Fight Pass is Shady! UFC Fight Pass is using your PC to crypto mine. Your CPU is being used to mine...

...

...

That's theft and a violation of their license. You do care about licensing, don't you?

>(((licensing)))

Copying something is not theft you retard. When a theft occurs, the victim no longer has the thing that you took. The fact is that I don't care enough about UFC to pay for it. If torrents were not available for it I would simply choose not to watch.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of an adblocker performing this function. Script blockers are for blocking scripts. Adblockers are for blocking ads.

Stealing from Jews is like giving to freedom

Yeah, because if it wasn't for that tiny detail, it would be all so fair and ethical. You deserve a botnet installed on your prostate mining AIDS right into your veins for eternity for paying for this shit in the first place!>>816310

I'd like to add that piracy is violence upon ships on the high seas. If you feel that it is a good thing to share works of authorship, then don't refer to it as piracy if there are no ships involved.

You violated their licence.

Not an argument.

...

faggots who pay to watch sports deserve what they get

I don't care about licenses. I care about ethics. Violating a license is not inherrently unethical. Niether is downloading something I am unwilling to pay for.

You're inventing freedoms you don't have. Moral principals have been encoded into the law, and your personal ethics are meaningless. If you are unwilling to pay for the product, you are not permitted to view it. To suggest otherwise is extremely Jewish.

mods

Fuck off retard

Use of that portmanteau is a sure sign of a stupid person. I can't help but read your post in the voice of Sarah Palin.

You are clearly trolling or actually mentally challenged.

This is a good point. If I were unable to torrent the shows/movies I watch I would probably just either borrow from a friend or not watch them.

Not a violation of board rules.

Do you really care about piracy or are you just doing this for argument's sake?

At this point, what difference does it make?

You have deprived the copyright holder of their due compensation for the service.

The injured party has lost revenue as part of your action. By choosing to watch their material, you have deprived them of due compensation. If you "weren't going to pay anyways", then you should not have viewed the material.

If people are going to have cavalier attitudes to the law like you two, what is the point of worrying so much about code licences and intellectual property law?

Can a strong man force his way into your home and spend the night sleeping on your floor? He thinks it's ethical to seek the human need of shelter and abode. He wasn't going to pay for a hotel anyways, he won't take your food and will be gone in the morning.
Yeah, I thought so.

Probably none, but I was honestly curious.

as long as they don't rape peoples cpu's this could be a better option than ads.

Annnd it's using 100%.

I was just using that tired Hillary expression. The honest truth is that I really don't like piracy, but pricing gouging is even worse. People are usually willing to pay a fair price for something, and then we see greater piracy when the cost moves closer to extortionate. In a perfect world, people wouldn't be so greedy and dishonest, for our sins, we've now got DRM.

No they haven't. How retarded are you? Please explain to me how me viewing it caused them to lose money.

That's your opinion, and I disagree.

I think "intellectual property" is a retarded concept. I only care about code licenses because I want all software to be open source. I want GPL to spread like a virus. However, that is not an ethical issue. It's just something I want.

That isn't a comparable scenario. A comparable scenario would be if he were to create a copy of my home and sleep in that. I would have no problem with that happening.

If I call things retarded, I win the argument.

Your unauthorized viewing deprived them of revenue. This isn't a difficult concept.

Neither is karma, that does not make it true. If you locked someone in a room with a warez film copy and lock it down to prevent information leaking from it, could you reliably tell from your revenue stream whether he watched the video or not?

That depends on how many of the total viewers are ones in your locked room scenario.

Nice one. Schrödingers Pirate.

Tell me more about how they "lost" revenue.

Because you were not an authorized viewer. You could not accomplish your act without breaking the law. By infringing copyright law you gained an unfair advantage (entertainment).

All the viewers are really small ponies.

You act like I give a shit about the law. The law is not the same thing as ethics.

Again, your ethics are meanigless. Our laws exist to provide an agreed upon set of rules to protect commerce. As you're in favor of one-sided transactions which benefit you without compensating the other party, why not just get it over with and convert to Judaism? You're half-way there, and clearly do not belong in a high-trust white society.

...

Not everyone agrees upon them though. Just because the house of representatives votes for a law that does not mean that everyone (or even the majority) agrees with it. Even if the majority of people do agree on a law, that still doesn't make it an ethical issue. The only things which are inherrently unethical are causing unnecessary suffering and unnecessarily denying pleasure.

I need to clarify what this means since you will no doubt go full retard on me if I do not. What I should have said is "unnecessarily deny the opportunity to seek pleasure" (ie. killing someone, restraining someone, restricting someone, etc...)

How do you know that copyright infringement doesn't cause unnecessary suffering?

Because it has zero effect on the copyright holders. What I do in the privacy of my own home does not affect the outside world. Are you seriously brain damaged?

Well to be fair, a sizeable about of the population has no business weighing in on codifying law; a cursory trip around your city will remind you of that. You then insist upon talking about your personal ethics, which for the third time, I shall remind you are meaningless.

As the other guy has told you, you're depriving them of revenue. You seem dense.

Do you not understand that creating the copyrighted works is the suffering? They create the works in order to eat for a living and they don't get paid until after it's finished. But you feel entitled to take the finished work on your own terms without compensating them on their terms.

Welcome to Cucked Courtroom Simulator 2017.

No I am not. They have the same amount of revenue as if I chose not to watch the show at all. Their revenue has not changed as the result of me torrenting their show.

First of all you are assuming that they do not derive pleasure out of their work. Second of all, I am not forcing them to do that. That is their choice.
Irrelevant to the conversation. The revenue they earn is the same whether I torrent the show or choose not to watch it. The alternative scenario is that I simply would not watch the show.

We've been over this. The revenue has not changed because of a one-sided transaction. You took advantage of the service and did not compensate them for it. Instead of owning up to being a dirty pirate you keep trying to justify yourself like a slippery kike with some personal set of ethics no one else cares about.

You did this because there is a low likelihood of being caught. I think you should try it at a movie theatre though. Tell them to let you sit on the stairs for free, because you weren't going to pay anyways.

You deserve a bitcoin miner

Exactly, which means there is no victim. The end result is exactly the same as if I had not watched it. Now stop being a dumbass.

rofl coinhivejs can't even use 100% of the cpu, best it can do is 80.6, because windows 10 is using the other 19.4% in botnet tracking and overhead.

Yes we know, you're a freeloader. Now stop talking and go search for crumbs on the floor peasant.

Probably mining some coins while they're at it.

Yeah, that's what I would expect from someone who's argument lacks substance

No it isn't
The law doesn't define ethics
No it's not. In fact, it has literally no impact/victim.
So where are the goalposts now?

...

who is this?

lel
Is that an official or pirate stream site? If the latter, you deserve it you faggot.

>>>/reddit/

She's a burgeoning singer named Taylor, trying to make it in the music biz.

Real site.

I hadn't heard about her music career. I only listen to jazz-punk fusion made with a synthesized orchestra and played from a cassette that was recorded during a live recording.

you joke now but i fully believe this will happen, i capped your post

It already IS free, you stupid mental cumdupster for pozzed billionaires that hate you. You can just grab it, read, watch it, listen, play it for free. Still some faggots prefer to pay for it because they feel comfortable having a class of people exploiting them because weak people, much like babies, like to know there are people stronger than them around so they won't have to face the world by themselves.The slaves shall serve, and o they do!

Yeah, by whom? Answer that question and see your entire point disappear. Like tears in fucking rain, my man.

Anything is free if you steal it.

By the producers in society, not street urchins like you.

No you imbecile it is not. The choice to make software free of charge is in the hands of the owners. You have merely copied the product and withheld payment in violation of the law.

And yet it would be your first recourse if someone stronger than you decided to beat the shit out of you.

No, their only choice is to theorize people should pay for their shit, and then whine like little bitches begging people to respect their personal wishes. They, and you, are like that retarded kid who claimed the playground belonged to him and others couldn't play here, and then started crying for his momma when no one respected it and played there anyway.
Technology made your exploitation dreams irrelevant, and no amount of paying cops to do your bidding and fuck people's lives out of pure greed can change that. Copyright is a relique from the past that's only kept living-dead by bullying power and small mentality.

This is your brain on ANTIFA. What a loser.

Laws are enforced, tell someone in jail they are a theory.
Worthless analogy. We're not talking about imaginary claims.
Selling services is exploitation? I cannot even comprehend being this deluded.
No cops? What are you advocating for here fool, rule by the mighty?
Earning a living is greed? Ok, I'll remind you that you need to be 18 to post here. The rest of your drivel isn't worth responding to.

Have a nice day.

Your new home.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
Even leaching from our city they cannot accomplish anything. All are too lazy for much of anything so they creates a "community" of hippy reprobates with nothing to offer but drugs. Sad!

The whole point of my post was that ethics trumps law. Regardless of law, the scenario you described would be unethical. Are you seriously retarded?

Please just let this thread die. You've been BTFO so many times it is boring to read frankly.

Cry harder faggot.

You have no argument, all you do is scream "you're a retard" and try shifting the debate to your personal ethics which have no relevance in the real world.

Ethics is objective amongst anyone with empathy, which is the majority of the population. People without empathy are not capable of being moral agents. Empathy is intrinsically linked to the behavioral motivators known as pleasure and suffering. You can pretend to not understand this all you want, but you will have to admit to lacking empathy in the process.

The fact is (and I've already told you this) that nobody was denied the opportunity to seek pleasure or caused to suffer as the result of me torrenting UFC.

When you steal something, the victim no longer has the thing you stole. Copying is not the same thing as stealing.

Your unauthorized copying harmed the creators in the fact that they worked hard and now they don't get compensated for the work. The moral way to deal with this is to pay them their price or you need to do without. You have no empathy because you believe that it is moral for you to take that unauthorized copy without paying for it.

Your assertion of objectivity is amusingly subjective. The moral code which society has agreed upon is called the law. You cannot unilaterally give yourself the right that a person must provide you a service for free. Even if you feel it is personally ethical, that is immaterial; Robin Hood was still a thief.

You have caused monetary harm to the UFC by denying payment. You extracted a benefit at their expense, a theft of service that you were not entitled to.

We're going in circles though, so instead of repeating myself any longer I will not prolong this discussion.

Irrelevant. If I didn't torrent the show they would still not be compensated. The end result is exactly the same

The law is not a moral code. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you that you would think that. It tries to overlap with ethics, but it is not inherrently about ethics and is not always in the right. Slavery used to be legal for fucks sake. Just because it was legal that does not mean it was ethical. It's not like it was ethical until they changed the law and then it stopped being ethical.

As I said, you have no empathy. You need to do without if you don't intend on paying.

Why? There is no ethical basis for this.

The ethical basis is the fact that they worked hard for the purpose of earning a living. They earn their living by doing the work and putting it out to the public. If you want to see that work, the moral way is to pay that price they ask. If you don't want to pay the price, the moral way is to do without it. To take that work without paying the price they ask is not ethical.

That's not how ethics works. Explain to me how me torrenting caused them to suffer or denied them the opportunity to seek pleasure. If I didn't watch/torrent their show, they would be in the same exact position with the same exact amount of profit. What I did in my home had literally zero impact on them.

When will Holla Forums ever be purged of degenerate redditors? It's always been bad but it's insufferable to come here anymore. Any other places to visit?

/g/?
reddit?

Thanks for volunteering to leave. You're helping to improve the board in doing so, every bit helps!

That's nice that you find his response to be a convenient way to get out of your losing position in the argument, but I'm still waiting for a response to

...

Says who? Relative to commonly accepted ethical practices today for sure, but a person from that time would have a very different set of ethics. They would likely go so far as to argue what makes for an 'ethical treatment of a slave'. Ethics are not some unmovable set in stone universal code, they vary amongst individuals and throughout time.

Not him, but I suppose he got tired of your inane response of appeals to your special snowflake ethics, which permit you to see no moral quandary in failing to compensate others for their services. It's a simple economic argument: producing the service, incurs a cost to the third party, which they risk for the prospect of profit. Obviously you understand that if no one paid, they would go out of business, and the more people pay, the more longer they stick around. What then is so special about you, that you feel others should pay, and you should not? Are you perhaps an impecunious man who plans to pay when you're older and more successful? Or do you really believe you should be entitled to free things just because you can get away with taking them? If it's the former, at least I could understand that you knew the error of your ways and planned to right the wrong. Still, the moral thing to go without if you cannot afford it, as the other guy told you.

Tangentially related to this topic, but from the other side of combatting piracy, I would like to see expensive software suites like Adobe Photoshop tackle the issue by make their software freely available to say those under 18.

The definition of ethics don't change over time. see