What is the logic behind saying Piracy is stealing?

[Drakain]

So I don't really care about your opinion on whether piracy is evil or whatever, I am simply asking what people have in their heads when they say Piracy is Stealing.


When I steal your purse you lose something you bought and spent money on. When I steal your car, same shit. I am gaining something and you are losing something, which you will need to spend money on to get back/another. Thus I am causing you a loss.


If I am to pirate a TV show, they lose nothing. First of all, it's likely the Network that airs it doesn't air it in my country at all ( such as Walking Dead, for instance, I think it's US/Canada only. Anyhow it doesn't air in my country ).

So honestly if I pirate/torrent Walking Dead how could anyone accuse me of stealing when there's no option to get it?

Even if there was, I wasn't going to ever spend money on it anyway. So the company still loses nothing, because my potential money spent on their product goes from 0 to 0.

Then let's talk WoW private servers.

Vanilla, TBC, WOTLK haven't existed in 10 years on official servers. How would playing those constitute stealing? I would never spend money on Blizzard's post Cata products, how am I causing them a loss of money if I play Vanilla on some private server?

I am not.

I feel like a lot of people want to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves " I'm such a good person for spending money on this " when the reality is that while you do support the developers, people torrenting it would've likely never spent on it in the first place. At least they're getting some free publicity when said people make youtube videos or post in the games' forums, increasing traffic.

But had said torrenters never torrented that game, nothing would've changed. It's that " if no one hears a tree fall, does it really make sound? " thing.

I don't see the difference between one dude buying a show and then putting it on torrent for others to use and me inviting over 10 people to watch Game of Thrones on my cable TV. In both cases people watch it for free. What's the deal here?

The difference has to do with what constitutes fair use and how the property is licensed. Someone watching you play wow isn’t a crime. Someone playing your account isn’t a crime, but it is a violation of your licenses. Duplicating wow and creating a privately run server isn’t a violation of your license because you never had permission to do that in the first place. It’s a crime because ip laws.

[Grimreaper]

All this amounts to is another attempt to justify your actions. If the company doesn't want to sell it to you, it's not a justification just to take it. In the end, you are still taking something that does not belong to you.

No, i'm not taking anything. A "friend" who paid for it is lending it to me, thats legal

- - - Updated - - -

So, you are taking something from someone else because it has value to you (you enjoy it).
It has value to the author/producer/developer because it cost them time and money to create.

It has a value to you, it has a value to them. You take the thing without paying the amount the creator has placed on it.

How is that not the definition of stealing?
You can do mental gymnastics to justify it all you want, but if it had no value you wouldn't have tried so hard to STEAL it.

A friend of me bought a movie. I am viewing it together with him. I am stealing the movie because i did not pay for it personally.

Right?

[Machismo]

No, i'm not taking anything. A "friend" who paid for it is lending it to me, thats legal

- - - Updated - - -



A friend of me bought a movie. I am viewing it together with him. I am stealing the movie because i did not pay for it personally.

Right?

The friend doesn't own it. he leased the opportunity to view/use it. That makes you a selfish person.

It's no different than going into a movie theater, and watching the movie without paying for it.

[Scathbais]

The U.S. is a fully functioning oligarchy pretending to be a democracy when its actually supposed to be a republic.

If you think my vote has equal footing with one of the Koch brothers then that's just denial of the simple and obvious reality of the situation. Rupert Murdoch has more say in the U.S. because he can catch eyeballs with all of this media outlets - and he became a naturalized citizen precisely so he could use his vast wealth to peddle political influence. Just FYI, Murdoch is Fox and a bunch more besides.

Endus stated something equally obtuse a few weeks back, and such a statement is no truer now than it was then.

And here's a funny thing, the law isn't supposed to work as you seem to imagine it should. We aren't supposed to have the rule of the elected or even rule of the majority. What we are supposed to have is a set of protected rights regardless of arbitrary law making.

There has never been a good reason to extend any of our existing patent or copyright laws. We did so because media moguls have greater influence than do a majority of regular persons that would probably oppose these extensions if they actually understood what was at stake. I am not claiming that a majority should rule out over minority rights, what I am claiming instead is that the commons belong to everyone but that nobody defends the rights of the silent legion of persons that share the commons. That simple fact gives tremendous influence into the hands of a morally and philosophically bankrupt group that are operating purely on the basis of greed.

I mean, is there really zero irony in that Disney is critically responsible for copyright extensions and yet their own wealth is predicated significantly on material derived from works in the commons? There is no Disney Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, etc without the commons. Those works can't exist without the commons and yet now Disney extends copyrights protecting their own unique interpretation of the those works. I get that Mickey Mouse is in there somewhere, but when was the last time they made a serious Mickey Mouse thing?

Once again, you can't create a special patent or a copyright with out first removing a work from the commons and placing it in a special and protected legal category for some arbitrary period of time.

If you want to talk about stealing, start with that.

Let's talk about reality and not the fantasy world you pretend to live in. Making blatantly false statements such as "your vote doesn't count as much as someone else's because of who they are" is simply nonsense. You are literally alleging that the Koch brothers are somehow engaging in voter fraud without any evidence to support such an accusation. You each get one vote. To state otherwise is to ignore reality.

Next, what protected rights, as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are you being denied by illegal government action? Please list them because you stating it doesn't magically make it true.

You can claim some bs about "the commons" all you want. It is simply nonsense and not based on any of our nation's founding documents or current laws. If such exist, then please list them. Just because you feel that something should be a certain way, that doesn't make it true.

Disney's wealth is predicated on them combining their ideas together with their capital. The risk they took in spending their capital on their ideas led to their success and wealth. That is the basis of capitalism. The idea that anyone can take a skill, idea, land, etc and combine them with capital and have the potential to become wealthy.
The concept of "the commons" just does not exist here in the US. Where exactly did you come up with this idea and how exactly do you think it would ever apply to the citizens of the United States?

[crewskater]

I love how hard people try and rationalize and justify their actions. People will go to great lengths to convince themselves that they are not shitty people.

If your definition of a shitty person entails sharing content, you have a weak definition of what a shitty person actually is. I'd be curious to see what you label an actual shitty person.

[Theodarzna]

At worst it's copying, not stealing.

I get that reasoning. You've not actually taken anything or deprived Blizzard of a physical copy of their game. But you are trying to apply real world theft to the digital world where that sort of theft is functionally impossible.

The act of copying without their permission, their product without paying them for using their product is the act that is considered theft.

[Machismo]

If your definition of a shitty person entails sharing content, you have a weak definition of what a shitty person actually is. I'd be curious to see what you label an actual shitty person.

People who takes things that don't belong to them, against the will of the owner definitely qualify as shitty people in my book.

[crewskater]

People who takes things that don't belong to them, against the will of the owner definitely qualify as shitty people in my book.

If I took someone's purse without their permission then that would be shitty, but to take something that has no affect on them, I fail to see anything shitty there.

For example take the new Ghost busters movie, I wouldn't pay to see that movie but I'd watch a torrent of it, explain how that affects whoever made the movie. They wouldn't get my money either way. You trying to shame people who download stuff is a good way for no one to take you seriously.

[Scathbais]

If I took someone's purse without their permission then that would be shitty, but to take something that has no affect on them, I fail to see anything shitty there.

For example take the new Ghost busters movie, I wouldn't pay to see that movie but I'd watch a torrent of it, explain how that affects whoever made the movie. They wouldn't get my money either way. You trying to shame people who download stuff is a good way for no one to take you seriously.

You definition of the word "good" needs to be revised

[pateuvasiliu]

I get that reasoning. You've not actually taken anything or deprived Blizzard of a physical copy of their game. But you are trying to apply real world theft to the digital world where that sort of theft is functionally impossible.

The act of copying without their permission, their product without paying them for using their product is the act that is considered theft.

It's not, though. Not in the same way. You can steal someone's account, items, online currency. What Torrenting is is not stealing.

[Independent voter]

It's not, though. Not in the same way. You can steal someone's account, items, online currency. What Torrenting is is not stealing.

Just admit it, you don't want to pay for it you want it for free. If you believe in intellectual property, a fee can be charged for a song, movie, TV show, book, etc. If nobody pays how are these people supposed to make a living?

Just don't be intellectually dishonest about it.

[Machismo]

If I took someone's purse without their permission then that would be shitty, but to take something that has no affect on them, I fail to see anything shitty there.

For example take the new Ghost busters movie, I wouldn't pay to see that movie but I'd watch a torrent of it, explain how that affects whoever made the movie. They wouldn't get my money either way. You trying to shame people who download stuff is a good way for no one to take you seriously.

All I'm seeing is a person trying to rationalize the taking of things that don't belong to him.

"I wouldn't pay to see that movie, but I'd sneak into the theater to watch it for free."

[pateuvasiliu]

Just admit it, you don't want to pay for it you want it for free. If you believe in intellectual property, a fee can be charged for a song, movie, TV show, book, etc. If nobody pays how are these people supposed to make a living?

Just don't be intellectually dishonest about it.

I do believe in it but I also think it's unrealistic to want to sell a product in Romania, which has 20% of the US' salaries if not less for the same price.

Also I again need to point out the one who uploads the torrent paid for the product.

[cparle87]

Yes, that happens sometimes. When copyrights weren't being extended ad infinitum they actually had limits and just ended even if the author was still alive.

And works do not fall into public domain, they originate there and return.

Not necessarily. For instance I'm a big Looney Tunes fan. There are a couple of their shorts that, due to bungling on behalf of the business, fell into the public domain and you can easily, and legally, find bootleg copies of them. Copyright law is complicated.

[Elim Garak]

Just admit it, you don't want to pay for it you want it for free. If you believe in intellectual property, a fee can be charged for a song, movie, TV show, book, etc. If nobody pays how are these people supposed to make a living?

I often want to buy something on Amazon, I click "1-click BUY" (Amazon has my credit card information) but then Amazon tells me "Sorry, not available in your country"
Minutes later I enjoy the content I wanted to buy - for free.

Also I do not care how those people make their living. If they cannot make their living because of piracy - they should get the fuck out and find a proper occupation. A talented content creator will ALWAYS make a living with their content. You know who cannot make a living with their content? Morons who think they can earn easy money on the internet by self publishing their content online. Piracy has nothing to do with it. Because most of the time even if piracy concept was alien to humans - no one would've paid them for their content.

[crewskater]

All I'm seeing is a person trying to rationalize the taking of things that don't belong to him.

"I wouldn't pay to see that movie, but I'd sneak into the theater to watch it for free."

You still never clarified how it negatively affects someone. If it doesn't then you making a big deal out of nothing.

[Machismo]

You still never clarified how it negatively affects someone. If it doesn't then you making a big deal out of nothing.

First off, you are using something that they made. You are choosing not to pay for it. Trying to say that you wouldn't use it is you had to pay is utter bullshit, and an attempt to justify your selfishness. You are using their product without paying for it.

It's no different than sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie.

[crewskater]

First off, you are using something that they made. You are choosing not to pay for it. Trying to say that you wouldn't use it is you had to pay is utter bullshit, and an attempt to justify your selfishness. You are using their product without paying for it.

It's no different than sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie.

You're right it's not but you still haven't explained how it negatively affects them. It's becoming obvious you're making an argument from emotion. So if my friend has a 3d printer and I use it to print out another product, is that stealing?

See when you take something from someone and they are left with nothing, that's bad but if you take something from someone and they still have it, how is that bad?

[Machismo]

You're right it's not but you still haven't explained how it negatively affects them. It's becoming obvious you're making an argument from emotion. So if my friend has a 3d printer and I use it to print out another product, is that stealing?

See when you take something from someone and they are left with nothing, that's bad but if you take something from someone and they still have it, how is that bad?

I'm not making an argument from emotion, I'm saying you are taking something that does not belong to you without paying for it. That is a purely selfish act. I find selfish behavior to be reprehensible.

You are refusing to pay for something you want to use. It's not yours, it belongs to someone else. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp.

[Deleted]

Because you take something that does not belong to you. You Steal.