I can see it both ways. On the one hand, both the person spending 30 minutes cutting your hair, and the people spending however long recording a song or writing a book or creating a video game, are doing so under the assumption that those benefitting from their efforts will be paying them. In either case, taking the benefit without giving the payment is “stealing” the service.
But there are differences: the hairdresser made an arrangement beforehand with the person benefitting from their services, so if they don’t pay, that’s breaking an explicit agreement. And the hairdresser spent that 30 minutes on something that benefitted one specific customer, rather than a large number of customers, a few of whom could stiff them and they’d still get compensation from the others.
I think you’re right that people don’t have a right or entitlement to receive something for free, especially if that something is easy to do without, just because they can’t afford to pay for it (and “can’t afford” is relative). But if you look at it, not from the standpoint of rights and entitlements, but from the utilitarian standpoint of benefit vs. harm done, their point of view looks a bit more reasonable.
You want a fee for long distance train travel, lest people use it too much, but propose free local public transportation! Why wouldn’t people overuse that? It seems you just don’t feel people should travel long distances, because I assure you, no one is currently overusing Amtrak.
And freight trains have not been replaced by trucks.
Sometimes the nearest place with anything to rent that they can afford on what they’re being paid is 50 miles away, these days.
Sometimes that’s where Granddad lives and he can and is willing to watch the kids, making it possible for Dad and or Mom to go to work. And/or he’s got room in his house that he’s willing to share, see above.
People are in a whole lot of different situations. Snarling at them when you don’t know their situation is often a bad idea. Especially when it’s about finances.
Railroads are generally subsidized also.
A society that wants people to be able to get around generally has to subsidize transport. And our society is not one that works fine if everybody just stays home.
That’s a point. But a whole lot more needs to be changed than just charging people to use the roads; and changing that thing without changing the others is going to screw over a lot of people. And the ones getting screwed over won’t be the ones who are flying around for the fun of it. They’ll keep right on doing that.
I’m dense, so I’m really not understanding the arguments that because a person/corporation doesn’t know they’ve been stolen from that it’s not theft. Likewise, the idea that someone wouldn’t have given them money for a game/book if they couldn’t pirate it? Well, duh, most thieves wouldn’t voluntarily pay for the items they chose to steal. Is there a definition of theft that is not some version of taking something of value without permission or payment?
You are not dense- it is theft. Let us say you have a stash of cash, but you are not sure how much is there- a few hundred $- and someone takes a couple 20’s secretly- still stealing.
Not that I know of. The argument @griffin1977 amd others seem to be making, if I understand correctly, is that pirating doesn’t take something of value. I don’t agree with that, but it does seem to be what the counter argument is.
How are they deprived of anything? Does their bank magically detect when those bits are downloaded on a machine on the other side of the planet and automatically charged 10 bucks? If I download it a million times are they instantly charged 10 million bucks and bankrupted?
Like can the rights holders detect tell whether I’m just talking about downloading their movie for the sake of argument and not actually downloading it? How do they tell that exactly?
Let say you have a job- and everyone but you gets a annual raise (and your lack has not reason)- what are “deprived of”? The extra money you should have,
I’m not saying I agree with that argument, but reading this,
seems to be what the argument is. In fact I agree with you, it is theft. I’m just not sure exactly how to define the specific details of why it’s theft using the English language. But that’s a shortfall on my part, a lack of sufficient understanding of legalese to define exactly why it’s theft. It doesn’t mean I accept the argument.
I would say that aside from wanks like downloading a million times, you are downloading it because you want it. Therefore, it has value to you. Therefore you should pay something for it.
There has to be some actual measurable thing taken or deprived of for it to be theft. Theft as other posters have pointed out of taking something of value without permission, if nothing is taken it’s not theft.
Again you might as well say “wearing blue socks is theft” you can say that all you want, but unless you can point at a way wearing blue socks takes something of value from you, it’s not.
And how does that make it theft? Saying “you shouldn’t download things without permission” is completely different to saying “downloading something without permission is theft”
That’s what I have a problem with. The media companies bombarded us (and our elected representatives) with this idea that unauthorized copying is theft when it absolutely 100% is not. And now people just repeat the lie
Something has been taken–a digital file. You could print out the binary code if you so chose. That digital file was probably as secure as a physical book until someone hacked it, another crime.
As I think about it, I believe I can pin down what the thing of value that is taken is. It’s not the actual code for the latest Taylor Swift song, or the most recent Final Fantasy game, or the complete Game of Thrones. What’s being taken without compensation is the effort put in to produce those works. Even if it’s just a cent or two for an individual copy, Taylor Swift, Nobuo Uematsu, George R.R. Martin, and so on are deprived of their just compensation for the labor they put in to create those works.
I wish the pro-piracy people would just be honest about and say they want to have something without paying for it. I would respect it a lot more. I wouldn’t agree with it any more than I do now, but I would respect it a lot more.
So copying (physically) a copyrighted work and distributing it is ok? I don’t think you’ll find much agreement? I’m really not understanding why unauthorized copying of something that is expressly protected is ok. If I reverse engineer the formula of WD40 and then sell it as WD40 I’m good?
