You're viewing part of a thread.
That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.
Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.
Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.
You're arguing a legal definition. I am not.
I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you're not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.
It's not just the legal definition. It's the dictionary definition, as well.
Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It's just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn't "piracy", the closest one you're going to find is "appropriation":
noun. the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you're stealing ("the action or crime of stealing") income from the creator, unless they're explicitly giving that creation away for free.
My bad, I forgot to post the definition of stealing.
How does that do anything other than prove my point?
"without permission or legal right"
the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
Piracy isn't taking property without the intention to return it. The pirated media itself is property, but it's being copied rather than stolen. The potential profits from selling said media to you is being taken, but that's not tangible property capable of being stolen.
On the other hand, piracy is appropriation. It's just doesn't meet the criteria of theft/stealing.
Now you're just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It's not theft, it's unethical appropriation of others' work.
Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create
I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.
Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.
Likewise, should the media become unavailable after "purchase" as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).
The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn't get screwed.
if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.
Ugh...but that isn't the point of my argument that you responded to. I don't care what you want to call it but arguing that it's appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you're sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.
I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I've never argued against that.
I also agree with you about media becoming "unavailable". I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I've argued that using terms like "Buy" and "Sell" for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.
I didn't presume anything about you. I was using the term "you" in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you're arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP'ing in a reality where they're bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. "You" want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content "you" want to choose to insert here) that "you" want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.
I don't always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don't pretend that I'm not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
Don't worry, you're correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn't pay something to someone prior.). If you didn't pay, it's theft, and it doesn't matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.
Google's example sentence is quite topical. Still: Until potential income is defined as property, its loss isn't theft. Besides that, if someone wasn't going to pay for a digital copy in the first place, it's not exactly a loss of potential income.
I know. It's painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I've already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I'm saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they're depriving the creator of income, they're ok with that, and they'll continue to do it. That's it.
Ok, so when I decide not to pirate and not to buy I'm also stealing? Or do you think if I didn't pirate something I would definitely buy it?
I have pirated and later bought things I've enjoyed that I wouldn't have bought otherwise, so I'd argue that's better for the creators. But I guess I'm being dishonest 🤷🏻
Did you watch it still?
If you didn't pirate and didn't buy it and also didn't watch it, then no it's not stealing.
If you did watch it, then it's stealing.
It's not that hard of a concept. You're not entitled to the fruits of someone's labor for free unless they're explicitly granting you that entitlement.
So yeah... it's being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn't stealing.
If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.
This is the hottest of takes and by the same logic I will claim your eyeballs are now violating me by the act of reading this.
The issue that you seem to miss is that for someone to steal something, someone has to lose something.
Here is an example:
Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and took the dog. Sue does not have a dog anymore. <--- This is stealing/theft ect.
Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and used a device to make a perfect copy of the dog and then gave the copy away. Sue still has a dog. <--- This is software piracy.
Yeah according to his logic you can just download and hoard all the stuff you want, because it's not stealing until you actually watch it. Schrödinger's pirate?