Why would you pirate it if you didn’t want it?
And you are correct- they dont usually go after someone who has pirated ONE thing.
Which is pretty funny since apparently NONE of it was worth buying but they still just HAD to have it all anyway (for free, of course). Because… waves hand… reasons. And also it’s not as bad as torching a bus full of nuns.
And inexplicably, before piracy was a thing, he actually purchased albums and the like. It’s confounding.
You can want something but not at the price it’s being offered at. Same reason some people wait for a thing to be discounted to buy it. That still doesn’t mean piracy is ok. This isn’t as hard as you’re making it out to be.
Right. And back when I was commuting, and toll lanes were not running for most of the day, I noticed that when they became free for everyone traffic speed did not increase significantly.
Obviously legal, but would it be considered ethical if we were not used to it? Clearly some people who borrow books at the library would buy them if the library was not available.
How about if you buy a book and then sell or donate it to a used bookstore? The author and publisher get nothing for the resale. Ditto for CD and DVD resales.
I’d guess that most movies are watched once. Is buying a copy and then sending it to five people, which is illegal, any different from buying a copy and selling it to a store which resells it to five people serially?
A large percentage of my wife’s books go to libraries - there is a website that tracks how many libraries a book is in, and she knows her sales. She’s fine with it because she wants people to read them. Could she make more money if everyone had to buy them? Maybe, maybe not. They might get priced cheaper.
I’m glad someone brought up libraries, though.
<reads the topic and tries to stuff all the 5.3 gigs emulators and roms in the digital closet > umm nope nothing to see here …
Because it doesn’t matter, and the EA shareholder impact was more amusing to consider. The outraged want to equate piracy with theft, but they will never be equal, because they are fundamentally different acts.
Is an act of piracy = one lost sale? Sometimes it is, and other times it isn’t. Those other times are far more common because demand fluctuates with price, and pirated software has a price of $0. Users are far, far, more likely to take a flier on cost free software than they are on expensive software that they can’t return, give away or resell.
One act of piracy = One act of stealing stuff that doesn’t belong to you because of a juvenile sense of entitlement that you deserve other people’s work for free because, boohoo, you didn’t like the DRM or DLC schemes or just didn’t feel like paying for someone else’s effort if you could steal it instead.
Literally there is no “stuff” which is the essence of the argument on the other side. You can carry on with your hyperbolic equating of speeding with vehicular homicide with mass murder, but no one is fooled except the brainwashed useful idiots of extreme capitalism.
Yeah, this is the thing that weirdly only gets trotted out during piracy discussions. As previously stated, if you have a laptop full of downloaded child porn, no one is saying “Well, technically there is no porn because it’s digital, see, and…” If someone steals nuclear submarine secrets, no one says “So, because there’s STILL nuclear submarine files on the Navy system, can we REALLY say it was stolen?”
You didn’t have the media before, you have it now, you have “stuff”.
The only person who made a comparison like that was in defense of piracy (“It’s not $100 worth of baby food”) and any subsequent comparisons were in mockery of that defense.
Ya know, you’d THINK that would be the case but here we are with people trying to redefine every word and concept under the sun to justify why they should be allowed to steal stuff and then, hilariously, accusing people of “outrage” for daring to point it out (and, in this case, pointing it out in a thread explicitly about the concept of piracy and entitlement).
It’s not right, but it’s wrong for different reasons. If I steal bread from you, you are harmed because you no longer have the bread. That doesn’t apply to illegal possession of a copy of something.
It’s a question of entitlement and morality though, not legality. We agree that it’s wrong and, in a circumstance like this, someone knowingly doing wrong is doing so because they’ve convinced themselves that they’re entitled to the benefits regardless. Of course, they’re not entitled – we’re talking entertainment media here, not bread withheld from starving orphans – but they want so they just steal it.
The rest of it is ad hoc rationalization about why it was okay (often phrased as “not as bad as…”) to steal stuff you didn’t need but just decided that you wanted.
You keep assuming we’re trying to justify piracy. Stop jumping to conclusions.
Because piracy is different, that’s why it has its own word.
There you go again.
Make up your mind.
It’s called piracy because it’s a copyright term that was applied to it. What kind of argument is that? “It’s not really stealing because we use a word for people who steal stuff when discussing it”? Did you think that when real historical pirates stole stuff it didn’t count or something so now it’s an apt term for this?
The term itself as a description of copyright theft dates back to 1706 when real life piracy was still a thing and not just a cutesy term that one would equate to harmless shenanigans.
Copyright violation is a different crime than theft. That’s not a defense of piracy, it’s simply a statement that everyone who is desperately trying to make copyright violation seem like a super important thing are grasping at straws by equating it to a crime that is actually important.
Copyright is a right granted to creators in order to incentivize creation. That’s it. That’s the sum total of its importance. Violating copyright is a crime that makes creating marginally less profitable. Big whoop.
That would be… no one? Between this and the “outrage” nonsense earlier, I guess this is the part where people strawman that piracy isn’t worth the same concern as murder so checkmate?
I’m talking about theft. Theft is a crime that is actually important, that we all agree is important, that has been considered important for thousands of years, such as when Hammurabi decreed that the punishment for theft in his realm would be death.
Intellectual Property is a new thing. Nobody patented the wheel, or the bow and arrow, there were industries based on copying pre-existing text. Information, if you could lay your hands on it, was yours to use.
Governments eventually, and correctly, decided that it makes sense to give creators legal protection, so that their ability to profit would encourage innovation. Which is fine, but that doesn’t make violating those protections “theft”. Even Hammurabi distinguished between thieves and people who trespassed on another’s land to harvest wood, or people who let their cattle graze on someone else’s field. Those criminals weren’t put to death for “stealing” wood or grass, they owed a penalty to the people who owned the property that they violated.
Legal protection of IP is vital to modern society. Arguments over its proper statutory classification is one thing. Trivializing it is silliness.