It is stealing. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics here. You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.
LOL they know it’s stealing. Some of them will even blatantly admit it with no guilt.
Here’s the question though: if you click the button that says “buy” and give them money, but you don’t actually own it, have they stolen from you?
If you “bought” a printer and then like a year later the company comes back and says “actually no” and takes your printer back, is that stealing? And if you go back to that company’s warehouse and take it back from them, is that also stealing? 🤔
Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).
Digital media should be bought the same way as physical media.
If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Are you saying that if I pirate a movie from 2019, the actors have not been paid for their screentime yet and won’t be paid until I buy the movie in, like, 2028?
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and I have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Would make sense if the artist was independent, but corporations pay either a wage or a salary. It is rare for an artist to be paid a percentage of revenue for that product, so the only ones who would be affected by piracy are the corporations who did not directly create the art.
If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.
That would be great, but that is not the case for the vast majority of media. Generally-speaking, media is encumbered with DRM, which prevents the consumer from being able to copy the data or watch it in any way they deem fit (see: streaming services requiring hardware DRM for 4K streaming, even when they charge extra for it)
Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).
So, given that this is not an option for the vast majority of content, the only alternative where consumers maintain full control over their own media-playing devices is to download a DRM-free copy.
As Gabe Newell famously said, piracy is a service issue. Steam also has the same problem of lack of ownership and DRM, though, so its users are at the mercy of Valve to not revoke access to purchases.
GOG is one company who does it right, IMO. Sell only DRM-free copies of games, and allow people to download their copy and back it up to whatever media they want to put it on. This type of practice is rare in the media world, though. Most media companies require DRM on their product in order to license it out.
Also on the first point, independent producers of content generally don’t put DRM on their work anyway, so no reason not to buy their work.
This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument.
My point about DRM is highly relevant in this case, because a consumer cannot own something that is encumbered with DRM. They are renting a license for that product, even if the button they click on says “purchase”, since, hidden in the EULA somewhere, the company decided to redefine the word “purchase”. The company will always be able to revoke that license without notice or permission from the consumer, let alone a refund or any kind of compensation.
Again, it is not relevant because I’m not arguing against the OP. I am only arguing against the dishonesty and mischaracterization of piracy as being something other than stealing.
If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.
And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as “I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don’t need eggs.” without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.
And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
Then why are companies who have clones made of their products still in business?
You’re only unintentionally (I think) proving my point, not yours.
Companies who make clones of things are still in business because people are paying for the clones. You’re not paying for the cloned movie you’re pirating.
Also, in your example and using your logic, someone would have to recreate the production of the content. If someone decided to remake a movie (and get actors, crew, production, marketing, etc.) and then decided to release that for free, not only would it not be stealing but it also wouldn’t be copyright infringement because it would be covered by fair use since its a recreation. Copyright infringement doesn’t apply simply to an idea of something. It applies to the manifestation of that idea.
I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not talking about the clone companies; I’m talking about the original company who designed the product that was cloned.
I don’t necessarilly agree with people making money off of unoriginal ideas, but that falls into the camp of copyright infringment instead of stealing since copyright law protects the intellectual property of the company who created the original design. Whether it is considered reverse engineering or not is a whole other legal argument, since reverse engineering is legal in the US.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
Maybe? If you’re asking how the original companies stay in business when a clone comes along, the answer to that is that many times they don’t. And, as mentioned elsewhere (and maybe even here), if we’re talking about tangible goods, then, in most cases, there are clear differences between the clones and the non-clones. If enough people buy the items from the original maker, then they stay in business. There are plenty of examples where clones popped up in a market and forced the original creator out of business. We’re not talking about “clones” in the sense that they’re close enough. We’re talking about exact duplications. If someone can make an exact copy for less, then the original company would go out of business if no one paid for that product. I don’t know how you could view that as anything but theft.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
No, you don’t need the second part. Stealing it would be stealing the design of the other company and selling it. Recreating something is not the same thing as stealing it, as I’ve already stated.
How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with? Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money. This is especially the case if the consumer has previously purchased a license to consume the product, and then the company decides to take (or steal) it away. No moral qualms with pirating the same content then.
It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact. It’s not like a physical BluRay, where if you steal it from a store, you are making that store lose money due to that physical stock being stolen.
And lastly, how is the company not stealing from consumers when they pull shit like this?
How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with?
Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.
Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.
They are if you take something they created.
It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact.
I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.
I don’t know how these justifications can be described as anything other than “mental gymnastics” because they obviously make zero sense and personally benefit you.
You hit the nail on the head. That’s why they’re downvoting and arguing. It personally benefits them to steal.
I’ve said it several times here…I don’t care if people pirate stuff. There are a myriad of reasons to do so. My issue is with the dishonesty of pretending it’s not stealing. Keep doing it, I don’t care, but own up to what you’re doing and admit it’s stealing.
It’s mental gymnastics because they need to be able to continue stealing but don’t want to feel bad about it.
I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.
Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?
Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.
The definition of theft according to MW: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
If you do not deprive the original owner of the property (such as: copying), it is not definitionally theft. Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.
Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Taking away licenses is wrong. I’m not disputing that. But that doesn’t magically make stealing something that actual people created right.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Are you making an ethical, moral, or legal statement here?
Ownership of intangibles in this context exists only as a means to support a particular political arrangement. I think you may be assuming others here share your politics; there is no objective moral standard for exclusive ownership of intangibles.
By that argument, there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value. If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not. If you don’t agree to that premise, then there’s no point in discussing this with you.
there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value.
You’re right, there is no moral imperative for people to create (or share) intangibles, but nobody is claiming they have no value.
If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not.
Again, is this a ethical, moral, or legal statement? It strikes me as a uniquely ideological statement, but you’ve not elaborated.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one. I’m not disputing the legality of anything here (since I believe that the subject of the OP is also illegal - “Buying” something denotes ownership and, therefore, taking it away is also stealing).
Additionally, I do not have objections against piracy and think there are many legitimate reasons for it. I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Are you trying to conflate ‘value’ with ‘extractive market value’? There are lots of things that have innate value but have no or very little market value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one.
It matters if anyone cares to understand what you’re actually asserting, since you’ve again claimed ‘I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing’. How can anyone understand what you mean without knowing what you take ‘stealing’ to mean, and why it matters?
Most people here would argue that a system that relies on exclusive ownership of ideas/digitally reproducible data in order to support those who do that labor (that we all benefit from) is one that is broken. In which case ‘stealing’ would be misplacing both to whom the harm being done and the party doing the harm, because it isn’t the fault of the artist or the consumer that the system withholds the means of living from those who are unable to justify their existence through labor.
That’s all irrelevant. I’m not making some hypothetical point. Whether you agree with “the system” or not, it is the system within which we live and operate and within which people need to make a living. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created. If we accept that and attempt to justify as anything other than theft, then those people will cease to create themselves or will have to work further into the system that you’re arguing against as they will be unable to sustain themselves by creating things within that system.
If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things. All the straw man arguments about DRM and corporations that attempt to justify piracy only further reinforce the current system rather than some imagined system.
Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone. If you can’t understand ‘stealing’ in its most basic form, then there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.
‘Piracy is stealing’ certainly seems to be a statement of fault, doesn’t it?
What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created.
No, that someone is being deprived of something in the first instance by being made to justify their existence through their labor. That someone isn’t willing to pay for that labor is only depriving them in the second instance, and there are innumerable examples where essential labor is uncompensated in our market system.
If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things.
That is not a given. I happen to think that by returning the time that was stolen from us (or some portion thereof) by coercing us into labor, we can all be free to create what we want. Forcing art to abide by the rules of the free market only serves to corrupt it, not enable it to sustain itself.
Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone.
Stealing actually has a bunch of definitions, and most of them depend upon the abstract concept of ‘property’.
there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.
I was saying that it doesn’t matter whose fault it is to your assertion that “it’s not the creators or the consumers” fault. Piracy does have a person that’s at fault and, logically, it’s the person getting something for free that is not being offered for free.
I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, “justify their existence”, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.
Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do. Of course I’d be happy if we lived in a Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter anymore but we don’t and pirating content that people make isn’t going to change that.
All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it. That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.
I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, ‘justify their existence’, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.
Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do.
Except it isn’t, because you’re arguing they deserve to be paid because otherwise they can’t afford to pay their bills. You’ve made it explicitly relevant.
All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it.
And i’m saying it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is stealing when the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.
That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.
Where to start with this one…
‘watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
’using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?
‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?
‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that they deserve to be paid because they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free. Their reasons for wanting to get paid are irrelevant. They are not offering the product of their labor for free. Full stop. Why they’re doing that doesn’t matter.
the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.
I’m not talking about copyright, though! Copyright is a legal concept defined by lawmakers. I’m not focusing on the legality of piracy at all. I don’t care if it’s legal or not and I don’t care about the copyright. I’m simply arguing that people create things and expect to get paid for them. They don’t create them to give them away for free unless they’ve explicitly decided to do that.
watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
Libraries have to get permission from creators to carry intangible goods. Libraries do not and cannot just buy media and offer it for consumption without permission, especially for digital media that is intangible. Sharing a DVD with a friend is a tangible good and therefore has physical limitations that intangible media does not so it is not the same. And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.
‘using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?
Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).
‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?
Why is that a weird and/or grotesque example? Sex workers are people and provide a service. So, yes…stiffing a contractor.
‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)
Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.
Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.
Yes, that does matter. That would be the whole point of the idiom.
For example if I tried to argue a king can command the tide, and then used King Canute and the tide to prove my point, I would not only be not making my point stand but also confusing the crap out of everyone.
they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free
If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid, am i justified in asking to be paid for you looking at it? Am I justified in accusing you of theft if you take a picture of it as I drive by? If you share it with all your friends? If I post an elaborate tiktok and say, ‘if you viewed this please pay me $5’, can I accuse you of theft if you don’t?
At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it? By what natural law is a creator granted exclusive right to the consumption and distribution of that intangible work?
Them expecting to be paid has no bearing on the moral or ethical obligation for me to do so. They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable. That doesn’t make something theft, especially not legally (which I now understand is not your point)
The most you could argue is for a social obligation (i.e. you ought to pay for things you benefit from), but that wouldn’t amount to fucking theft. If that’s the point you’re making, then it’s disingenuous to refer to piracy as stealing.
And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.
Great, that simplifies things.
Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).
You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours. A better example is if I pay you for your time to make me a website, and then someone else copies the HTML from the site after I publish it (as with most piracy, the person you’re hurting isn’t the creator but the IP owner, which is usually not the creator). Your time has been paid for already, and trying to limit access to that work after the fact is simply an abuse of some abstract ownership over something that can’t really be stolen. Anyone is free to support the work they enjoy, but saying that it’s an ethical obligation that amounts to theft if ignored is simply not a given.
It’s the same with the sex worker, except there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does that’s infinitely reproducible… that example seems to have been included specifically for the emotional weight that work elicits, since it doesn’t appear to be relevant to your point.
The problem is that in our current system, absent being paid for your labor or exclusive ownership to goods or capital needed by others, you can’t sustain yourself. That’s a relevant condition to what I think about someone copying the work I produce, not an irrelevant deflection. Additionally, the motivation to do the work changes how someone might feel about it being shared: if you only have to do work you like to do and believe in, and not for any financial obligation, doesn’t it change the emotional appeal you’re making from the point of view of the creator? And the collective benefit for making those creations freely available would outweigh any concern about obligatory compensation or abstract ownership.
Absent those conditions, the ethical conclusion you’re trying to make wouldn’t be applicable by any stretch of the imagination.
If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid
You cannot force someone to pay for something that is displayed in public. If you took that car that you intricately painted and locked it in a garage and charged an admission fee to look at it, then, yes, you are justified. If you are driving it in public, everything else about what you say is invalidated - no, you are not justified in accusing someone of theft regardless of what happens after that. You gave up the right to that when you drove it publicly.
At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it?
At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.
They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable.
This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.
You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours.
Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?
there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does
This is not true. The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you. To borrow from your descriptions of pirated content, her product is infinitely reproducible and freely available (so long as she’s been paid for it, right?).
The problem is that in our current system
…and then you continue to make a claim for a situation that is not possible in our current system which makes it irrelevant.
Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.
At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.
Nope, i’m making the argument that ownership ends when a work is shared publicly, not when it’s created.
This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.
By it’s nature, digital media is unrestricted, it costs nothing to reproduce and so cannot be ‘stolen’ from someone because doing so doesn’t take it away from them. That was Thomas Jefferson’s point; ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time. Digital media is only restricted as an artificial means of extracting value from that limitation. But even then, there’s no reasonable expectation of control once that work is shared publicly because there are no physical boundaries that encapsulate it, no means to control its propagation once it departs from its origin. That’s what I mean by ‘it’s nature is freely accessible and infinitely reproducible’.
Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?
As a matter of principle, absolutely. I don’t blame someone from reusing my creative work, I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place, and I blame the people who take ownership of that creative work and restrict access to it in order to produce a profit that they withhold from me and those that labor to produce it. It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work. It is exactly the concept of ownership that limits creative work, not piracy.
The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you.
THAT ISN’T TRUE. They loose their TIME and that time is finite and discrete. The work they do in that time isn’t something that can be copied. You’re intentionally conflating labor and ownership and copyright (I am very explicitly using copyright here because that is what we are discussing, which is the RIGHT TO RESTRICT COPIES of a given work by the owner of the copyright). I paint a piece of art; the act of painting is the labor, the piece of art is the product. A prostitute is a service worker, they don’t produce a tangible product, THEIR LABOR IS THE PRODUCT. Every time the work is copied their time and effort are lost. Once digital media is produced, that media can be copied indefinitely at NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.
Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.
UBI isn’t a star trek fantasy. Public domain isn’t fantasy. You can close your eyes to what already exists all you want, but you can’t insist ‘piracy is stealing’ without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.
Here’s the flaw in this. It’s not shared publicly. It’s only shared to the people who have paid for it. That’s why we have these stupid situations where distributors fall back on “licenses”.
ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost.
This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea. It took real people real time and real work to create it. Just because it’s intangible doesn’t mean that it is an idea.
Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time.
If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea. The fact that the time of the creators is finite and has value is what transfers that value to the end product.
that work is shared publicly
Again, a misrepresentation of how it is being shared. The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork. They shouldn’t release their content online, they should only allow access to it in a limited fashion where people have to go to a physical location to view it so as to ensure that they get paid for their work.
I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place
So your argument is basically that we should live in a fantasy world where this isn’t the case?
It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work.
It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.
Once digital media is produced,
Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.
NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.
…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.
without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.
It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it. Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.
This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea.
Digital media has no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. An idea is also manifested when it is divulged, and it requires mental labor the same as digital media.
If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea
Wrong. There is the labor, and there is the media. The one is limited and the other is not. I didn’t take you for a proponent of the labor theory of value.
The creation of new media requires labor, but the product of that labor is infinite.
The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork
No, i’m saying it is the nature of the work that it requires no additional labor to copy a digital work. A limited digital stream is a copy of a work. That it expires is an arbitrary limitation that is imposed by the distributor (be it a corporation or the artists themselves) to extract a price, one that does not reflect an actual limit to the supply. That there is no other way you can think of to compensate people who produce media is really a reflection of your own lack of understanding than a reflection of ‘reality’.
It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.
“It is the way it is”. Doesn’t make piracy theft, it just serves as further proof that our system needs changing.
Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.
It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. Conversely, if we consider every new work of media as singularly owned and distributed, the value of a corpus of media will grow indefinitely (e.g. a corporation that owns an exclusive library of work can charge whatever they want for that work, then produce and buy more exclusive work, and charge more for that work, ad infinitum; see Disney). The market as it is cannot continue indefinitely and will lead to the outcome you’re whining about here (artists not being being paid enough to eat). That is why there are dwindling production houses in media because exclusive ownership begets more exclusive ownership.
The only way to ensure artists are paid is to distribute surplus universally so they are free to produce art for its own sake (and not for the sake of the market leaders’ profit).
…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.
I’m not ignoring it, i’m assigning that value to the work itself and not the product of that work. Don’t be dense.
It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it.
It most certainly does rely on ownership, if you’re advocating for artists to be paid via ownership of the rights to access the work. It may be true that the people who consume physical goods deserve to pay for those goods (because their consuming it lessens the supply for others), it does not follow that people who ‘consume’ copies of digital works ‘deserve’ to pay for that consumption. Once again, a copy of a work does not make any the less by the act of copying.
Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.
Right, so… you’re in favor of pirating then, since you can only pirate works that have already been created…?
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.
I’m not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I’m arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You’re stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don’t care if people pirate things but admit that it’s stealing and move on.
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. It doesn’t matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you’re gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.
Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they’ve demanded in return, it’s stealing.
No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it’s a different term, I don’t care. You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You’ve stolen the product that they created for you because you haven’t paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.
And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty.
Fuck off with that. I’m being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.
And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
“You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).”
The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.
They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
I’ve made several arguments and you’ve returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that’s what a debate is?
Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are.
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
The friend can either:
Purchase a copy of or license for that movie (digital or physical), compensating the creator.
Borrow my copy of the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
Torrent the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.
If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.
Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.
I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.
You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession.
I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you’re ignoring it.
I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.
Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.
Don’t move the goalposts.
I’m not. You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
But that’s not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes.
Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good.
The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.
You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
I’m not ignoring it, you’ve just failed to demonstrate it for this example.
This is just dishonest, yet again. Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely. The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.
Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely.
Ridiculous, of course you can. You just copy it to another DVD, or a flash drive, or stream it over the internet. If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.
The content is not the physical medium for digital goods.
I can rip that DVD to my laptop, backup the file to my laptop, and I’d be in the clear legally, morally, or however else you want to look at it.
If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.
The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.
If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.
This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method. That’s the entire distinction between this physical media and the intangible product on the disc. You’re continuing to be dishonest.
If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.
I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.
No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.
Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.
This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method.
Again, ridiculous. The file is on the distribution company’s sever. A copy of that file has been destroyed. Extremely key distinction.
I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.
Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file, and the physical medium you got it on is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.
Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.
I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too. That’s gotta make things hard.
Nonsense. You’re just continuing to be dishonest. You do not have access to their server. You destroyed the product you have. This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.
Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file
No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.
I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too.
Doesn’t matter, the file still exists and has not been destroyed.
You destroyed the product you have.
I destroyed the disc. But if I made a backup, which you agreed is perfectly fine to do, then I still have a copy of the file.
This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.
Ridiculous. I can’t make a digital backup of a TV. Those scenarios are not comparable at all.
No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.
Can’t refute the argument? Just call it a strawman!
You said that borrowing a DVD and consuming the content isn’t stealing, while downloading a copy of it and consuming it is. I proved that to be logically inconsistent. Nothing about that is a strawman.
If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.
Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.
An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please
You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.
Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.
I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.
Youre getting angry now i think. Whatever fruit this may have borne has withered. Last salvo and ill be finished:
I honestly want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don’t want to (and frankly, i don’t blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you’ll read it later?
(Spoiler: ‘false premises’ don’t necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There’s a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It’s real. Go check it out.
Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending this point in the future. Youre gonna all the tools available if youre going with this stance, and that’s what you want, right? You’re not just coming on this forum to run your mouth, right? Your comments have purpose, yes? You will need tools to convince, and you are in dire need of a toolbox
I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.
I’m not doing anything you ask me to because I know what a false premise is, I know what ad hominem is, and I know what a straw man is. You haven’t actually provided any kind of argument against what I said so I know you’re not being honest. Since you’re not willing to be honest, there is no point in continuing discussion with you.
Not sure what is funnier, that you think this is a counterpoint or that you care that people think you don’t care about a topic you have made the greatest amount of comments in.
That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.
ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Why did I have to look this up for you?
Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be “why is it stupid?” or what’s wrong with my way of thinking?", not “stop attacking me, I’m under attack!” At the very least, don’t misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.
He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.
The point is that he didn’t provide any counter to the argument. He’s done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don’t need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I’m making.
True, if you count each and every time you stopped typing…
No, that is a bit mean and untrue. You have replied to many points, some of them even without calling the person “dishonest” or saying their point is “irreverent”
You can’t reason with him. He is an anti-piracy troll.
For him, any comparison made to help him understand is a logical fallacy and any evidence presented against his argument is “irrelevant” as he puts it.
It is like arguing with a trump-like narcissist lol. “My argument counts and yours is wrong, but if yours is right then it is irrelevant, made up, and/or a straw man. If I don’t understand something then it is an attack and I will insult you and instantly label you inferior.”
It’s sad honestly and just like them all he is all “think of the poor artists who created the media you love” while conveniently ignoring that in the music industry, many/most artists don’t even get royalties because the record labels swindled then forced them to sign their lives and works away getting a couple pennies on the dollar.
Video game industry is salaried. All profits go to the corporations outside of indie games. Movies, outside of the big name stars, earn almost poverty wages and absolutely 0.00% of what gets sold because the studios are so incredibly corrupt.
Not to mention dead artists where unless they were extremely smart, their families are likely earning 0% of sold media.
Also not getting into the fact that copyright used to be very short until large corporations bribed lawmakers constantly and for so much corrupt money that they changed copyright to extend an extreme amount of time, otherwise things from the 90s would already be public domain if there wasn’t so much blatant bribery and corruption done by the people you are “stealing” from.
Unless you are pirating things from Dolly Parton or someone who was business savvy enough to not get cheated by the studios, you are not stealing from the artists in any crazy mental gymnastic stretch of the imagination.
Piracy, at the very worst, is stealing from long time hard criminals. There is not a single big record corporation that has not committed a multitude of thefts, blackmail, drug dealing, bribery of government officials, and worse. That isn’t even getting into the crimes of porn studios and movie studios. Disney mass murdered animals on camera for views as one example.
The previous comment is more like shorthand, rather than literal truth.
It’s faster to say piracy isn’t stealing if purchasing isn’t ownership than it is to say “if a company can simply reverse a permanent access license at any time then pirating media from them is perfectly ethical and should not be considered a crime”
It’s bad shorthand though. In this context, there was never any “buying content” happening, nor was piracy ever “stealing”. It’s just misrepresentation of both sides.
Because you’re bitching about it. Either there’s a better way to express the precise picture you’re describing, or your central argument is fundamentally flawed, and it’s an effective shorthand.
Sure, there’s nuance. Shorthand is used to convey a nuanced thought quickly. That’s literally the point.
I am not sure of all the posters here, you would want to mention “throwing a tantrum” in regards to being wrong. But hey I for one am a fan of your posts, it has been fun reading.
I don’t see anywhere that I’ve thrown a tantrum. I’ve been civil and respectful of all the people replying to me, even when they haven’t returned that in kind, and even attempted to bring some replies back to civility when I felt like the person was arguing in earnest. My point stands and no one has really argued the actual point without contradicting themselves.
Yeah, I am going to have to disagree after reading though your over 50 posts here. You point is in tatters, you are grasping at straws and the funniest part is you seem to flat out ignore anything that does not help your argument. You have many times been semantic and then when proven wrong on semantics proceeded to say you are not arguing semantics. Same deal with legality, and when asked if you have a moral argument, you deflect or ignore.
Like I said, I am a fan of your posts here. I get a chuckle when people double down over and over.
You are free and welcome to disagree but that doesn’t invalidate my point or my argument. I haven’t ignored anything unless it was irrelevant to the point (like the DRM arguments or the arguments about media that’s no longer available for purchase) and I’m not arguing the semantics of the words being used to describe the situation unless the person arguing against my point focuses on the semantics of those words as opposed to the actual crux of my argument. I’m not arguing against the legality of anything so that is also irrelevant. I haven’t deflected or ignored whether I have a moral argument or not, I’ve simply stated that it is also irrelevant to my point because, in an exchange, both parties have to gain something and agree to the exchange. That’s neither a moral nor a legal argument.
I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.
It’s not irrelevant because it’s an objective statement followed by a question about that statement. The morals, semantics, or legality of it isn’t what I’m arguing about (although I might concede that it could be argued as an ethical question which may converge slightly with morals).
your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
Sorry I take it back, this is not even veiled. Oh and mind addressing the basis of your argument? I want to know the not moral, legal or semantic argument.
If I thought you were being anything other than disingenuous, I’d answer you. As it stands, you’re neither honest nor actually interested in what my point is. If you were, you’d have said even something about the point and not about whether it’s a moral, legal, or semantic argument.
Nice try dodging, my point is you have said anything you don’t like is “irreverent” to this argument as you are not making a moral, legal, or semantic argument. So if not one of these 3 what is your point based on other then a wordy version of “nuh uh”
That’s not true. I haven’t said anything is irrelevant simply because I don’t like it. I’ve said it’s irrelevant because it’s not relevant to the point I’ve made. Whether something is legal or not is irrelevant because my argument is not taking a position on the legality of something. It’s also irrelevant if the point deals only with the semantics of what a specific word means because my argument is not about the definition of the word, it’s about the deprivation of a gain in an exchange. It’s also not relevant if it’s a moral argument because I’m not against piracy and don’t care about the morality of it. I’m only arguing about the justification people are using to pretend that piracy is not depriving someone of the value of their work. My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.
But, sure… It’s just a wordy version of “nuh uh”. Now keep telling me you’re not a dishonest person.
My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.
And here is the fun part, you have been soundly and completely shown that piracy (software) is not stealing or theft in the semantic, legal and even moral sense. You even help others arguments with your “irrelevant” approach to any counterpoint by stating that is not the argument you are making. Then you also call anyone who engages with you “dishonest” without the slightest indication or example of dishonesty.
Ignoring and misrepresenting my argument to argue another one is dishonest. You can claim it’s not but that just gives me more reason not to engage with you.
Who said I ignored or misrepresented your argument? This is the first time you have brought this particular accusation and I am somewhat interested in how you came to such a conclusion. I am clearly not ignoring you or your argument (I am still waiting for you to finish defining it after all) and other then quotes from you I have hardly even started to represent, let alone misrepresent you.
I think once again we can look at the many people you call dishonest as a form of projection.
They are ignoring my argument. My argument is not flawed. We don’t accept it in any other context with any other intangible items so I don’t understand why it’s acceptable here.
Stealing is different to pirating. You can say that both are wrong, but you can’t claim that both are the same.
Yes, I can… and I am. They’re both wrong because, whatever you call them, they’re theft of something. Anything else is just a semantic argument. You’re taking something and gaining a benefit from it without compensating the creator for it. We don’t accept that in any other context, whether tangible or intangible.
Your argument is flawed, because piracy is different to theft. You say they are the same, when they are not.
There is a potential loss with piracy, but that isn’t theft. Theft requires actual loss. This isn’t a semantic argument, it is a core principle of the definition of theft.
Your argument is flawed, because piracy is different to theft.
No, my argument is specifically that piracy and theft are not different. My argument can’t be flawed because they’re different if the argument is that they’re different. That’s circular reasoning. You can’t just say that they are different without pointing out how they are materially different in a way that a creator is properly compensated for the content that they created since that is the entire crux of my argument. If a creator isn’t getting paid for someone consuming their work, then that’s theft. We don’t allow people to consume anything else they haven’t paid for in any other context so, unless you can make a meaningful distinction for a creator, you haven’t actually addressed the central premise of my argument.
There is a potential loss with piracy, but that isn’t theft.
It is not a potential loss, though. If someone consumes that media then it is a real, tangible loss. They consumed the media without paying for it. The idea that they may not have paid for it anyways is unresolvable with the idea that, if they hadn’t paid for it and piracy wasn’t an option, then they wouldn’t have been able to consume that media.
You can’t just say that they are different without pointing out how they are materially different
I have pointed out how they’re different, from my first comment to my last.
Theft involves taking a tangible asset from someone. It may also involve a potential loss in income.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential loss in income.
Your claim is that the producer has lost out with copyright infringement because of the time and effort and cost they put into making that thing. That cost would happen regardless of copyright infringement occurring. Thus you cannot assign the potential loss against the cost - it would have occurred either way.
If someone consumes that media then it is a real, tangible loss.
No, it isn’t.
They consumed the media without paying for it.
Yes, they did.
The idea that they may not have paid for it anyways is unresolvable with the idea that, if they hadn’t paid for it and piracy wasn’t an option, then they wouldn’t have been able to consume that media.
Sure. But what you’re ignoring is the idea of whether or not they would have bought instead of pirating.
If they would have paid, and didn’t because they pirated, then there was a loss. If the wouldn’t have paid but only consumed the material because it was free, then there is no loss. Thus, the loss is only potential.
The reality is that most of the content people pirate is not content they would have paid for, even if piracy was not an option. Thus, for the most part, piracy does not indicate any tangible loss.
I have pointed out how they’re different, from my first comment to my last.
I said materially different. You’ve pointed out ways they are different that have no bearing on my point and aren’t relevant to it. You’ve mostly focused on the legal aspects of copyright infringement vs. physical theft which has nothing to do with my argument.
And now you’ve done it again. You’re arguing the legality of copyright infringement and how it differs from physical theft which has no bearing on my position.
But what you’re ignoring is the idea of whether or not they would have bought instead of pirating.
I’m not ignoring it. I’ve literally stated the argument against that statement several times - if they didn’t buy it, they couldn’t consume it if piracy didn’t exist.
only consumed the material because it was free
It wasn’t free. That’s why it’s stealing.
The reality is that most of the content people pirate is not content they would have paid for,
Then they shouldn’t be able to consume it! There’s no issue if they wouldn’t have paid for it if they don’t consume it. The whole argument that they wouldn’t have bought it becomes bullshit as soon as they do consume it because, without piracy, they would not have been able to consume it.
I’m not arguing the legality of it. I’m arguing the key definitions. Said definitions line up with law, because the law was established hundreds of years ago. Your definition is new and false. For some reason, you cannot accept that.
if they didn’t buy it, they couldn’t consume it if piracy didn’t exist.
Would vs could. You’re conflating the two. If they didn’t buy it, and piracy was not an option, they most likely would not have consumed it. They most likely would not have paid you for it.
A pirated copy is not equal to a sale. If piracy was not an option, you wouldn’t have had many more sales.
You keep touting this principle of yours as if it were fact. Frankly, you should accept that your business was a flop and move on, rather than blame people who did not want to pay you for your own failure.
That’s fair, but I feel like the point is that many people go through a process where
You pay money
The buttons on your screen say “buy” “purchase” “check-out” or something else to that effect
That feels like buying media, so according to the common “consumer” (hate that word) brain, you are spending money to buy content.
At the same time, media corps have been trying to teach us for years that piracy is exactly the same as stealing.
The whole point of the shorthand is to explain that these are not facts, they’re misconceptions, AND both of these misconceptions exist for the same reason, corporate propaganda.
It doesn’t just feel like it, it says it. What it is is false advertising. If you don’t get to keep it forever, the button should say something along the lines of “rent until we decide to stop hosting it”.
I’m starting to think that everybody’s thinking about this the wrong way. But I think really needs to happen is they need to be sued to oblivion with a class action lawsuit. They can say whatever they want in their user agreement and do their best to get away with it but if it’s not enforceable in court then it needs to be shot down and shot down completely. This needs a class action lawsuit. There need to be several class action lawsuits. One against them, one against Sony and so on.
They have a lot of money and they might win in court maybe but they should at least be challenged in that venue.
Oh but it’s not buying! The big “Buy” or “Purchase” button might have said so, but if you’d have careful read through 35 pages of user agreements, you’d see that you only rent the license to stream it.
Which obviously is total bullshit and the whole fucking system should be burned to the ground.
This is where the law needs to step in, it should be illegal to call it “Buy” if you are just leasing it. It’s absolutely misleading to most consumers.
This is precisely why I refuse to buy digital games. (And it extends to other media, but games are where I actually spend money)
I’ll pay for a rental service designed to be a rental service (ps+, for example) but will not buy individual games digitally. Who knows when they will become unavailable for some reason, and I can no longer download a copy. It’s bad enough when servers are shut down within 2 years of launch, but when the whole game gets pulled, then what?
I’ve decided I’m not even bothering with the next generation of consoles. So few things are even released on disc, with half the consoles being digital only, that it’s not even worth it. I’ll pirate instead.
Also, copyright infringement never even used to ever be a crime, although now there is a form of criminal copyright infringement, if it’s done for money or if the value is above a certain amount. Thanks to lobbying from wealthy industries. Most copyright infringement still is not a crime, though.
The reason industries lobby for harsher copyright laws is because they know they can make more money if people can’t pirate. They take the piss with their pricing, but they’re acutely aware that if they take the piss too much then people will turn to piracy. By prohibiting piracy and levying harsh penalties they can get away with even more unfair pricing, and maybe even profit from piracy through punitive damages (which is mainly a US thing, most sensible nations only allow you to sue for actual damages).
By this logic, everything you don’t buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you’re denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend’s house for free?
No, it’s not. If you are just walking past that item, you’re not consuming the value of that item. If you’re being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn’t be watching the movies that you’re not paying for. The entire issue is that you’re not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you’re eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you’re now able to gain the value of that magazine’s content without paying for it. That’s still stealing. You can either pretend it’s not or you can say “Yeah, it’s stealing but I’m ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways”.
Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they’ve already consumed it.
That’s not a better example. You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you’re reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It’s not bound by that scarcity.
It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing. We’re discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.
It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing.
That is literally the situation I’m discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn’t have the rights to it, don’t pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there’s also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.
The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don’t think that’s morally consistent. You’ve been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that’s exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.
That’s not true. It is not “literally the situation you’re discussing”. You don’t “lose” money if you’re paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn’t you “losing” money just because you don’t walk out of the museum with something tangible.
You’re just arguing semantics about the word “creator” now. The other options you’ve provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can’t buy a “used” version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.
Now we’re arguing semantics and I’m not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can’t engage with the actual ideas behind what I’m saying, then what are you even doing?
I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you’ve been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.
In another thread, you said
At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you’ve made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.
You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.
The fact that you don’t see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don’t logically hold up against the point I’m making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can’t buy a used copy of an intangible item!
So… no. I don’t have to believe any of the other things you’ve mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn’t exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.
The logic just doesn’t flow. If the problem with illegally streaming content is that the creators don’t get paid for my consumption of their product, then buying a used copy is just as bad, because I’m still consuming the product without the creators being compensated. You can say it’s different because I’m using physical media that can’t be copied rather than using a copy of a digital file, but the end result remains the same: I consume the media, the creators don’t get paid. You can say it’s different because the physical media only allows one person to consume it, but… The original owner already did. I suppose they can’t rewatch it after they sell the disc to me, but they have definitely already consumed it.
It also brings up a complicated question: what if the original buyer of that disc rips the disc onto their computer before selling it to me? Is that immoral? I mean, they already watched the show. They might not have a legal right to keep that digital copy of the contents of that disc, but it seems weird to me to suggest that it’s immoral to keep a copy of a show you’ve already seen.
Finally, if buying a used copy is fine because the original owner of that copy already paid for it, then my illegal consumption doesn’t matter at all–the person who bought the disc was going to buy the disc anyway. They already paid for it, regardless of whether I would come and buy it from them in the future.
You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.
And you’re ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.
If it wasn’t for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn’t an option then there would be nothing holding them back.
Neither of those things are true. I’m not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven’t argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You’ve provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don’t find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don’t ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.
You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn’t lose out with used sales.
How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?
How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer. With used goods, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer.
Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products.
I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve “all teh moneys” without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
In any case, I didn’t even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn’t a thing they’d charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
At this stage, I think it’s abundantly clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There’s no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.
Edit: I’m withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.
thus should be priced far lower than physical goods
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid. I’m not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don’t think it’s worth that price, then they shouldn’t buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn’t consume/ingest it.
With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost…you claim is suffering a loss?
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that’s not the point that I’m arguing so it’s irrelevant to the argument.
Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.
You’re advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you’d be supportive of, then you’d just be advocating for exactly the situation you’re in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a “place”. It’s just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
Again, a different argument from the one I’m making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they’re the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
No, I’m not. I’m not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason… 🧐
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid.
It’s not a separate argument, though. I’ve provided justification for why piracy should exist - to limit the price of goods and services, which are currently excessive, but would be even more so if piracy wasn’t an option. That is a very valid point in this discussion.
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters.
EXACTLY!! EXACTLY. The scope of the loss is different.
If you are the victim of theft, you’ve not only lost a potential sale, you’ve also lost a tangible good that you have paid to produce. If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you’ve only lost the potential sale.
The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not.
You’re on the cusp of recognising this.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason…
I own up to my mistakes. I think you were a little bit hostile in your defense, understandably, as a result of the hostility you’ve received - along with all the downvotes. I know that can have an effect even when you know it doesn’t matter. I certainly did myself, I saw the single downvotes to my replies and concluded that was from you. I may have been wrong, it doesn’t really matter, but I can see you are engaging at least.
You’re still in the wrong position, though. While it would be right to say copyright infringement is wrong, it is not theft. Stealing is the act of committing theft. Theft is defined differently to copyright infringement (piracy).
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost. Both of those things are irrelevant to the point that I made and are distinctly different from the argument I made. The cost of something doesn’t determine whether piracy is justified and my argument isn’t whether piracy can or should be justified.
If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you’ve only lost the potential sale.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not. You’re on the cusp of recognising this.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different. You need to recognize that those are merely legal terms to differentiate how the legal system treats them. I am not arguing anything about the legality of the two nor am I arguing anything about copyright infringement. I am only talking about ingesting/consuming something without paying for it, regardless of how the law treats it (and that’s not even considering that laws are different depending on where they are defined).
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost.
No, you’ve argued that piracy and theft are the same thing. I’ve explained how they are not. They are distinctly different.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
That isn’t a loss related to piracy. That’s something that happened regardless of whether or not piracy had occurred.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different.
You haven’t though. You keep saying piracy is theft. Theft has a very clear definition - not just a legal definition, but a definition that has been around for far longer than you or I have been alive.
If, 500 years ago, a monk picked up a book and copied it, he would not be accused of theft. He’s not paying the author - regardless of how recently the book was written - but he is diluting the author’s work and their ability to sell it by producing his copy or copies. But that’s not theft.
Copyright has only existed for a little over 100 years. Since that time, rightsholders have tried to argue that infringing on their copyright was theft, and deserving of similar punishment - all so that they could (they hope) profit more. They put their effort in already, now they feel they deserve money with no further effort (I can’t help but draw back to your argument that people don’t “deserve to view art”, and note the irony). However the argument is just as false then as it is today. You are pushing a false narrative.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The two concepts are distinctly different.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating they’re different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
It is not. If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”. In the same way that a “potential” theft of a physical good isn’t the same as the realized theft, the only situation where there is no loss is one where the person didn’t pay for the good and didn’t make use of/get the benefit of the good.
You haven’t though.
Yes, I have. You said “copyright infringement” which is a legal term only. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Piracy and theft are. You can’t conflate copyright infringement and piracy because that only is meaningful in a legal sense.
Again, you’re just making a semantic distinction and yet my distinction and argument are far more foundational than that.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating their different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
We have, over and over. Software piracy is not theft in the legal, semantic, or moral sense. You have done nothing to prove it is fundamentally theft other then repeatably say it is. Hell you don’t even define what it is you are arguing, you talk about potential loss of creators but then just gloss over all the insane implications that train of logic has. You say its theft but not willing to argue over the legal, literal or moral meaning of the word.
Please provide some foundational argument, because I have not seen anything that would not make our world even more of a laughably absurd corporate hellscape then it already is.
We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.
Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of anything. They still have the possession, they can still continue to sell it without any loss. Your argument is entirely centred around the potential lost sale and the cost the owner has in aquiring the possession. That cost occurs either way, and the sale probably would not have happened if no piracy occurred.
Your argument has 2 holes, the one you look at it through and the one in the bottom through which it falls out.
If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”.
Wrong. You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it. This is a false assumption.
You’re not poor because people didn’t pay for your work. You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.
We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.
Yes… and as I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly, we’re disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that it’s not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.
You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it.
No, I’m not. I’m not assuming anything. I’m flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.
You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.
If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.
I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income.
And, as I have said time and time again, the income you claim would most likely not have been yours if the pirate hadn’t committed copyright infringement. Just because they consumed your media does not mean you are owed money. If they couldn’t have pirated your media, they still would not have paid you. Thus, you are owed nothing. You have lost nothing. No one wanted to buy your thing to begin with.
They were happy to consume it when it was free, they would not have consumed it at the price you were asking.
Edit:
If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.
Sure, they weren’t entitled to it. Copyright infringement/piracy is wrong. They shouldn’t have done that.
But it’s not the same as you writing a physical manuscript and them taking it from you. You still have the game, you’re still selling it, you haven’t lost anything. It’s just that no one wants to buy it.
Because that is how markets work. You would not buy a doughnut if you had access to them for free (say in a workplace). By this logic you are stealing every time you don’t pay for something making literally every interaction or lack of interaction a monetary transaction or theft.
It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.
That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.
That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.
I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.
Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.
It’s not factually untrue. You can’t make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.
Everything else you’ve said is pointless because you’re only arguing about a subset of content. I’m arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don’t pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren’t going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It’s literally as simple as that.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
Not at all what I’m arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don’t own something that they position as “buying” is stealing too. I’m not arguing that and have not said what you’re claiming anywhere. You’re arguing a straw man.
Bro you’ve left 140 comments on this thread alone? Do you need help or is piracy such an issue that the world collectively needs to get together to fix this.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.
My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they’re popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.
Of course they deserve to be paid but I’m arguing that pirating doesn’t cut into their pay because they’ve already been paid before the anime even comes out.
If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.
Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.
These are distributors and they don’t have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That’s not an argument against my point.
If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.
Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I’m making. I think it’s false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term “Buy” for something you don’t actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I’m not arguing about Funimation’s actions. I’ve already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn’t make piracy not theft.
If you weren’t gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn’t lose anything, how can it be stealing?
And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we’ve had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we’re having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we’ll probably keep having this conversation forever
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries.
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.
Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of “I can’t refute your point, so I’m just going to downvote you!” Do they think creators should just give away their creations and hope money falls on them from out of the sky?
I haven’t seen someone explain how a digital creator is supposed to make money without charging, y’know, money for their product.
Maybe the question we should be asking isn’t whether or not piracy is theft, but instead whether or not piracy is harmful.
The makers of Hangul Word Processor in Korea had to be bailed out by the government because despite the fact that their software is installed on almost every single computer in the country, and is most certainly on any computer used in any official capacity, almost no one paid for it. That means that at least some part of my tax dollars were used to support a software company I abhor. Their always-running updater shows ads in the taskbar. (At least it did when I was forced to use it.) The actual word processor is janky and crap, but at this point they’re so in bed with the government, they’re never going away. All because everyone and their dog pirated their software back when Korea’s PC industry was sweeping the country.
Nintendo sold more Nintendo DS Lites in Korea than games. Retailers sold flash carts loaded with games right beside the units. Who’s going to pay $50 for a single game when you can pay $50 for a hundred of the exact same games? The next console released by Nintendo (WiiU) never came to Korea. I wonder why.
Maybe piracy isn’t theft by some outdated definition of the term, but it most certainly isn’t not harmful either.
I think the underlying issue is that the digital product is by its nature infinitely copyable and requires a different system/approach then the old physical distribution model. I don’t think digital creators are today struggling for ways to monetize their work, but having issues convincing consumers of the value of that work. People are getting squeezed and it is changing how much (or even if) they spend on entertainment, art, etc. A major part about anything’s value that keeps getting overlooked (by companies, creators, and often experts) is that the consumer does ultimately decide what that value is. With something that can be endlessly copied with little to no cost the assigned value drops, and we see in this current economic space more and more. Piracy is nothing but a byproduct of tech and market forces. I don’t really think it is necessarily harmful or the core issue. I don’t think gov bailouts are the fault of piracy, and more so using Nintendo as an example of a victim steels me in the other direction. As for the definition of theft, as has been said over and over here, it is not outdated and is very, very scary to think of the implications of a world where the definition is changed to include software piracy.
I get that it sucks being on the shit end of a shift in spending habits (hell, I sell drugs for a living and see the reduction in recreational spending firsthand). But to think that people are going to not bootleg, pirate, blackmarket trade, make knockoffs or such is, has and always be naive.
using Nintendo as an example of a victim steels me in the other direction
Yes, Nintendo is pretty disgustingly anti-consumer in a lot of cases, but in the case of the DS in Korea, I think they were entirely justified in just not releasing their next console here. Why bother when it’s going to get immediately hacked and sold chipped in every little video game store with a pile of burned discs next to it? If you’re selling something, and you know one of your customers is going to take your thing and copy it and resell it, why on Earth would you ever sell anything to them ever again?
I agree we shouldn’t immediately label piracy as theft, but we definitely shouldn’t dismiss it as totally harmless, either.
I looked into the wii thing a bit and I don’t think it was the R4s and what not that had them not release the wii in Korea (at least not until 2019 for some odd reason). They released it in Brazil for shits sake, if risk of piracy was an issue I don’t think they would have. I think the reason they did not release in Korea in a timely was just an odd choice (the wii had a few of them) and I would assume the same rational for the gamecube also not releasing in Korea. If it had something to do with piracy then I can assure you places like Brazil (November 26, 2013), Mexico (November 29, 2012) or South Africa (November 30, 2012) would also not see these consoles.
Actually now that I am thinking on it did South Korea not until fairly recently have a ban on Japanese electronics or media? Maybe the old Japan/Korea relations play a role in Nintendo’s neglect?
This whole rabbit hole was neat, and thanks for that. However I do think this is a great example of a folk tale or rumour becoming the foundation of an idea that is just not actually true but feels true. And in time these examples used over and over become accepted as true, like the effectiveness of allied bombing in ww2 or that Margret Thatcher somehow invented soft-serve ice cream 20 years after it became popular. I don’t think piracy is always harmless, but honestly in the grand picture of the world today I would say it is mostly harmless and so far down the list of “things to solve”. Re-esablishing basic property rights to non rich people is much higher and even then I doubt it is in the top 100.
Maybe the old Japan/Korea relations play a role in Nintendo’s neglect?
While I don’t doubt that that could also be part of the reason it never released here, it is a fact that the DS sold more hardware than games here in 2007.
In South Korea, many video game consumers exploit illegal copies of video games, including the DS. In 2007, over 500,000 copies of DS games were sold, while the sales of the DS hardware units was 800,000.
If they’re selling a physical product, then you viewing the painting temporarily while you’re in the store is not the same as being able to view it whenever you want or to physically have it in your home. You cannot buy “used” intangible goods. You can buy “used” paintings and those paintings can be materially changed by being “used”.
Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it’s gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn’t put food on the table.
Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.
It’s stealing because you watched it. If you didn’t watch it and didn’t buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you’re consuming and ingesting the product they’re selling without paying for it.
Additionally, if you’re making the argument that you can’t count “potential” sales of something as theft then you can’t also make the argument that “potential” exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it’s theft.
And you’ve just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you’re stealing if you’re ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.
No, of course not. They’re explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can’t be piracy if they’re not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they’re selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.
That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.
Don’t worry, you’re correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn’t pay something to someone prior.). If you didn’t pay, it’s theft, and it doesn’t matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.
Google’s example sentence is quite topical. Still: Until potential income is defined as property, its loss isn’t theft. Besides that, if someone wasn’t going to pay for a digital copy in the first place, it’s not exactly a loss of potential income.
I know. It’s painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I’ve already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I’m saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they’re depriving the creator of income, they’re ok with that, and they’ll continue to do it. That’s it.
Ok, so when I decide not to pirate and not to buy I’m also stealing? Or do you think if I didn’t pirate something I would definitely buy it?
I have pirated and later bought things I’ve enjoyed that I wouldn’t have bought otherwise, so I’d argue that’s better for the creators. But I guess I’m being dishonest 🤷🏻
If you didn’t pirate and didn’t buy it and also didn’t watch it, then no it’s not stealing.
If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.
It’s not that hard of a concept. You’re not entitled to the fruits of someone’s labor for free unless they’re explicitly granting you that entitlement.
So yeah… it’s being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn’t stealing.
This is the hottest of takes and by the same logic I will claim your eyeballs are now violating me by the act of reading this.
The issue that you seem to miss is that for someone to steal something, someone has to lose something.
Here is an example:
Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and took the dog. Sue does not have a dog anymore. <— This is stealing/theft ect.
Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and used a device to make a perfect copy of the dog and then gave the copy away. Sue still has a dog. <— This is software piracy.
Yeah according to his logic you can just download and hoard all the stuff you want, because it’s not stealing until you actually watch it. Schrödinger’s pirate?
Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.
Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.
I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.
Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:
noun. the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.
It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.
the action or offense of taking another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
Piracy isn’t taking property without the intention to return it. The pirated media itself is property, but it’s being copied rather than stolen. The potential profits from selling said media to you is being taken, but that’s not tangible property capable of being stolen.
On the other hand, piracy is appropriation. It’s just doesn’t meet the criteria of theft/stealing.
Now you’re just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It’s not theft, it’s unethical appropriation of others’ work.
Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create
I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.
Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.
Likewise, should the media become unavailable after “purchase” as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).
The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn’t get screwed.
if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.
Ugh…but that isn’t the point of my argument that you responded to. I don’t care what you want to call it but arguing that it’s appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you’re sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.
I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I’ve never argued against that.
I also agree with you about media becoming “unavailable”. I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I’ve argued that using terms like “Buy” and “Sell” for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.
I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. “You” want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content “you” want to choose to insert here) that “you” want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.
I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money. If one has the ability to pay for media and wishes to consume it, they should pay for it. Effort was put into its creation, and the creators deserve to be rewarded/compensated for that. If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
Thank you for the clarification; I interpreted it the other way. I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I agree. I’m simply saying that I don’t care whether you call it “stealing” or “leeching” or whatever other term you want to use. The fact that we’re even using the term “pirating” instead of just “acquiring” or whatever other term may be better suited gives up the game that piracy is stealing. If it wasn’t, we’d just call it that.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people. If educators/writers could sell to schools directly, they should. Otherwise, students attempting to learn shouldn’t be limited in their education/enrichment because they can’t afford it. That’s not the same situation, at least to me, with someone pirating a popcorn flick because don’t want to pay for it.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
I agree 100%. I am not advocating for the system as it is nor am I saying that the situation in the OP is fair. It’s not, nor is it fair for rights holders to remove legal ways for people to consume media (like Nintendo going after people for pirating content that can’t legally be purchased anymore). In those cases, I agree that piracy is justified and even necessary to preserve certain types of media. But that doesn’t make it something other than stealing or theft. It’s justified theft but it’s still theft. Just look at the amount of “lost media” that’s been preserved because of justified theft/bootlegging/whatever.
I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
That is much clearer and I will try to use that going forward. I can see how using “you” is confusing and it wasn’t my intention to confuse or belabor that point.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
They definitely don’t care… because it benefits them not to. I’m just making the plea that we should be honest about what we’re saying, not whether it’s justifiable or not.
I’ve maybe been a little harsh in my other comments, and for that I apologise. I understand that you’ve been getting a lot of hate (including from myself) but it’s good to see you have a line in the sand.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people.
Why is it that students are exempt from your position? It seems like there’s a hard and fast line here, when really, I think, there is a great deal of grey area in between.
A student is priced out because they’re poor and a captive audience. A regular adult may also be priced out because they can’t afford something and because the seller is charging too much, and has no other option for a similar product.
You’ve argued that the regular adult should just go without, but, when that option doesn’t enact any meaningful change, why should piracy be an invalid choice? If anything, piracy (and the levels at which it occurs) provides a clear indicator of how bad the pricing is for the given product.
I’ve maybe been a little harsh in my other comments, and for that I apologise.
Apology accepted.
Why is it that students are exempt from your position? It seems like there’s a hard and fast line here, when really, I think, there is a great deal of grey area in between.
I don’t think they’re exempt. If they can afford to pay for it, I think that they should. The difference, at least to me, is that most students are required to use specific books and, as you’ve pointed out, are a captive audience. Students don’t get to choose which book they use to learn a topic in class the way that they get to choose what movies they’re going to watch in their free time. It’s exactly that captivity that I think warrants that “exemption” (even though I wouldn’t call it that). Money should not be a reason why someone should be limited in bettering themselves, especially when they are forced to not have an alternative.
A regular adult may also be priced out because they can’t afford something and because the seller is charging too much, and has no other option for a similar product.
That’s functionally not true. We live in an age where media is sooo prevalent and so accessible that adults have plenty of alternatives. FOMO is not a valid justification to claim “no other option”.
why should piracy be an invalid choice?
Because we’re dealing with something that’s entirely optional. Piracy has no reflection on how bad pricing is. That’s an entirely separate argument. As an example, I collect Steelbook movies. Some of them are outrageously priced. Their prices are not affected by piracy at all because you can’t pirate the Steelbooks themselves. If their value was only in the movie inside the case, then maybe you could make that argument.
The difference, at least to me, is that most students are required to use specific books and, as you’ve pointed out, are a captive audience. Students don’t get to choose which book they use to learn a topic in class the way that they get to choose what movies they’re going to watch in their free time.
Man, I feel so privileged in that I didn’t have any mandatory texts to buy for my degree. I did buy one or two, and I got good use out of them - they were just the right height to raise my monitor up to eye level.
Piracy has no reflection on how bad pricing is.
It absolutely does. Or, at least, the level of piracy occurring is a good indicator of how bad the product/service is, for the given price point. If it’s good enough, people will pay for readily, and there will be very little piracy.
Comparing Steelbook movies to piracy is a bit of a false argument. That’s a physical good. I’m sure the movies themselves do suffer some amount of piracy - however the product is so good that people do buy it.
Man, I feel so privileged in that I didn’t have any mandatory texts to buy for my degree.
How in the world is that possible? How could a teacher possibly assign any sort of assignment if you didn’t have a shared textbook or curriculum? Or is this another semantic argument where you didn’t have to buy it but were allowed to rent or otherwise borrow the books?
Or, at least, the level of piracy occurring is a good indicator of how bad the product/service is,
That’s not true in the slightest. If it was, none of the games on Steam would be pirated. Games that cost 99 cents wouldn’t be pirated. The fact that both of those situations exist is proof that piracy as an indicator is completely detached from both of those things.
I’ll give a personal example but fear it will just lead to more needless pedantry. My studio used to create mobile games. We initially charged 99 cents for the game because we didn’t want to do microtransactions or any of that other nonsense. Within the first week, the app showed up on piracy sites but we had code that detected when the dial-home for analytics was bypassed. We had no DRM on there, we didn’t restrict the pirated versions and, in some cases we actually uploaded copies to these sites ourselves. When we looked at analytics for months afterward, the people playing the game the most were the people that pirated it. They can’t claim that they didn’t find value in the game because they were playing it every day and yet they didn’t pay for it. In the end, we had to stop producing games because we couldn’t get people to pay for the game despite them playing it regularly. I’m not sure how someone can resolve the idea that the game was bad and so they didn’t think they should pay for it with the fact that they played it as much as they did (more even than the players that did pay for it).
Comparing Steelbook movies to piracy is a bit of a false argument. That’s a physical good. I’m sure the movies themselves do suffer some amount of piracy - however the product is so good that people do buy it.
That is entirely my point with the example, though. With Steelbooks, it isn’t the movie in the case that’s the good. The case is what people are paying for despite being able to pirate the movie within.
How in the world is that possible? How could a teacher possibly assign any sort of assignment if you didn’t have a shared textbook or curriculum? Or is this another semantic argument where you didn’t have to buy it but were allowed to rent or otherwise borrow the books?
Not in the US. The content of my courses (I had a total of 9 years of undergraduate study lol, in 2 different universities, in both science and engineering) was all in the lecture slides/notes. There were recommended textbooks that were very good, but ultimately learning was better delivered to me by attending and engaging with scheduled lectures and tutorial sessions. They wrote the lecture notes, they wrote the tutorial questions, they wrote the exams. Hell, my favourite lecturer would just work on the fly with a marker pen and a roll of acetate on a classic overhead projector, making shit up and performing the calculations as he went along. Said lecturer was in his 80’s when I had him - his wife was like 40, and she was his former PhD student lmao (she wore the pants in the relationship, apparently). Dude was a legend. His PhD project involved him building an oscilliscope, and apparently he spent about 3 weeks getting the bearings just right so he could spin the nobs and it would go peewwwwwwww.
That’s not true in the slightest. If it was, none of the games on Steam would be pirated.
Piracy will occur regardless. However, that doesn’t mean you have suffered a loss. It just means you haven’t yet found your market.
Gamers, in general, are cunts though, I’ll give you that. They’ll hurt themselves before they push for a better world. Case in point: a Youtuber is contemplating suing Ubisoft for shutting down an ostensibly single player game (with vague multiplayer functionality). The game even has a hidden developer mode that allows offline play. And yet, on gaming communities where his video has been shared, there is an unhealthy dose of people saying “that’s the way it is, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it” as if the game wasn’t sold full price with no expectation that it wouldn’t or couldn’t continue on. “I’m getting screwed in the ass, how dare you suggest it should be more consensual”.
Mobile apps is an even tougher business - which, by your pricing, is where I expect you’ve been working. It doesn’t help that most apps are merely avenues for spyware infections. The vast majority of mobile apps are simply wrappers that use the system web browser, delivering web services that could have been provided through a url - but if they did that, they wouldn’t be able to bundle in code that steals user data without paying them for it. (And no, use of a service that’s offered free at the point of sale is not a fair exchange for user data, that’s two separate transactions, with the valuable transaction of user data fraudulently hidden in the terms and conditions such that the user cannot make a fair value assessment).
Breaking out in games is akin to breaking out in Hollywood. It’s more luck than anything else, or maybe knowing the right people. Incidentally, Hollywood accounting is an endemic disease that is harming the world over - just like Warner Bros Studios makes a film at a loss, while Warner Bros Productions reap all the profits, public facing businesses all over the world are operating at a loss so that the intermediaries can reap insane profits - all at the expense of the consumer and the actual producer.
The middle man kills good business far more than any pirate. I’m sure Google and Apple made a satisfactory profit off your apps, even if you suffered a loss.
That is entirely my point with the example, though. With Steelbooks, it isn’t the movie in the case that’s the good. The case is what people are paying for despite being able to pirate the movie within.
The movie is good, so you’re willing to pay for it. The movie is good, so fewer people pirate it, because they’re also happy to pay for it.
Not in the US. The content of my courses (I had a total of 9 years of undergraduate study lol, in 2 different universities, in both science and engineering) was all in the lecture slides/notes.
Ok, so as I suspected. If your classes weren’t lecture based, you’d probably be in a similar situation then. That’s not really a refutation of the point, though.
However, that doesn’t mean you have suffered a loss
This is the entire crux of my argument, though. If they’re playing the game, then you have suffered a loss because, otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to play the game. The alternative is that the game has to be DRM’d or somehow otherwise inconvenienced and that’s just bullshit. Why is it so hard to just admit that you shouldn’t be able to play something that you haven’t paid for and that, if you do, you’re stealing? There’s no judgement on that. I don’t care if that’s what you want to do. I just think people should be honest and admit that that’s what they’re doing.
The middle man kills good business far more than any pirate. I’m sure Google and Apple made a satisfactory profit off your apps, even if you suffered a loss.
Agree with this and everything above that you wrote. I feel like that explicitly disproves your argument, though, that piracy is only a service/quality issue. I’m very familiar with what Gabe has said and mostly agree with his position but that’s an entirely different argument, yet again, than what I’ve been making. Gabe doesn’t pretend that people pirating games aren’t stealing them. He’s just arguing that there are service reasons for why people might pirate them that have nothing to do with just the cost of the game.
The movie is good, so fewer people pirate it, because they’re also happy to pay for it.
Again, if this were true and this simple, no good movies would be pirated. And yet they are.
If your classes weren’t lecture based, you’d probably be in a similar situation then.
Lol if my classes weren’t lecture based I’d have an Arts degree, not Science and Engineering degrees. Said degrees have far more scheduled hours, rather than relying on “reading time”.
I wasn’t refuting any points, I was subtly pointing out how the US university system seems to be corrupt such that the people running courses require you to buy their books. None of the textbooks that were recommended in my courses were written by the people teaching them - and yet, the courses were among the top in the UK.
If they’re playing the game, then you have suffered a loss because, otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to play the game.
That is simply not true. Them playing the game is not you suffering a loss.
Let’s make a fair use example. Let’s say their friend bought the game, and described it to the “infringer” in explicit detail. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Then let’s say this person took that description and wrote their own game. Said person happened to be the Shakespearian monkey with a typewriter who wrote an identical game to yours. So long as they don’t publish or distribute the game, they’re not infringing on your copyright. They’ve never even seen nor experienced your game, so they can’t be “stealing it” either. They made their own unique creation, which, by chance, is the same as yours.
They played the game, but they did not pay you for it. Why should they? They don’t know who you are, they don’t know what you’re selling, they just enjoyed the fruits of their own labour - which by pure chance happens to be the same as yours.
Are you entitled to money from them? No. That would be ridiculous. That principle was established before you were born.
Again, if this were true and this simple, no good movies would be pirated.
There will always be some level of piracy. There always has been. Copying computer data is so trivially easy that prohibiting it is only a losing battle.
Your statement that “no good movies would be pirated” is thus completely false. You can only measure the amount of piracy and correlate that with the quality of the work. On the whole, good quality work is pirated less than poor quality work.
The fact that you experienced rampant piracy is perhaps a better indicator of the quality of your work, more than anything else.
If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
For a long time, leeches were a major and somewhat effective medical treatment. They still are in certain cases.
Leeching isn’t an inherently bad thing. Children leech off their parents, until they grow up and make their own way.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder.
Absolutely. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for piracy, many rightsholders would take the piss even more with their pricing and the quality of their products. As it stands, they are acutely aware that if they go too far people will turn to piracy.
This is why they lobby so hard to make piracy a criminal offense - and it’s quite sad that they’ve been so successful in their efforts. I think the threshold is something like $1,000 in the US - if you have more than $1,000 worth of pirated material, you’re a criminal, even though you caused no tangible harm to anyone.
…If nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property"
This is a dishonest response. Movies and media are not ideas. They are representations of ideas that take time and effort to create and that are created so that the artist that made them can make a living and pay their bills. Stealing those representations without compensating the artist for their time and effort means they can’t pay their bills which means they have to stop creating in order to get a job where the fruits of their efforts aren’t stolen.
No. The substance of it is irrelevant to my argument. You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not to put too fine a point on it - ideas are like assholes; everyone has them and most of them stink but the idea of an asshole doesn’t actually make you wretch the way the stench of an actual asshole might.
You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not quite; what makes ideas incompatible with exclusive possession is the same thing that makes digital content incompatible with exclusive possession - their intangibility. A person can labor for years on an idea, and retain exclusive ownership over that idea having not realized it to others; “but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
The same applies to digitally represented media.
You’ve made a statement about the labor involved in producing an idea or digital media, and I’m making a statement about the nature of intangible goods. Embodied labor isn’t the same as some objective moral or ethical imperative, nor is embodied labor the same as value.
If you want to watch something enough to pirate it, it has value.
Everything else you said is a dishonest argument that you would not accept for your own time, work, and effort. The mere fact that an idea is materialized into something more than an idea invalidates the crux of your argument. An idea is just that. An idea materialized into reality, even an intangible reality, is still more than the idea itself.
If you want to watch something enough to pirate it, it has value.
I haven’t claimed it doesn’t have value. I’ve only challenged your implication that ‘value’ and ‘market extractive value’ are -or ought to be- in balance. If you can acknowledge that not everything that has ‘value’ has a commensurate ‘market value’, then you should be able to see that a piece of digital media can have ‘value’ but doesn’t necessarily have a commensurate ‘market value’.
Demand is only representative of market value where supply can be said to be reasonably restricted, and if supply needs to be artificially restricted in order to justify it’s market value then the circumventing of that restriction can’t really be said to be ‘stealing’ in the moral or ethical sense of the word.
It can if you’re ingesting the product. If you’re ingesting the end product then value and market extractive value are the same. Either you think it’s worth the price that the creator is asking or you don’t. If you don’t, then that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to view it for free just because you think they’re asking too much. It means you don’t get to watch it and they don’t get to be paid for it.
Everything else you said is irrelevant. The supply is the creator, not the product that the creator made. If they can’t make a living creating those products, then those products go away. Whether you want to claim that’s artificial or not is completely moot.
You’re talking about supply and demand for intangible products. That means that you’re either being intentionally obtuse about the fact that intangibles aren’t affected by supply and therefore can’t be bound to it or you’re being dishonest about the argument from the start. No one is talking about slavery. No one mentioned it. You’re mischaracterizing what I said so that you can dismiss it because it invalidates the argument you’ve attempted to make.
And now you’ve confirmed that you’re being dishonest because I’ve said far more than “that’s just the way it is”. I’ve provided the logic behind the argument and the evidence for why it is stealing and even prefaced the argument with the clarification that I am not against piracy and that I believe that there are situations in which case it may be justified and even beneficial. You ignoring that is why I know you’re being dishonest and why this third point is justified.
I’m not saying that because I don’t like your reasoning. I’m saying it because what you’ve said has no bearing on the point I’m making nor is it in any way an argument against what I’m saying. You’re arguing something else entirely which means it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making and therefore unnecessary to address or even validate.
No one is talking about slavery. No one mentioned it.
Maybe you’re just confusing terminology, but traditionally ‘supply’ is referring to ‘supply of a commodity’, as in ‘supply and demand’ economics. I took -‘The supply is the creator, not the product that the creator made’- to mean the creator is the commodity you’re paying for and not the product, but maybe i’ve misunderstood your point.
That means that you’re either being intentionally obtuse about the fact that intangibles aren’t affected by supply and therefore can’t be bound to it or you’re being dishonest about the argument from the start.
Actually I think I was being generous, you seemed to be talking about economic properties of price and value since you were implying that a digital product’s ‘price’ was determined by your willingness to pay for it (i.e. demand). That’s how our market works now, and I was pointing out that the nature of digital media is that the supply is theoretically unlimited so market price would be zero without an artificial restriction in supply (i.e. withholding access in order to justify a price). Maybe you really don’t know what you’re talking about here, but honestly it’s hard to tell anymore. Regardless, I’m pretty sure you’re arguing that creators should own and control access to their work so that they can extract their price from it? If that’s the case, then I’m saying that ownership and artificial restriction to the access to that work is literally what makes that possible. You’ve alluded to as much when you say that piracy is stealing; by circumventing that restricted access you’re denying the price the creator is demanding? It is directly relevant to the point you’re trying to make.
I’m saying it because what you’ve said has no bearing on the point I’m making nor is it in any way an argument against what I’m saying. You’re arguing something else entirely which means it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making and therefore unnecessary to address or even validate.
Maybe you should put your argument in precise terms, so it’s impossible for me to misunderstand then?
Yes, you have. Creators/artists/producers exchange their time and talent for something - whether that’s money or something else that they gain as a result. Their time and talent are the scarce “supply” that would normally be “supplied” in your argument. It’s not slavery to exchange your time/effort/labor/creations in exchange for money or another commodity. That’s literally how jobs work.
I think you’re just overextending my point to give yourself something to argue against. All I am saying is that creators deserve to be paid for their work (if that’s what they’re asking in exchange for that work) and that, if people are pirating that work, then it means they find some value in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have put my argument in precise terms but you’re just ignoring it and arguing something else entirely.
I think you’re just overextending my point to give yourself something to argue against. All I am saying is that creators deserve to be paid for their work (if that’s what they’re asking in exchange for that work) and that, if people are pirating that work, then it means they find some value in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And I’m saying they should be paid for their work, not for exclusive access to it.
Who should they be paid by, then, if not the people who want access to that work?
Remove all your preconceptions about distributors and production studios and whatever other justifications you’ve used to condone piracy. At what point is it ok to not pay for an artists work? Is it ok if they’re just a single person and you’re taking it from them without paying? Is it ok if they work for a studio and you take it without paying the studio? Or is it ok if Amazon or someone else paid to have it made and is distributing and marketing it? What’s the cut-off where it’s ok and where people do deserve to get paid vs. where they don’t deserve to get paid?
I’m not taking anything from them, they spend their time on the work and then relinquish the product of that work at the time and price of their choosing. By the time that work gets to me, the artist will have extracted a price for the work and whoever received it from them would have paid it. An creator doesn’t possess the less by their work being copied.
Remove all your preconceptions about distributors and production studios and whatever other justifications you’ve used to condone piracy. At what point is it ok to not pay for an artists work? Is it ok if they’re just a single person and you’re taking it from them without paying? Is it ok if they work for a studio and you take it without paying the studio? Or is it ok if Amazon or someone else paid to have it made and is distributing and marketing it? What’s the cut-off where it’s ok and where people do deserve to get paid vs. where they don’t deserve to get paid?
Copying is not taking. Copying is not taking. Copying is not taking.
Artists starve and loose their houses now, in this system, even absent any piracy. Who is to blame for that injustice? Is art only valuable if it can be profited from? Let’s not pretend that the market has ever meant to favor artists. What harm has been done to the Da Vinci by my viewing the Mona Lisa from online, if I sneak into a ballet at intermission that I couldn’t afford otherwise? What harm has been done to a baker if I take a loaf of bread from their trash?
We encourage waste and exclusion because our system depends on it, not because it’s ethical or justified.
Who should they be paid by, then, if not the people who want access to that work?
We all should pay for it. We produce gratuitous surplus, we can provide the means of living to everyone without concern for exchanging it for labor. Art has always been a product of surplus time, even before agriculture. That work has always had value, and it has always been done freely. We should be celebrating the marvel of technology that allows infinite access to all our creative work, not crippling it with legal battles and accusations of theft.
they spend their time on the work and then relinquish the product of that work at the time and price of their choosing
…to the people who have paid for that work.
An creator doesn’t possess the less by their work being copied.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, you’d have to pay for it. Without paying for it, you would’t be able to consume it.
Copying is not taking.
The media itself is not what’s being stolen. It’s the income being stolen by ingesting/consuming the media. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t consume it unless you steal it.
Is art only valuable if it can be profited from?
I have never made that argument nor that point.
What harm has been done to a baker if I take a loaf of bread from their trash?
You didn’t pay for a loaf of bread. This is disingenuous anyways because bakers bake their goods in order to get paid for them.
system depends on it, not because it’s ethical or justified.
An entirely different argument than what I’m making. A different system that what we live in doesn’t exist currently so that entire argument is meaningless and piracy doesn’t somehow magically bring about that other system.
We produce gratuitous surplus, we can provide the means of living to everyone without concern for exchanging it for labor.
Again with the fantasy. I agree with your fantasy. I would love that. We don’t live in a world where people don’t need money to survive. Full stop.
In which case piracy only accounts for lost revenue if and only if the pirate would have 100%, guaranteed, purchased the content if a pirates copy was not available. So your calculation does not work.
It isn’t fantasy, we have social programs now, UBI exists now, 4 hour and reduced working hours are happening now.
You are the one insisting that compensation must come from exclusive ownership and consumption, and I’ve made a very realistic case for an alternative. Dismissing it as fantasy does nothing to prove otherwise.
Ok… now we know you are being disingenuous and not arguing in good faith. You (unless you are not reading these) just admitted to being overly verbose, pompous and that it makes you look bad. Also that you are making ad-hominem arguments while trying to claim other arguments/points are wrong because they are ad-hominem.
I must bow in this display of wordsmithing, as you have done all this in just 2 words.
you are making ad-hominem arguments while trying to claim other arguments/points are wrong because they are ad-hominem.
I also did not do that. I was not saying that anyone’s point was wrong when I insulted them. I insulted them because they were not actually addressing the argument. The insults were intended in what I wrote to them precisely because they weren’t making an argument against what I was saying. They were being dismissive and I was returning that dismissiveness in kind.
You being pompous and overly verbose makes you look bad.
Oh another good ad-hominem, also I think maybe projection in this case.
I did not think I would have to explain what projection is in this context.
I insulted them because they were not actually addressing the argument. The insults were intended in what I wrote to them precisely because they weren’t making an argument against what I was saying. They were being dismissive and I was returning that dismissiveness in kind.
Oh and my point about your insulting people while trying to shut down arguments was that you are being a hypocrite and that further hurts your argument/point. You claiming someone is being “dismissive” by not agreeing with you is not really the defence you likely think it is.
By that logic, creating a competitor and wooing over customers would also be theft.
Note they are not saying piracy is legal, or that it’s not a tort. They are saying it’s not theft, and it should be discussed separately, as we criminalize theft because someone loses their property, not because the thief gets free shit.
Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.
The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.
I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.
Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the productandnot paying for that use.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?
You should pick your examples more carefully.
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?
That’s wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I’m making. It’s a total straw man.
You should pick your examples more carefully.
I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷♂️
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
Fair point.
I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.
It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.
It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.
You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.
We were talking about CAD software, I pointed out how the most prominent player in the CAD market (AutoDesk) have screwed over their customers. People bought permanent lifetime licenses, now those licenses have been degraded and they cannot use their product in the industry. It’s not simply the case that AutoCAD is now an annual subscription priced at a higher cost, but the older product as provided by the manufacturer isn’t the same as what was paid for.
If you pirate earlier versions of AutoCAD, you sidestep these issues (for the most part, new versions still pop up with a warning if the .dwg has been edited in an older version).
It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.
We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen.
No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.
It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.
It is a straw man because I never made that argument. I never stated or made any kind of position about pirated versions and how they compare to official versions. In fact, I’ve argued elsewhere in this thread that piracy can be justified in any number of situations. Whether it’s justified or not doesn’t change that it’s stealing.
No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.
I am not. In fact, people have posted the definitions here. Again, we’re just disagreeing on what is being stolen.
Either way, I’m done here because you’re continuing to argue straw men, ignore the most central idea of my argument, and then claiming that I’m misunderstanding something when the entire point of my argument is how the two things are fundamentally the same and result in the creator not being paid for their work.
It is a straw man because I never made that argument.
I didn’t say you made any sort of argument. I just introduced a tangential point to put things in perspective.
My argument wasn’t contradicting yours. It just provided better framing to the argument overall. You’re far too narrow in your perspective here.
Again, we’re just disagreeing on what is being stolen.
Yes, sure, because you’re claiming that things were stolen when you never had them to begin with, and wouldn’t have had them if the action hadn’t occurred. Thus, no theft has occurred.
It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.
We are disagreeing on the definition of “stolen”. Your argument is insane because it implies you can steal potential in a real way. This is incredibly problematic as you are now saying anytime some entity does not make all the money/trade/exposure someone has stole that from them.
The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn’t their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.
In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:
Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.
Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.
Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.
Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.
There’s a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren’t depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.
It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you’re paying money for the product of their labor.
Everything else you’ve said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.
You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else’s work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it’s a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.
You don’t steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don’t prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can’t prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.
It’s all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it’s as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can “kill” an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That’s why words have meanings, and different things have different names.
I kind of respect you for arguing your point in this entire commet section, while so many people are piling on you. I still think your argument/opinion is wrong though.
Piracy is defined as a civil offense, meanwhile theft is defined as a crime. Theft is also defined as depriving someone of something - eg, if I take your bike, you no longer have a bike, but if I copy your bike and build my own then you still have your bike and haven’t lost anything.
“Potential lost income” is abstract, it doesn’t necessarily exist and the victim of copyright infringement isn’t really losing anything - they don’t even provide the bandwidth you download it with. Ultimately 1 pirated download =/= 1 lost sale, as people download more crap than they would be willing to buy.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m using the specific definitions, because we’re talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they’ve lost the money they used to buy it. They’ve also definitely lost a sale, because they can’t sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven’t lost a tangible object, they haven’t even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I’d agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today’s reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people’s private property (media in this case).
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m not. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It’s not theft of their product, it’s theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If I pirate something, no one loses anything.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way.
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they’re entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I’m making the argument that that’s theft and that you’re not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn’t pay for it. Obviously, this doesn’t apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft.
You’ve explained this many times. Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.
Theft requires depriving the owner of something tangible. Not just a potential profit, but an actual loss.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.
The creator doesn’t lose something from copyright infringement. There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss. More often than not, that potential loss would have been zero compared to if copyright infringement hadn’t occurred - the pirate would not have bought the product either way.
Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.
Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.
It is not. The author is deprived of something tangible. They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.
We’re not talking about copyright infringement. That is a legal term that only applies to the legality of the action. I am not discussing the legality.
There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss.
This is not true and, since you continue to try and argue the legal matter, it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss, even though that’s not at all what my argument is about.
Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether someone who creates something should be paid by the people who consume the thing they created.
They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.
That cost occurs regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs. There is no further loss. Thus, you cannot assign a loss to copyright infringement.
We’re not talking about copyright infringement.
We are talking about copyright infringement. That’s what “piracy” is.
I hope you see now that the definition of words really does matter.
it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss
You’ve said that, but you’re wrong. This is a clear misassociation.
Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant.
It very much is relevant. If an action causes a loss, then the effect has a cause. If the loss occurs regardless of the action, then you cannot assign cause and effect.
We’re digging down further into the princples of things. I feel like, before long, we’ll be talking about how magnets work.
We’re not. I’m not making any kind of legal distinction.
I think we just need to agree to disagree. You’re ignoring the very central part of my argument to try and argue the legal distinctions that are irrelevant to my point. If it’s just going to continue to be a semantic argument then I’m not interested in continuing.
I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft
We covered this already, by that logic not consuming also deprives them and is, therefore, theft.
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If not legal what is the distinction? The practical effects are not the same as stealing, as has been covered before. I can no more steal something simply by viewing it with my eyes then you can argue a definition that is not legal, semantic or moral.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
The creator does not in fact lose something, this is the core of the counter arguments against your position. There is no point in “drawing a line” if non of this is in fact stealing. If you can see a sports event though your window even when you have not paid for a ticket that is not “stealing”.
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either.
This is not at all how a market works. It is in fact the direct opposite in reality. The creation of “black” markets is directly related to the consumers ability/desire to pay the normal market price. If there is a cheaper/free/easier alternative then it would be stranger for this not to happen. Netflix beat (past tense) piracy not by anything other then convenience.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
I will agree you have not argued the justification, but that does not make piracy theft.
I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
This is anecdotal, but… I feel like it has gotten really slow. It’s like it doesn’t index anymore. It’s so slow as to be unusable, even if I’m just searching within one DM history.
It works until you wanna search for something that’s somewhat similar to a common word. The other day I wanted to look for a discussion I’ve had about OpenAL, went to search for it and it showed everything with the word “open” in it. There’s no further control so you’re just at the mercy of what the search thinks you want, and this happens way too often.
All the others have good examples, but I mean something different.
If you search in a forum, you most likely get a thread dedicated to only your problem or something very similar with lots of matching answers (best case)
In Discord you find a question by someone with your exact problem and then 40 messages about other problems, cause there is only a single “problems” channel. This is a god awful experience.
Ok, so say something is up with my car and i want to look into fixing it. I’m not in any car discord servers, so how do i find what is up with my car with? I can search all the dates and users i want, but i wont find anything useful. 10 years ago i could have just googled my make and model with with problem and the first link would have been a Saturn owners forum i never heard of with a thread detailing the problem thoroughly as well as estimates of how much i can expect to pay to fix it. Discord is just a modern IRC; it’s great for talking with your buddies in real time and having that all be logged, but it’s a terrible way to find information.
Okay yeah you’re right here. Discord search is great for searching a server that you expect to have an answer. There is no solution if you aren’t already part of a community.
Lol yeah, now when you search google for stuff like that the experience is:
You find a website with a link to an owner’s enthusiast discord for your car’s model.
But then once you join you have access to one channel called #rules
Then you figure out you have to react to that one message in that channel with a tire burning out emoji and you get access to another channel called #introductions where you have to describe yourself and your car.
Then if a mod thinks it’s genuine, they’ll let you in to the other channels.
You finally get in and search for your issue. Your issue is really specific, but you don’t know the technical terms to search for, so your keyword of “brake squeaking” pulls up all a massive unorganized list of results purely sorted by post date of anything including those keywords, no way to sort by relevancy or popularity, so you scroll, and you scroll.
You find one message that is close, but you need more info. But before you can post in the #help channel you have to make 3 posts in #general (to fight spam of course).
Finally, after succeeding in the requirements, you copy a link to the message you found in search and post in #help.
A mod tells you to use the search, that question has been answered. You explain that you already did but you’re not sure exactly what to search for. You are now banned
Discord’s walled garden and conversational approach is awful for gestalt knowledge storage and access.
I hate Discord for the reason you mentioned but I remember having to jump through hoops on forums too. Shit sucked, but at least it was searchable and readable without having to do anything
Yeah forums were never great for organizing knowledge, but discord, being a chat platform, is the worst parts of forums without the good parts when it comes to trying to find answers. Honestly the best thing was Reddit, but Reddit now self destructing means that I can only hope lemmy instances allow themselves to be indexed so they begin to fill search results of real, organized questions and answers, with the benefit of comments being upvoted and downvoted and sortable, so the valuable information is more readily available
Why…? It’s obviously a tool to spy on their citizens even more effectively and very possibly to spy on western citizens as well.
I’m all for alternatives to Android and iOS, but I’d rather be spied on by private companies than a country that pretty much plans to take over Asia and then the rest of the world in the coming decades (well, in my wet dreams SailfishOS matures as a real alternative and I don’t have to choose Android at all).
I mean, 75,000 less people voted overall than in the 2016 caucus. Granted most of those probably died of covid or just didn’t want to go in the cold, but still…
I read on here a few days ago about Haley being representative of the LEAST extreme. That many of her voters would just end up voting Biden, even though they don’t agree with most of the politics.
I could almost give them benefit of the doubt. Anyone ignorant enough to call Biden socialist though is immediately not worth talking to
Haley? As in Nikki “slavery wasn’t a cause of the Civil War” Haley? Nikki “six week abortion ban” Haley? Nikki “withdraw the US from the Human Rights Council because of its ‘chronic bias against Israel’” Haley?
How about just taking a photo with a film camera, or an agreed upon SLR camera where the digital negative is never shared online and paper film hard copies are made instead.
Edit: still don’t understand linking here but all of them probably
First of all, use a ! instead of c/. Second, in order for it to actually turn into a hyperlink you have to fully-qualify it with the instance name (domain name). Something like !analog, for instance.
Which reminds me that Kevin Sorbo tried pushing for the Jan 6 insurrection and after it failed, he deleted the posts and said it was an Antifa plot to frame Donald Trump.
He’s solely responsible for running Andromeda into the ground with his massive ego. It was never a terrific show in season one, but it had potential. By season four he had full control and it was utter shit.
Last thing I heard from him was he (or his mother?) were complaining about the lack of vegan organic food in prison or something? Do I remember this correctly?
He should be but the 14th Amendment keeps him out only if he previously took an oath to the Constitution. You can go all out full shooting war against the federal government but as long as you weren’t already elected or appointed or whatever, you’re still eligible.
Reminder that just because somebody runs as something doesn’t mean that they are that thing. I can guarantee you that dipshit has no idea what the non-aggression principle is.
Furthermore, libertarianism is not a left right spectrum ideology. There are left libertarians. There are centrist libertarians, and there are right libertarians.
For reference, authoritarianism also bounds the spectrums of left to right.
Left to right is economic theory authoritarian to libertarian is social theory. They are two separate axises.
In my opinion, the shaman dude is definitely somewhere on the right side of the chart in the authoritarian section.
No, it’s a Libertarian “rule”. The person is putting forth that just because the guy is running as a Libertarian doesn’t mean he is a Libertarian, as his actions go against the “Non Aggression Principle”.
Furthermore, libertarianism is not a left right spectrum ideology
In theory, maybe. In practice, though, if an American claims to be a libertarian, in my experience they’re more than likely either a republican that knows they can’t get laid while calling themselves a republican, or a republican that likes weed(or both)
But your personal frame of reference is not the definition. Clearly, this shaman person is a Republican pretending to be a libertarian. So call them out on the bullshit instead of allowing them to hide under a banner of a party that is not theirs with ideals that they do not represent.
I never said it was the definition, but the definition is besides the point as far as I am concerned; I’m not a libertarian, so I frankly don’t care what libertarians “actually” believe, I don’t care if the word is being “co-opted” or whatever.
What matters to me is that the vast, VAST majority of people I meet and know of that claim to be libertarian are awful people; so yes, my initial assumption when someone claims to be a libertarian, until proven otherwise, is they’re not a good person.
While I understand your position, I would have to completely disagree with it on principle. If you sub in any word besides libertarian, you’ll see what I mean. In my opinion, you should care for accurate definitions in order for us to all maintain a common understanding and a productive straightforward discourse.
“What matters to me is that the vast, VAST majority of people I meet and know of that claim to be French are awful people; so yes, my initial assumption when someone claims to be a French, until proven otherwise, is they’re not a good person.”
/S
Then to continue the example let’s pretend every French person you have ever met is actually from Paris and not any other part of the country.
Big problem with your example, you don’t choose to be French, you either are or you are not. You can be french and be an asshole, but the only choice there is in being an asshole. Being a libertarian on the otherhand, is a political position and is inherently something you have to choose to be.
Consider this: Prior to the Nazis using it, in western usage the Swastika was widely considered a symbol of good luck. The West boiling centuries of Eastern religious and cultural history of the symbol down into superstitious BS aside, by all accounts, at the time that would be an “accurate definition” of what the Swastika meant in the west. But obviously nobody today is going to believe you* when you say your Swastika tattoo is a good luck charm and you’re “totally” not a Nazi. Hell, you’d be in potential legal trouble in Germany for it. Point is, all words(& symbols) are made up, and meanings can and will change.
(figurative you, I’m not claiming you actually have a Swastika tattoo)
If all previous experiences are negative and the actual definition seems outlandish, that’s a valid opinion. It’s not your fault if you never learned of non-negative examples.
The only question is how to apply this bias. The harm in assuming libertarians as Republican doesn’t seem critical to me. I haven’t made any other experiences so maybe I’m just as biased.
But maybe you’re simply the only one living your non-right interpretation/definition of libertarianism. I’d have to hear your point of views to actually believe it.
*I’ve read some things about ‘true’ libertarianism in the past but couldn’t find any community living it. It’s like all those guys on hexbear preaching to be the most loving people while spewing hate and fascist opinions wherever they can.
Most of the Republicans seem to be so far right that those few moderate-right Republicans would have to distance themselves clearly to actually represent their position. If you distance yourself from all those “LINOS” (do I have to give Trump credit for this?) that others and me see everywhere, then you might be rather alone, I’d wager.
There is no such thing as true. Libertarianism. Just many diverging branches of opinion. With common concepts. I hate to have to use a religion example but kind of like how there is no one true Christianity. Just a bunch of Christian sects. It’s kind of like how every shade of gray from black to white is not a color. Just shades and variations. If you would have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them from my perspective as a minarchist.
Thank you for the offer. I don’t have questions for you. Just wanted to point out that I think it’s understandable that people, including me, tend to be hesitant to believe that a Libertarian or Centrist doesn’t turn out to be far right on the political spectrum.
But for me, the political US as a whole seems to be skewed right. Both parties are right-wing to my European eyes so even a ‘true’ centrist, in between those two, ends up far right.
If all previous experiences are negative and the actual definition seems outlandish, that’s a valid opinion. It’s not your fault if you never learned of non-negative examples.
Starting this with a /s just be clear this is a parody of your position:
“All my previous experiences with trans people have been negative, and the idea of a person with a penis being a woman seems outlandish.”
I’d say it’s a valid opinion, though based on ignorance. When you grow up indoctrinated by your environment you’d have a hard time losing your bias on your own.
If you’d only have met mean people of a certain ‘group’ in your life it’s understandable to form a negative opinion based on that. Even if you know that this might just be bad luck on your part it’s still your experience.
It comes down to one’s willingness to remain open minded and actually learn differently. One shouldn’t condemn others based on that but it’s understandable to be biased and ‘careful’.
I have a bias regarding many classic right wing opinions and a hard time to not assume that a person with a strong opinion on a certain topic also ticks off all other related opinions. While I think my bias to think of any Republican or Libertarian being right-wing is valid, based on my experience, it’s still a bias and won’t hold true to every individual I ‘classify’ this way.
You have to wonder how much of this is Sorbo’s conservative brainrot and how much is being a paid conservative influencer, because this is disinformation agent type shit.
“employees are not eligible for paid COVID leave to care for a family member who has tested positive or a child who is home due to school closure.” What a dark sentence
I was one of the incredibly lucky ones where I got COVID 2 years ago, got the paid time off, and my only symptoms were being tired and irritable so it was more like a vacation!
I’m always tired and irritable so I’m constantly taking COVID tests now lol
In an even darker reality when corporations are able to pressure the CDC to change their guidelines to reduce business expenses at the cost of human suffering.
It is a property management company. They manage parasites’ landlords’ property for a fee so the landlord can literally sit and relax, do absolutely nothing and leech off of the income of working people.
I don’t get why people think this is an ad for “normal people.”
The great performative irony of the death penalty is that the swiftest, most merciful death is that by firing squad, but it looks violent and brutal and so increasingly cruel and elaborate alternatives are sought.
Firing squad deaths are prone to human error and could be painful in the final moments leading up to death. Imagine someone accidentally (or on purpose) shoots the subject in the leg or arm instead of the chest. And the subject is awake right up until death.
In contrast, nitrogen asphyxiation is way more humane. It is not reliant on human skill in the way that firing squads are, and the subject loses consciousness before dying.
Murdering someone should not be expedited and made “humane”, cause then it just becomes a clinical procedure, and removes all the nasty bits that go with taking a like.
Making it easier for the state to continue doing it. If it was messy and gruesome they would think twice
I think an execution should be messy and brutal. Make the state, the people watching and the executioner really feel it. That way it has more meaning and maybe they’ll stop doing it.
Making the death penalty clean, neat and “humane” just encourages the state to do it more. If it wasn’t nice and neat, they’d hold back
Didn’t Dr Kevorkian come up with a couple humane methods for assisted suicide? I don’t think we should have the death penalty, but couldn’t one of those be used?
lemy.lol
Hot