IMHO there are two separate questions. Whether or not something is theft, and whether or not the theft (if that’s what it is) is justified. I’m of the opinion that pirating is theft. The question is whether it’s justified or not, and that IMHO depends on the circumstances. IMHO if something is still available in the manner it is typically used these days, then pirating it is not justified (the latest movies that are streaming on Netflix, video games on the PlayStation or Nintendo store, songs on the Apple Store, etc.). On the other hand, if we’re talking about a video game that was only available on cartridge in the NES days, or a movie or TV show not available on streaming or DVD (like those episodes of Beavis and Butthead that have been removed / never made it to Paramount Plus 
), or a song that’s not on any of the streaming services, then even though pirating them is still theft, IMHO it’s justified.
I don’t. I’m pretty sure I haven’t pirated a video game since Clinton was in office. I haven’t pirated a song since 2000 as I’m not opposed to paying for a song I want. Mostly I downloaded songs because it was novel at the time. I just don’t particularly care if people pirate AAA games. I don’t feel the least bit of sympathy for big game companies. It’s like if someone rips off the mob. I guess stealing is wrong, but on the other hand it’s the mob.
They are deprived of the opportunity to earn profit from their service. They do not own the profit, they own the opportunity. Theft of opportunity is not a crime.
How? How would the fact that I downloaded a file show up in their P&L? If I send you every last line of their accounts and offer you a million dollars if you can tell me how many copies of their books I downloaded how would you do it?
It’s not what shows up, it’s what doesn’t show up. If someone were to have paid for a service they are instead pirating, then that doesn’t show up in the books even though it should have.
Yes it would. If I get a hair cut and run away before paying it will absolutely show up in the P&L for the barber who’s spent an hour working and not got paid.
Is your argument then a matter of one being easier to detect than the other? The barber who has someone leave without paying obviously knows that, and can mark it down in the books as a loss due to theft. An in between case would be a brick and mortar store that loses inventory to shoplifting, which they might catch if they use some kind of inventory control system or might miss if they don’t. If I download the latest Taylor Swift song from a pirating site, she isn’t going to know about it, and thus can’t mark it down in her books as a loss when she files her taxes, but that’s just a matter of how easy it is to detect the theft, and IMHO has nothing to do with whether or not it’s theft in the first place.
But why stop at interstates? Why not every road, street, highway, or sidewalk?
Answer: because we are already being tolled for them in the form of taxes. As we are for interstates.
My argument is not that it’s hard to detect, it’s that’s non existent. You can’t detect the the thing that is deprived because nothing is being deprived.
Me choosing to download a digital file or not has as much effect on the profit lines of book publisher as whether I wear grey socks or black.
Again I am offering you a million dollars to detect from the company books of Mum’s Friendly book publisher inc. (and Little Jimmy’s movie company LLC) whether all the examples I’ve given are just rhetorical or if I’ve actually just downloaded those films and books. You have unlimited forensic accountants and as long as you want. It’s doesn’t matter you will never ever be able to find a single cent difference there is none.
The thing that doesn’t show up is money. Money that belongs to the pirate, and never belonged to the IP owner.
Are you wearing blue socks! OMG that’s THEFT! You are stealing from Taylor Swift by wearing blue socks, everyone knows Taylor Swift is the only person that’s allowed to wear blue socks. By wearing blue socks you might as well be breaking into her house and stealing her jewelry. SHAME ON YOU!
Thats basically what has happened over the last few decades by political lobbying and publicity the media industry has managed to get something classified as theft that is clearly not. Again not that piracy is moral and we should not as a society attempt to control it, but it’s absolutely not theft.
How so? If, say, the Atlus video game company had “unlimited forensic accountants”, they would be able to find out that 100,000 people pirated the Maniax Pack for Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne (price of $9.99), and thus that they missed out on a million dollars of revenue.*. If they had that million dollars, they could have used it in part to port Shin Megami Tensei Strange Journey to the Nintendo Switch (or maybe porting Etrian Odyssey IV, V, and VI). That’s just one specific example of how both the company and paying customers could be deprived of something they both want.
*. Example chosen as it’s an area I’m familiar with, specific numbers of pirated copies are for illustrative purposes only.
Ok good example. I just downloaded 100,000 copies Maniax Pack for Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne, right now, just after I read your post. How will that appear In Atlus video game company’s books? I just emailed you their books as excel files. If what you say is true you will be see a one million dollar gap in their books if I actually just downloaded all those copies compared to if I’m just using that as a rhetorical device and didn’t download anything. Which line of the spreadsheet will that 1 million bucks be missing from?
The libertarian would say all roads and streets should be privately owned and maintained. No thanks. However, I liken free interstate highways to free airline tickets. Not only that, but at a scheduling frequency to cover the Thanksgiving holiday peak travel 24/7/365. That creates all sorts of strange incentives and externalities.
A toll is not a tax, it’s a user fee. If you don’t use the toll road you’re not paying for it. However if you don’t use free interstate highways you’re still paying for them not only through gas taxes that aren’t going to your city streets, but through your other taxes that are used to prop up the Highway Trust Fund. It’s just like how the person who walks to the grocery store is still paying for the store’s parking lot because it’s built into the cost of the food rather than charged separately. That incentivizes certain behaviors that I argue shouldn’t be incentivized, and it very often results in the poor subsidizing the less-poor.
“But we need roads to get food to market and for mail delivery and trash pickup and ambulances. Think of the children!” Kind of, but we used to do a lot more of that stuff with rail, and then killed it by providing free roads to give trucking companies an unfair advantage. We also don’t need 10-lane arterial roads and multi-billion dollar interstate highways to deliver the mail. Nearly all road and highway widening projects are to accommodate (entitled) commuters in single-occupancy vehicles.
If we gave everyone free water, free heat, free food, and free electricity, it would cause all sorts of problems. Free roads cause all sorts of problems too. Pricing is the best tool we have to allocate scarce resources, but if we don’t price things, or if we hide the price in myriad byzantine taxes, then they appear to be free and are massively overused. It also means we have no funds left for other means transportation, so it’s a vicious cycle.
Local streets/sidewalks/bike paths don’t have the same sort of incentive structure or market-distorting characteristics. Especially if a street is multi-modal, then it should be funded through general taxes since it’s doing so much for so many people in so many different modes. A limited-access highway providing long-distance travel is a completely different story, and it should be treated no different than long-distance air or train or sea travel.
That’s not how it works, though that’s how they want you to think it works. 100,000 instances of piracy is NOT 100,000 lost sales. If they were willing to pay $9.99 for it, they would have. That price is too high for those 100,000 people, so they’re not actual customers, only potential customers. Maybe 50,000 would pay $4.99 but no more. Maybe 25,000 won’t buy it for any price, but they’ll take it for free. Maybe there’s 25,000 people who would pay $9.99 if there was absolutely no other option, but it’s definitely not a 1:1 ratio.
I think a key issue is whether than roads are being paid for completely by tolls. Or is the road being paid for by a mix of tolls and taxes?
If it’s the latter (which I suspect it is in most cases) then I can see people legitimately complaining that they are being asked to pay taxes in order to subsidize a road that they can’t afford to use.
If a public service is being paid for out of general taxes, the service it provides should be available to everyone. If people are being excluded by user fees, then those user fees should be the sole revenue for the project and only the people who choose to use the service will pay for it.
These comments are real telling:
That’s the argument railroads used to maintain their monopolies. A hundred years ago. Trucks fund highways through diesel fuel taxes.
Are there unentitled commuters, and how can I tell the difference?
Aside from the question of funding, please list these problems.
Question: have you ever driven an interstate highway? A US highway?
I don’t use most of the streets in my city, why should I pay for them? Just a waste of money, and when I do want to use some, they are always under construction.
Some of those countries also charge a 20% VAT tax on goods. I’d rather pay a toll.
Does that make the statement incorrect? Railroads still pay property taxes on their right-of-way and track, whereas there’s no such tax on roads, quite the opposite. Yes, trucks pay fuel taxes, but as I said before, highway spending is significantly higher than gas tax revenue (pdf) so it must be made up by general funds.
The ones who complain about taxes being too high and the roads being congested, and who think they have some god-given right to live 50 miles away from work are entitled.
You really don’t see how free water, heat, electricity, and food would be problems? These are all limited resources that cost money to provide, and if they’re free people will waste them. In Chicago single-family homes historically had no water meters, they were just billed based on number of bedrooms/bathrooms. They’ve since changed this for new hookups, but unmetered service means people water their lawns indiscriminately, wash cars more often, don’t fix leaks, take longer showers/baths, fill up more pools. Free heat/electricity? Just crank the a/c down to 65 and the heat up to 80 and open a window if it’s uncomfortable. Run the heat and a/c together just for the fun of it. A lot of midcentury buildings in Chicago again just have electric resistance baseboard heat. That’s incredibly inefficient, but if there’s no price penalty then who cares? Free food? Lobster and filet mignon for everyone!
You’re conveniently ignoring that I made a distinction between local streets and interstate highways. Free local streets/sidewalks/bike paths, free local buses, free streetcars/trams, great, I can even see an argument for free subway/metro up to a point. But long distance highways, buses, trains, and airplanes, those should have a fee even if they’re subsidized. Otherwise they just get overused. The world needs LESS driving, flying, and wasteful lifestyles, and yet we’re just blithely walking into climate disaster and acting surprised about it.
Yes. As far as toll roads are concerned. Even private toll roads which inevitably end being purchased by the government after they are no longer profitable should face regulation.
For similar reasons the postal system has to be maintained at public cost so the price of sending a letter isn’t $10.