Sounds like more mental gymnastics to excuse all the exceptions to the rules that you like. Goes perfectly with your whole, “it’s not ok to break the law except for really good reasons or extraordinary circumstances which are of course based on my opinion” argument. 

I used to tape songs off the radio too, I’m sure you think that’s terrible.

Ok.

ETA: I would draw a distinction between descrambling a signal vs physically tapping into a line. That’s causing destruction to property.

When someone makes a copy of the game, the original game is not taken away. That’s the only thing that would be a direct loss, the loss of that actual game. Making a copy doesn’t do that, it’s not a direct loss.

I think that given how unlikely it is that most soldiers would comply with turning on the citizenry, they assume (probably correctly) that many of those tanks, etc, would be conscripted by rebelling military members and turned on the government, evening the odds somewhat.

Without that direct loss, I can’t agree that anyone was hurt. That loss is what causes the hurt, and that loss is the very basis for why theft is immoral. Without it, there is no theft or immorality.

And seriously, the level of mental gymnastics on display in your post is richly ironic. 

I think you are calling it the hyperbolic deep end to avoid the realities of your position. If you advocate that people should not break the law, and that it’s wrong to do so, it’s just a fact that that INCLUDES things like not freeing slaves, and being a good guard at a concentration camp. THAT’S THE REALITY. How is…

I didn’t compare computer piracy to liberating slaves. I pointed out the logical end point of the position you presented.

YOU are the one who said laws need to be followed and that throwing them out in favor of personal morality is a bad thing. How does that NOT apply to slavery or any other situation? Or are you…

What does that mean, that it’s more important, when it comes to morality? That is an element no one has touched on but you and I don’t see what that has to do with the topic at hand - is making a copy something illegally, immoral? (and more specifically right now, is it inherently immoral to break the law?)

You seem…

All morality is ultimately an opinion, so you think that means there is no logic involved? All these opinions are equal?

No, with just the right proportions.

Again, there are no gymnastics required, it’s all very simple. But hey, your answer sure lets you avoid having to think about it or make a real argument!

You seem to think “mental gymnastics” = “putting effort into making an actual logical argument”.

The vast majority of people would agree that the law is not the same…

Then I’ll direct them to alibaba where they can get some silicone straws for 10 cents each.

True, they are law breakers. But since the law doesn’t equal morality, it just doesn’t have as much impact (although it does let you avoid the real subject matter - morality, which is far more important). Just because something is against the law, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do it.

is unheard of in a country larger than Colorado.

There are no gymnastics required. Theft requires taking something away from someone. Making a copy doesn’t do that. It’s very simple.

Calling fact “sophistry” doesn’t make them not true. Making a copy is not theft. Theft takes something away from someone so you have it and they do not. The fact that someone has less is a fundamental aspect of theft. That aspect is WHY theft is immoral. Making a copy cannot be theft.

No one is perfect, it’s possible even for the parent of a special needs child to be a drama queen and exaggerate. They are acting like their whole life will be untenable without that particular product, and it’s not even a real concern because this is only an article about restaurants not handing them out.

It’s called “having friends”.