Actually, they can.
The real question is, does it make money, or does it cost money? If it makes money will it damage the reputation? If it costs money, will it be offset by increased reputation?
No they can't, no one cares about the UK. We are talking about America here, you might as well have said "You see, in North Korea you get killed for pirating things. Or owning media not approved by the state. Or really anything". What the UK does is its own problem. Where is this happening in America?
If the police in london were stopping every single person they saw to search them, and they are legally allowed to do this, the obvious public backlash would be devestating. So repuatation overrides legal and moral enforcement.
And in NK and in China. But no one cares about the UK any more, this is an American debate, as far as it matters. You can't bring up America censoring pirate sights then go and say the Uk is doing unrightful searches.
If microsoft want to catch everyone with a pirate copy they could force ISP's, using their government resources, to find ALL people who downloaded a copy. Then every single person would be fined and/or jailed for "stealing". Why dont they? MONEY!
Or because they don't have a warrant?
I didn't bother reading the rest, since it really seems to be based on the assumption that Americans can search every home for drugs.
Of course it does. Or do you mean morally it doesnt matter?
It doesn't matter morally. It would be like saying helping Africa is a bad thing because the person helping just wants to get their economy going so he can leach off it.
Im saying literally, money matters and literally shapes the world regardless of moral values. The decision to censor the pirate bay is because of money, not morals.
Or do moral matters literally shape money?
Now lets look at the history you like so much. For example, lets go to slavery. Slavery was accepted for many years, and made slavers and plantation owners quite rich. The prophet stayed still, it was not like the value of slaves dropped. So why where the slaves freed? Mostly changing morals, not money. Morals triumphing over money.
Morals are given as the reason by many, such as yourself, but as I say, its not the REAL reson the powers that be have taken action
The driving force behind the action does not matter. It is only the action that matters.
They are only doing something about it because it doesnt make them profit (but nor does it lose them money, since every year they make profits, whether up or down, its still profit after tax etc)
In that case, why would they do it for money, if it doesn't effect their money at all? You may think they are incompetent, but they do have people that they pay good amount of monies to to find out stuff like this. If they don't lose any money from it, then why could you say that they are doing it for money, which they would not gain anyway?
Or are you smarter then people who went to collage and got hired specifically for this job? And having researched better?
To me, it just sounds like you are a pirate who wants to justify his actions.
Of course because we say that killing is morally wrong.
I thought we thought the same about stealing, didn't we?
This is not the same issue tho and noone is harming anyone here unless you wanna argue they will lose their job because of piracy. Which simply doesnt happen to the big boys in the business
If you are not harming them, then why are they trying to stop you so much? It could be morals, of course, but you are saying it is for money. So why do they pay so much money....to stop something that does not cost them money?
They make profit every year.
Irreverent. It would be like saying "Obviously robbing that liquor store didn't harm them any, they still made a profit that year!"
And dont come back with your justification again i.g. "so by your logic your saying its ok to steal", because in the real world, morals are not real and most people have shifting moral values depending on the situation
Morals are not real anymore, are they? It must be a horrible world you live in, the one I live in is full of people living up to their morals, no matter which the situation. The UK must be a horrible place.
To blanket it under "so you say stealing is ok then?" is just plain wrong and completely ignores many elements of what morallity is.
As we discussed earlier, we are talking about stealing luxuries, which we can both agree is never OK?
We can say its morally wrong for the starving orphan to steal the apple... but we can say he was right to steal it to survive. I dont need the game to survive but then its just an abstract activity that doesnt create a real sustainable living.
As I said, we are discussing luxuries here. The orphan would be justified in keeping himself alive, but if it is a middle class boy who stole an X-box because he "Could not live without it" then he is an amoral thief.
Wait, are you suggesting that your life would be unlivable without pirated games? Hell, the UK must be worse then I thought.
We cannot generalise moral values on such a complex situations. Saying its wrong to steal is a childlike view of the world
We have talked about this. If you read back, we did start off saying things like "That is how capitalism works, comrade. Are you saying that it is OK to steal luxuries if you are poor?". Remember? You did a whole big list of quotes that I said, I had assumed you read them.
Why did the person steal?
In this case? It was because you wanted to play a game, didn't want to pay for it, and have weak moral character. That is the whole of it.
What position in life are they from?
How is that relevant? It is hardly more OK for a rich person to steal then a poor person or vice versa. In this case, I would say you are middle class.
Who did they steal off of?
Almost relevant there! Is it a worse crime to steal from a poor person then a rich person? The only way it is more relevant is the fact that, if your stealing necessities from a poor person, you may be sentencing them to death.
What were their motives?
Baily relevant. How do motives matter in morals?
In this case, you wanted to play a game but had no money. So you stole it.
What are the consequences?
How is this relevant either?
You are ignoring all of these glaring questions and focusing on one flawed argument. Not logically flawed, nor morally flawed, just flawed in its literal application to reality.
And in what reality is this your living in? The UK must be a horrible place if stealing a T.V is morally justified and necessary to live. I heard the rain was bad there, but I never guessed it was THAT bad...
Far too often. Again, I urge you to read up on your history.
You have been on these forums enough to know about the burden of proof, it is your duty to bring up the areas of history.
