I ask for open mindedness that I bring religion here, I feel it necessary to discuss this question of ethics/morality: "Who gives a fuck?"
I quote Mark 12:15.
> But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.
This is pretty much the reason I don't pirate.
I wasn't a Christian before. I first thought "if everyone else pays, why should I get it for free?". But eventually I came to question the concept of personal sharing of media being controlled by the state, and just gave in to 'piracy' (a silly name for the act). I suppose I also generally became jaded on social conscientiousness.
More recently I became a Christian and now I don't 'pirate' at all. It's because the above passage in my opinion can be applied to media (although it's not literally what was said, I think the rationale still works): most of the people who make such media don't approve of me 'pirating'. Therefore if I engage in it, which I actually have a choice about, rather than with the currency which frankly is mandatory for most people, then surely I owe them their price. And if I don't have a way to pay for it then I don't have any more right to it.
Respectfully, you act as if your hand is forced here, but you don't actually need to consume the media, you just want to.
With all due respect, the OP has bought the movie legitimately. He has paid for it. It was legally his.
It was Google's technical ineptitude that did not allow him to use his legitimately bought movie, which had been readily available before.
So he obtained an illegally made copy of the movie which he had legally obtained before, which he had every right to keep in his possession, formally. I don't see anyone's interests being hurt by this, including financial interests, or any moral wrong done.
I can understand how Christianity-based morals might lead to thinking that digital piracy is immoral.
I can't understand how that particular bible verse could be a genuine influence on deciding whether or not illegally downloading copyrighted material is acceptable, at all. Can you explain what logic led from reading that text to deciding it meant you shouldn't pirate things?
And I'm also curious, if you hadn't read that verse would Jesus' other teachings, as told in the new testament, not have left you considering digital piracy to be immoral?
I think the idea is that Jesus was saying secular authorities should be regarded as authorities in secular affairs, while religious authorities / God / the church should be regarded as authorities in religious affairs. At least that's one read of it. So the commenter defers to the illegality of piracy as determined by secular authorities, and doesn't pirate, as a way of respecting (his/her interpretation of) Jesus' (reported) teaching.
Which in my view is a fair approach to life, but hard for me to adopt personally.
(To be clear: this is not a comment on Google's broken platform or the article, that's just awful. It's a response to the question "who gives a fuck?" regarding torrenting generally.)
> would Jesus' other teachings...not have left you considering digital piracy to be immoral?
Romans 13 calls Christians to be subject to authorities, that would be most Christians' given reason. It's one of my reasons, but it was not the reason that first convinced my heart.
> I can't understand how that particular bible verse could be a genuine influence on deciding whether or not illegally downloading copyrighted material is acceptable, at all. Can you explain what logic led from reading that text to deciding it meant you shouldn't pirate things?
Enemies of Jesus asked (paraphrasing) "Is it righteous to pay Caesar's tax, or not?". They were trying to trap him into saying something either illegal in the eyes of the Romans, or unrighteous in the eyes of the Jews. This is why Jesus says to bring him a coin, and asked "Who's head is on this coin?", and then says therefore "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God the things that are God's". This is the answer to the question of what is right with conflicting authorities, because on reflection it is not controversial that God's ownership should take precedence, but that otherwise in Caesar's land and with Caesar's money you must play by Caesar's rules.
Furthermore, for a free man of those days, this principle would have been a precursor of the social contract: you partake in Caesar's money (or live in his land), then you pay Caesar's tax; the same way that you might argue that people who benefit from society owe a debt to society.
Thinking of it this way, now think about media that is 'owned'. It bears someone's mark. You watch completely freely, you are far more free and flexible to choose what media you consume than what economy you engage with. Nobody in the free world is oppressed into watching movies. I find it now actually principled to defend therefore that the 'owner' of some media (especially the creator) can expect payment in return for a copy of the media. We can certainly debate about reasonable scope of copyrights, but I think copyrights themselves are reasonable to an extent.
I quote Mark 12:15.
> But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.
This is pretty much the reason I don't pirate.
I wasn't a Christian before. I first thought "if everyone else pays, why should I get it for free?". But eventually I came to question the concept of personal sharing of media being controlled by the state, and just gave in to 'piracy' (a silly name for the act). I suppose I also generally became jaded on social conscientiousness.
More recently I became a Christian and now I don't 'pirate' at all. It's because the above passage in my opinion can be applied to media (although it's not literally what was said, I think the rationale still works): most of the people who make such media don't approve of me 'pirating'. Therefore if I engage in it, which I actually have a choice about, rather than with the currency which frankly is mandatory for most people, then surely I owe them their price. And if I don't have a way to pay for it then I don't have any more right to it.
Respectfully, you act as if your hand is forced here, but you don't actually need to consume the media, you just want to.