Piracy

[Théoric HämmerHörde]

The thought of piracy being a crime is retarded. Piracy is COPYING software, not stealing it. For it to be stealing, that would require the thief REMOVE something from the "victim's" possession. For example, if I stole a Lamborghini, that would be wrong. If I precisely reproduced a Lambo part for part, then have I stolen anything? NO! I DONT CARE how much musicians, record companies, directors, actors, studios, and software manufacturers and whine. They lost and are too damn greedy to accept it.

Hey mods. I'm not advocating piracy, I proving that the laws surrounding it are wrong. I don't condone violating laws. SO don't infract me for encouraging unlawful behavior, because I'm not

[Helm]

I was secretly hoping you meant the scourge of the Seven Seas type of piracy which the FSM holds in high regard.

It's not that you're stealing anything with the other kind of piracy, you're just recieveing entertainment made with the purpose of you paying for it for free, it's not like you have an automatic right to such a privilege. I don't I have it so I think the same should apply to you as well.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

You are removing the creator's right to economically exploit the product of his own intellect, talent and effort.
That having been said I download movies and books often. But I buy CDs and vinyls for my collection.

[Théoric HämmerHörde]

You are removing the creator's right to economically exploit the product of his own intellect, talent and effort.
That having been said I download movies and books often. But I buy CDs and vinyls for my collection.

They can't make as much money? Not my problem
Pirates haven't physically touched them or any of their TANGIBLE PHYSICAL REAL property. Only their make believe property they call "ownership."

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

They can't make as much money? Not my problem
Pirates haven't physically touched them or any of their TANGIBLE PHYSICAL REAL property. Only their make believe property they call "ownership."

What you seem to overlook is that protection of both the "tangible physical real" and the intellectual property stems from the very same social convention, the right to "ownership". If you posit that no such thing exists, there's nothing to morally and legally deter someone from taking away your "tangible physical real" property too.

[Logios]

You are removing the creator's right to economically exploit the product of his own intellect, talent and effort.
That having been said I download movies and books often. But I buy CDs and vinyls for my collection.

So the two of us pay for one person altogether it seems.

[Bolkonsky]

Wow. Piracy is taking something that's not yours, that someone spent their own time and money making. It's the equivalent of stealing. Piracy is a crime because it's taking something from someone else. It'd be like saying that plagiarizing a book isn't a crime. I don't care how you slice it up, piracy is a crime. It's taking something that's not yours. I am in shock at the moment.

[Théoric HämmerHörde]

True. But you can at least back the concept of physical theft with solid evidence of damage. But no physical harm is inflicted in piracy.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

True. But you can at least back the concept of physical theft with solid evidence of damage.

You can back the concept of theft of intellectual property with solid evidence of damage too, it's called lost profits.

But no physical harm is inflicted in piracy.

No physical harm is inflicted when someone steals your car while you are asleep either. It's still theft.

[Théoric HämmerHörde]

You can back the concept of theft of intellectual property with solid evidence of damage too, it's called lost profits.


No physical harm is inflicted when someone steals your car while you are asleep either. It's still theft.

Ditto the lack of statistics comment. If they can't present a solid figure, their argument is useless.
And by harm, I mean a measurable reduction in the victims wealth. If somebody steals my car, I have -1 cars.
If you pirate a game, then the company has the same number of games in stock after the piracy as they did before the piracy.

[Helm]

True. But you can at least back the concept of physical theft with solid evidence of damage. But no physical harm is inflicted in piracy.

Well they did put the time and money into making something and you're enjoying it for free. But that's not the reason why they invested the effort into producing it, they wanted to earn a living from people buying their product and they're getting nothing from you.

[Bolkonsky]

Really? Because now that you've pirated, you're not going to buy it. The developer has mouths to feed.

It's still his property that you're taking.

[Gaidin]

Really? Because now that you've pirated, you're not going to buy it. The developer has mouths to feed.

Not a solidly defensible statement, statistically.

[Bolkonsky]

Not a solidly defensible statement, statistically.

When it comes to piracy, it's impossible to have accurate statistics.

One must assume that someone wouldn't pirate a game and then buy it. If they do pirate it and then buy it, the effects of the piracy are voided, and I wouldn't really count it as piracy.

[Gaidin]

When it comes to piracy, it's impossible to have accurate statistics.

One must assume that someone wouldn't pirate a game and then buy it. If they do pirate it and then buy it, the effects of the piracy are voided, and I wouldn't really count it as piracy.

And yet we both know corporations try not to account for this in order to pad their numbers in attempt to defend their case so the point is relevant.

[Théoric HämmerHörde]

Just because these actions threaten an industry doesn't make them inherently wrong. Industries are threatened all the time. That's part of capitalism. ANd one of the main threats to an industry is when it's form of making money is rendered obsolete. For example gas lamps became obsolete when the electric lightbulb was invented. Now music sales are obsolete because of torrenting.

[The Dude]

Just because these actions threaten an industry doesn't make them inherently wrong. Industries are threatened all the time. That's part of capitalism.

Logical fallacy, because you mean two distinct things by "industries are threatened all the time", yet you disguise them as meaning the same.

1) Industries are threatened all the time by manner of competition from rival industries
2) Industries are threatened all the time by manner of theft

There is a clear difference between, say, the sawblade industry being threatened by a laser cutting device that makes logging less labour intensive, and an entertainment industry being threatened by its consumer base no longer paying for the product being sold.

With that clarified, we can go on to revise your statement to say what it actually means:

Just because these actions threaten an industry doesn't make them inherently wrong. Industries are threatened by manner of theft all the time. That's part of capitalism.

Now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the financial ruin of industries by manner of theft is part of capitalism, and that theft is not inherently wrong.

It's still not theft since your not stealing the game, your copying it.

So let's see how this works, then?

If I merely copy something without compensation instead of taking the original without compensation, then it is not theft.
I am copying a Bugatti Veyron without compensation.
------------------------------------------------------
My newly obtained Bugatti Veyron has been acquired without compensation, yet I have not taken the original, thus it is not theft.

Yet somehow we know that this is not how it works, when one day we have found that the good men and women of Bugatti have been reduced to work at the Lada factory, which is now also closing, because people decided to stop buying their cars and copy them instead. The exact same process as theft, since eventually the original product, ie the object of copying, does disappear due to it being finacially unsustainable to maintain it.

[Denny Crane!]

Logical fallacy, because you mean two distinct things by "industries are threatened all the time", yet you disguise them as meaning the same.

1) Industries are threatened all the time by manner of competition from rival industries
2) Industries are threatened all the time by manner of theft

There is a clear difference between, say, the sawblade industry being threatened by a laser cutting device that makes logging less labour intensive, and an entertainment industry being threatened by its consumer base no longer paying for the product being sold.

With that clarified, we can go on to revise your statement to say what it actually means:

Just because these actions threaten an industry doesn't make them inherently wrong. Industries are threatened by manner of theft all the time. That's part of capitalism.

Now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the financial ruin of industries by manner of theft is part of capitalism, and that theft is not inherently wrong.



So let's see how this works, then?

If I merely copy something without compensation instead of taking the original without compensation, then it is not theft.
I am copying a Bugatti Veyron without compensation.
------------------------------------------------------
My newly obtained Bugatti Veyron has been acquired without compensation, yet I have not taken the original, thus it is not theft.

Yet somehow we know that this is not how it works.

Are we talking morally or legally?

[The Dude]

Are we talking morally or legally?

Logically. I think that the OP needs to clean up his reasoning before talking about whether or not this is ok. What he wants us for us to accept his word as evidence for piracy not being immoral, but as it stands the things he's saying aren't particularly convincing. He's stumbling into logical fallacy after logical fallacy without really realising it, and he's arguing for something that I think he really only feels in his gut but can't really make solid.

Which, unfortunately for him, is not enough for me to take his word for anything.

It's not so much that I am against piracy, but pretending that it is not theft somehow seems strange to me.

[Denny Crane!]

Logically. I think that the OP needs to clean up his reasoning before talking about whether or not this is ok. What he wants us for us to accept his word as evidence for piracy not being immoral, but as it stands the things he's saying aren't particularly convincing. He's stumbling into logical fallacy after logical fallacy without really realising it, and he's arguing for something that I think he really only feels in his gut but can't really make solid.

Which, unfortunately for him, is not enough for me to take his word for anything.

Well ok I'll propose a much simpler version. Where the OP makes the mistake is in the burden of proof. The burden of proof is still open. Is the internet as a file sharing medium immoral? We know currently is illegal so the question is moot. But it IS an open question about morality and efficiency.

I don't feel the need to argue this one from a defensive positions and justifying my opinions because for me I feel it is still an undecided question that should be argued from first principles or at least from a position of neutrality.