintained that it would not seek to prosecute anyone who did so.

To answer your moderately patronising question: is everything right or wrong? Of course not. Nor am I amazed that someone might have different morals to me. The rest of this paragraph I have decided not to post. I can't really be bothered to engage seriously with this issue, as it's basically very very dull, and this paragraph as was belonged to Aiakon the Troll, and would doubtless have had Sylphas gnawing his(/her? )computer chair with anguish.

If I didn't have the software (that costs more than a PC), I wouldn't get and hold my job. I could end up unemployed, or doing the worst jobs for the worst payment, like so many people with no good education (or the wrong type of education).
But I suppose it's not justified in your eyes, and even though it harmed noone (not even the company that made the software), I am a disgusting thief.

Let's assume that you could get gas for free without stealing it (there's a pool of oil right next to your house). You also need to know how to refine it to be able to use it, but you managed to figure it out. I's illegal to use your own gas, but then again, you're poor.
What would you do? And, more importanly, how would you feel about it?
By being the one not buying gas from the station, you are now depriving the oil company of its potential gain.

PS. Forgot to add, the process of refining is patented and is owned by an oil company. It's their intellectual creation. You happen to know it though.


Well... isn't it?

I've no problem with theft at all in the majority of cases, dosn't bother me one iota, free is better than paying.

Although in this case I feel my theft of software is more justified than the majority of things. Mainly because my theft is actualy causing the companies i'm stealing from to get more profit from me personaly than they would if I hadn't stole from them.



Oh nice point I can borrow as many music cd's or dvds as I want for free for my public library and thats not stopping me from buying them and its not stopping me from pirating them.

And of course everything isn't always right or wrong everything is subjective.

Sorry but, I'm also using pirated software to help me gain qualifications at college. Thus proving that pirating software will lead me to getting a better job, where the tax man will take more of my money than in a poorer job thus more money is there for the benefits office to give to the poor and needed, showing that pirating software is directly contributing to the benefit and wellbeing of the goverment and poor people

Its interesting all these comments about typewriters.

When I was a child, we had 2 computers in the house. We even had an early modem for my father to communicate with his office. (in 1989)

However, when I was in school, and was told I needed to type up my papers, my parents gave me a typewriter that they have had since the 70s, and when I was older, they got me a $50 word processor (like a laptop but all it can do is type and print). They also made me go to the local library and look up books by myself even though they could have let me use the internet.

Nothing to do with money income, but rather a desire to make sure I learned "basic" skills and didn't get distracted by time wasting things, such as Frogger (first word I ever learned how to spell) and Pacman. When I was done with my schoolwork I was allowed to use the computer.

Quite humurous these stories of woe surrounding typewriters as if it was the equivelent of using bunji coord for a belt.

You BORROW books from the library. You don't BORROW pirated software.

Just admit it. You like to steal, you enjoy it. You enjoy the benefits of it. Its easier to download than it is to go to the store, it feels cool to look at your hardrive and see all this "stuff" you own. Some you will never touch again after downloading, some of it you will. It feels good to "own" lots of things.

Some people, it feels good to go through the "sneaky" path of hacking and aquiring things you aren't allowed to have. I enjoyed using AOHELL, it made me feel cool. (And it was very illegal and very wrong) I also enjoyed stealing Candy from my local Drug Store and giving out the candy to people at school making me all popular cause of my leet theft skillz.

Everyone knows why people steal, and thats why its generally agreed upon to be a bad thing for society and people to do.

@Verithrax, I thought you said you held to a code of ethics based on the concept of utilitarnism, well stealing, if everybody did it would destroy society. You seem to be arguing against your stated moral System. Not that I am suprised.

So... let's assume I have 'stuff' on my disk that I never actually touch.
Or I do, but I am just toying with it (i.e. Photoshop - play around, nothing comes out of it that I use).

It has absolutely no impact on anything. Where is the harm, why is this wrong (my personal ethics aside) ?

Btw, how do companies come up with their piracy statistics anyway?

Same way people come up with numbers for how many illegal immigrants there are, or how many people don't pay taxes.

That statement makes as much sense as arguing with a cop that "I pay your salary with my tax money".

The thing is--there are Academic Prices software available. What software do you use that doesn't have an academic version available? You can get Visual Studio Express versions. You can get Free or Open Source compilers. You can even get academic versions of high-ticket items like CAD/CAM, Photo Editing software, etc. So, there should be no excuse for piracy, especially since it's probably the same as academic textbook prices.

I could understand a college student not being able to afford 800 bucks for Visual Studio. But one priced 50-150 dollars? Not so sure of that.

As far as piracy goes, there was a one-man ISV named Nick Bradbury. He's most famous for creating TopStyle and HomeSite. His software is not expensive, less that $100 dollars. He still gets a lot of requests for "help" regarding errors that only appear when a cracked version is used. He also actually masqurated as a "warez" person and created a "cracked" version of his own software that would silently ping a server of his.

http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/on_piracy.html
http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/on_piracy_part_.html

I see a lot of justification about it, but still, it's not just about "sticking it to the Man" (a common meme), but rather just getting free stuff because it's easy to do so. The peanut example used earlier made a lot of sense.

A lot of this garbage comes from a few things.

A) Lack of traditional morality/ethics teachings. I mean, it doesn't have to be religious, Roark quote Ayn Rand, a founder of objectivism. There's a lot of flexible ethics practiced today.

The RMS/GNU meme--a false idealism. Because software is "copyable", you are not a thief. This garbage makes it look like it's "less" of a crime. The problem with RMS is while he might have a noble goal, he comes off more like Karl Marx than Che Guevera. I have a lot of criticisms about this, but they would be too long to discuss. He has good ideals--I don't believe in "pay per view" of a book for instance, but he goes way to far and is seen as a loon by some.

C) Entitlement Mentality: People think they have a right to things nowadays. Cable TV, Internet, other things. Technically our basic needs are food, shelter, and clothing. You want to afford something you can't? Get a loan, sacrifice something else, or save. Let's face it...most of us here are not poor, at least by the basic standards. We would not be spending time in MUDs if we had to worry about where we were going to sleep, what we were going to eat, etc--or spending money for credits.

D) Stick it to the Man mentality--Microsoft is too big, etc. Well, there are some legitimate criticisms of monopolies and I agree with that. But Microsoft didn't get big solely because of that. There's a really fabulous book called "In Search of Stupidity" that discusses the Microcomputer market and what really stupid things once big guys like MicroPro, Borland, Ashton-Tate, Novell, and IBM did. People tend to knock what becomes big. Google is now in the "They are The Man" sights, like IBM once was. If Linux ever took off, or Apple became dominant, you'd see the same thing happen.

And let me tell you something. I certainly wouldn't call Microsoft "Evil", at least not in the grand scheme of things. They aren't creating sweatshops in China--they pay their employees well. They aren't violating human rights. They aren't starting wars, killing human beings, running con games, torturing people, etc.

Sorry Aiakon, that wasn't directed at you specifically, more at Jessa, and the thread in general.

I'm done here, though. This is pointless. My morality is not your morality, and nothing anyone here says will change anyone's point of view. I have more important things to worry about, like how I can't afford health insurance because we're spending billions of dollars on killing people in a foreign country instead of on educating and protecting our own goddamn people.