Consider the reverse. If you don’t pirate or purchase the album, have you “shorted” the artist $12? This is how the pirating of intellectual property is different than the stealing something physical. They are both dishonest behaviors though.
I think that in most cases there are others involved in the creation and delivery of the album than the artist, and those peoples’ and organizations’ desire for compensation and profit push the price up. There are some less-advertised artists out there who offer media more cheaply or free, I think, if you look hard enough. (Though, $3 for an entire album seems a little cheap. You may be impossible to please. You can buy individual songs for a buck or so I think; if you’re the type who gets an album because you like two or three songs on it, that might work out for you.)
One obvious difference is, if you don’t benefit from the artist( and co)'s work, then you don’t owe them anything. The logical problem occurs when a person equates “Not buying at full price” with “stealing for free”, simply because “buying at full price” is not something they’re inclined to do.
I’m not sure if it is less logical than the notion that one’s benefit from an artist’s work, causes a debt upon the artist.
Is it more or less logical if it’s a live showing that you’re benefiting from? Are the ethics of fence-hopping more or less logical than piracy, and what’s the difference?
I’m not trying to justify piracy, as I think it is wrong, I’m just pointing out how it’s different than the classical definition of stealing. I think it is more accurate to say piracy lowers one’s potential profits.
Your intent is noted; you’ll admit that on its own that post could be (mis-)read as attempting to justify piracy, I think.
If you want to get semantic about it, what’s the “classical” definition of stealing? If it includes the notion of “stealing ideas” or “stealing information”, then copyright infringement can be properly described as theft. If it’s limited to “the removal of something from it’s owner’s possession into your own possession”, then it’s not. Myself, I think that the definition of theft is pretty broad and pretty much always has been, what with “stealing a kiss” being legitimate usage and all.
(And while piracy does tend to have a negative impact on profits, I would hesitate to use that as a defining property of “piracy”. There are lots of other ways to lower somebody’s profits, after all.)
just reading the subject of this thread made me laugh. Of course its stealing you are taking something you did not pay for!
Stop stealing all that air, criminal.
P.S. I love my mom, too.
There is nothing in the definition of “theft” that limits it to physical property. Physical property is not the only kind of property.
As already noted, intellectual property is taken. Intellectual property is not “nothing”.
Arrgh! I just got suckered into posting in a month-old thread, didn’t I? :smack:
Agreed!