You're viewing a single thread.
If buying isn't ownership then pirating isn't stealing
Oh but it's not buying! The big "Buy" or "Purchase" button might have said so, but if you'd have careful read through 35 pages of user agreements, you'd see that you only rent the license to stream it.
Which obviously is total bullshit and the whole fucking system should be burned to the ground.
This is precisely why I refuse to buy digital games. (And it extends to other media, but games are where I actually spend money)
I’ll pay for a rental service designed to be a rental service (ps+, for example) but will not buy individual games digitally. Who knows when they will become unavailable for some reason, and I can no longer download a copy. It’s bad enough when servers are shut down within 2 years of launch, but when the whole game gets pulled, then what?
I’ve decided I’m not even bothering with the next generation of consoles. So few things are even released on disc, with half the consoles being digital only, that it’s not even worth it. I’ll pirate instead.
This is where the law needs to step in, it should be illegal to call it "Buy" if you are just leasing it. It's absolutely misleading to most consumers.
Pirating isn't stealing either way.
Also, copyright infringement never even used to ever be a crime, although now there is a form of criminal copyright infringement, if it's done for money or if the value is above a certain amount. Thanks to lobbying from wealthy industries. Most copyright infringement still is not a crime, though.
The reason industries lobby for harsher copyright laws is because they know they can make more money if people can't pirate. They take the piss with their pricing, but they're acutely aware that if they take the piss too much then people will turn to piracy. By prohibiting piracy and levying harsh penalties they can get away with even more unfair pricing, and maybe even profit from piracy through punitive damages (which is mainly a US thing, most sensible nations only allow you to sue for actual damages).
It is. You’re stealing income from the person that created the thing you took and didn’t pay for.
By that logic, creating a competitor and wooing over customers would also be theft.
Note they are not saying piracy is legal, or that it's not a tort. They are saying it's not theft, and it should be discussed separately, as we criminalize theft because someone loses their property, not because the thief gets free shit.
Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.
The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.
I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.
No, it's exactly the same logic.
The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn't their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.
In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:
-
Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.
-
Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.
-
Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.
-
Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.
There's a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren't depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.
It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you're paying money for the product of their labor.
Everything else you've said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.
You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else's work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it's a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.
You don't steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don't prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can't prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.
It's all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it's as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can "kill" an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That's why words have meanings, and different things have different names.
-
That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.
What if I don't sell it? If someone opts to use FreeCAD instead of Fusion360, did FreeCAD steal income from Autodesk?
Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you're not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the product and not paying for that use.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a "lifetime" license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn't work anymore?
You should pick your examples more carefully.
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a "lifetime" license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn't work anymore?
That's wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I'm making. It's a total straw man.
You should pick your examples more carefully.
I didn't pick it, so... 🤷♂️
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I've said is not objective or not in good faith?
It’s a total straw man.
Not a straw man at all, but I'll let it slide.
I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷♂️
Fair point.
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
You may well be arguing in good faith, I've started to see that. You're still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
Not a straw man at all
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
Fair point.
I don't understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
You're still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
Only in a legal sense and I'm not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. "Copyright infringement" only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
You eating data?
Ingesting something doesn't only mean eating it. It literally means "to bring into".
I wish piracy was stealing income, I need some of that income.
It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.
The workers already got paid. It's executives that are being "stolen from." ( I'm too broke to buy it anyways)
That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.
If you weren't gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn't lose anything, how can it be stealing?
And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I'm ingesting their art daily for free. No, I'm not. That's the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we've had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we're having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we'll probably keep having this conversation forever
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries.
I think you'll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.
I'm talking about stores that sell paintings, not museums. Unless you pay to go to those where you live. I've never paid to enter a store before
Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it's gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.
They'll never admit this because it invalidates their entire point.
It's stealing because you watched it. If you didn't watch it and didn't buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you're consuming and ingesting the product they're selling without paying for it.
Additionally, if you're making the argument that you can't count "potential" sales of something as theft then you can't also make the argument that "potential" exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it's theft.
And you've just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don't pay for it, you don't get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you're stealing if you're ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.
Ok, what if the creator says it's ok to pirate their stuff. Is that still stealing?
No, of course not. They're explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can't be piracy if they're not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they're selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.
That's just factually untrue. The 'creators' are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It's just middle men executives that earn that.
I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I'm able to pirate an anime and really like it I'm more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.
Here's an article proving that the actual creators don't make much money at all and it's not because of piracy.
It's not factually untrue. You can't make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.
Everything else you've said is pointless because you're only arguing about a subset of content. I'm arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don't pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren't going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It's literally as simple as that.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We're literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It's madness.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.
My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they're popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don't specifically order one particular series.
Of course they deserve to be paid but I'm arguing that pirating doesn't cut into their pay because they've already been paid before the anime even comes out.
If buying digital products isn't owning then pirating isn't theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who 'bought' their digital products.
Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don't specifically order one particular series.
These are distributors and they don't have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That's not an argument against my point.
If buying digital products isn't owning then pirating isn't theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who 'bought' their digital products.
Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I'm making. I think it's false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term "Buy" for something you don't actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don't make it right.
I'm not arguing about Funimation's actions. I've already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn't make piracy not theft.
The same disturbers that regularly drop content that people pay for and the same disturbers that claim you own something?
That's not stealing lol. If I pirate something or if I don't, the creator sees no difference.
Stealing income would be reducing the income for the author (piracy doesn't alter it) and you getting it instead (you don't).
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.
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.
Piracy is defined as a civil offense, meanwhile theft is defined as a crime. Theft is also defined as depriving someone of something - eg, if I take your bike, you no longer have a bike, but if I copy your bike and build my own then you still have your bike and haven't lost anything.
"Potential lost income" is abstract, it doesn't necessarily exist and the victim of copyright infringement isn't really losing anything - they don't even provide the bandwidth you download it with. Ultimately 1 pirated download =/= 1 lost sale, as people download more crap than they would be willing to buy.
I'm not arguing the legal definition of this so everything you've said is irrelevant.
The legal definition is THE definition, it's literally what the word means, and where the concepts of both originate.
What you're saying isn't irrelevant, it's just completely ignorant and wrong.
I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn't the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it's the police that do it, it's not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won't see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it's not the only definition, but it's the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I'm really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I'm really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven't got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn't be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they're a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
You're trying to say that your definition is the only valid one, which conveniently is one that your argument is entirely reliant upon.
It isn't valid, you're wrong, your argument does not hold water.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the definition isn't relevant. I don't care if you call it "stealing", "leeching", "pirating", or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It's implicitly admitting that it's stealing from someone.
You don't care what words you use, because you're talking about something else, an idea that's only in your head.
I'm using the specific definitions, because we're talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That's just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they've lost the money they used to buy it. They've also definitely lost a sale, because they can't sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven't lost a tangible object, they haven't even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn't going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I'd agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to "two wrongs don't make a right", I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it's also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today's reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people's private property (media in this case).
You don't care what words you use, because you're talking about something else, an idea that's only in your head.
I'm not. I don't know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It's not theft of their product, it's theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That's just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
And I'm not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don't care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I'm care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If I pirate something, no one loses anything.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a "for work" basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you'd need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it's work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it's not? Where do you make the distinction?
Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn't going to buy it either way.
That's irrelevant. If you weren't going to buy it then you're not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they're entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I'm making the argument that that's theft and that you're not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn't pay for it. Obviously, this doesn't apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
it's also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn't justified in some cases. I'm only arguing that, even when it's justified, it's still theft and that we should be honest about that.
By this logic, everything you don't buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you're denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend's house for free?
No, it's not. If you are just walking past that item, you're not consuming the value of that item. If you're being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn't be watching the movies that you're not paying for. The entire issue is that you're not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you're eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you're now able to gain the value of that magazine's content without paying for it. That's still stealing. You can either pretend it's not or you can say "Yeah, it's stealing but I'm ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways".
Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they've already consumed it.
That's not a better example. You're comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you're reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It's not bound by that scarcity.
It would be worse for you to "lose" money and the creators gain nothing but that's not the situation you're discussing. We're discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.
You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.
And you're ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.
If it wasn't for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn't an option then there would be nothing holding them back.
Neither of those things are true. I'm not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven't argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don't agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don't buy it.
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You've provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don't find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don't ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.
You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn't lose out with used sales.
How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?
How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they've experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn't pay the producer. With used goods, they've experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn't pay the producer.
Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products.
I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don't), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve "all teh moneys" without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don't get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
In any case, I didn't even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn't a thing they'd charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
At this stage, I think it's abundantly clear that you aren't arguing in good faith, you're just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There's no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.Edit: I'm withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.
thus should be priced far lower than physical goods
This is a completely separate argument, that's why it's not valid. I'm not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don't think it's worth that price, then they shouldn't buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn't consume/ingest it.
With digital piracy, they've experienced no extra cost...you claim is suffering a loss?
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that's not the point that I'm arguing so it's irrelevant to the argument.
Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don't), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.
You're advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you'd be supportive of, then you'd just be advocating for exactly the situation you're in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a "place". It's just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don't get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
Again, a different argument from the one I'm making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they're the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
No, I'm not. I'm not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason... 🧐
It would be worse for you to "lose" money and the creators gain nothing but that's not the situation you're discussing.
That is literally the situation I'm discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn't have the rights to it, don't pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there's also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.
The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don't think that's morally consistent. You've been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that's exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.
That's not true. It is not "literally the situation you're discussing". You don't "lose" money if you're paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn't you "losing" money just because you don't walk out of the museum with something tangible.
You're just arguing semantics about the word "creator" now. The other options you've provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can't buy a "used" version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.
Now we're arguing semantics and I'm not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can't engage with the actual ideas behind what I'm saying, then what are you even doing?
I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you've been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.
In another thread, you said
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.
If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you've made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.
You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.
The fact that you don't see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don't logically hold up against the point I'm making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can't buy a used copy of an intangible item!
So... no. I don't have to believe any of the other things you've mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn't exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.
...If nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property"
--Thomas Jefferson
This is a dishonest response. Movies and media are not ideas. They are representations of ideas that take time and effort to create and that are created so that the artist that made them can make a living and pay their bills. Stealing those representations without compensating the artist for their time and effort means they can’t pay their bills which means they have to stop creating in order to get a job where the fruits of their efforts aren’t stolen.
it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
That statement makes no sense in this context, regardless of whether I reflect on its poor grammar or not.
Sure it does, you just don't like the substance of it.
No. The substance of it is irrelevant to my argument. You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not to put too fine a point on it - ideas are like assholes; everyone has them and most of them stink but the idea of an asshole doesn’t actually make you wretch the way the stench of an actual asshole might.
You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not quite; what makes ideas incompatible with exclusive possession is the same thing that makes digital content incompatible with exclusive possession - their intangibility. A person can labor for years on an idea, and retain exclusive ownership over that idea having not realized it to others; "but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
The same applies to digitally represented media.
You've made a statement about the labor involved in producing an idea or digital media, and I'm making a statement about the nature of intangible goods. Embodied labor isn't the same as some objective moral or ethical imperative, nor is embodied labor the same as value.
If you want to watch something enough to pirate it, it has value.
Everything else you said is a dishonest argument that you would not accept for your own time, work, and effort. The mere fact that an idea is materialized into something more than an idea invalidates the crux of your argument. An idea is just that. An idea materialized into reality, even an intangible reality, is still more than the idea itself.
I didn't convince them to make that shit. I'm in no contract.
I kind of respect you for arguing your point in this entire commet section, while so many people are piling on you. I still think your argument/opinion is wrong though.
Licensing isn't ownership, and pirating isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement.
The previous comment is more like shorthand, rather than literal truth.
It's faster to say piracy isn't stealing if purchasing isn't ownership than it is to say "if a company can simply reverse a permanent access license at any time then pirating media from them is perfectly ethical and should not be considered a crime"
It's bad shorthand though. In this context, there was never any "buying content" happening, nor was piracy ever "stealing". It's just misrepresentation of both sides.
That's fair, but I feel like the point is that many people go through a process where
- You pay money
- The buttons on your screen say "buy" "purchase" "check-out" or something else to that effect
That feels like buying media, so according to the common "consumer" (hate that word) brain, you are spending money to buy content.
At the same time, media corps have been trying to teach us for years that piracy is exactly the same as stealing.
The whole point of the shorthand is to explain that these are not facts, they're misconceptions, AND both of these misconceptions exist for the same reason, corporate propaganda.
Permanently Deleted
Come up with something better then.
Why?
Because you're bitching about it. Either there's a better way to express the precise picture you're describing, or your central argument is fundamentally flawed, and it's an effective shorthand.
Sure, there's nuance. Shorthand is used to convey a nuanced thought quickly. That's literally the point.
Lol "bitching" about it.
Weird logic. Pointing out something that isn't accurate but gets parroted anyways means I need to come up with a better thing to parrot.
There’s no logic here. You’re right and they’re just throwing a tantrum because it means they’re wrong.
I am not sure of all the posters here, you would want to mention "throwing a tantrum" in regards to being wrong. But hey I for one am a fan of your posts, it has been fun reading.
I don't see anywhere that I've thrown a tantrum. I've been civil and respectful of all the people replying to me, even when they haven't returned that in kind, and even attempted to bring some replies back to civility when I felt like the person was arguing in earnest. My point stands and no one has really argued the actual point without contradicting themselves.
Infringe me harder daddy ©👄©
It is stealing. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics here. You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.
How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with? Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren't entitled to consumers' money. This is especially the case if the consumer has previously purchased a license to consume the product, and then the company decides to take (or steal) it away. No moral qualms with pirating the same content then.
It's digital data; you're copying something, leaving the original completely intact. It's not like a physical BluRay, where if you steal it from a store, you are making that store lose money due to that physical stock being stolen.
And lastly, how is the company not stealing from consumers when they pull shit like this?
Permanently Deleted
I don't understand what that has to do with anything. You're copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.
Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?
Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that's kinda the whole point.
The definition of theft according to MW: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
If you do not deprive the original owner of the property (such as: copying), it is not definitionally theft. Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.
Permanently Deleted
You hit the nail on the head. That’s why they’re downvoting and arguing. It personally benefits them to steal.
I’ve said it several times here…I don’t care if people pirate stuff. There are a myriad of reasons to do so. My issue is with the dishonesty of pretending it’s not stealing. Keep doing it, I don’t care, but own up to what you’re doing and admit it’s stealing.
It’s mental gymnastics because they need to be able to continue stealing but don’t want to feel bad about it.
Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren't entitled to consumers' money.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Taking away licenses is wrong. I’m not disputing that. But that doesn’t magically make stealing something that actual people created right.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Are you making an ethical, moral, or legal statement here?
Ownership of intangibles in this context exists only as a means to support a particular political arrangement. I think you may be assuming others here share your politics; there is no objective moral standard for exclusive ownership of intangibles.
By that argument, there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value. If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not. If you don’t agree to that premise, then there’s no point in discussing this with you.
there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value.
You're right, there is no moral imperative for people to create (or share) intangibles, but nobody is claiming they have no value.
If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not.
Again, is this a ethical, moral, or legal statement? It strikes me as a uniquely ideological statement, but you've not elaborated.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one. I’m not disputing the legality of anything here (since I believe that the subject of the OP is also illegal - “Buying” something denotes ownership and, therefore, taking it away is also stealing).
Additionally, I do not have objections against piracy and think there are many legitimate reasons for it. I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Are you trying to conflate 'value' with 'extractive market value'? There are lots of things that have innate value but have no or very little market value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one.
It matters if anyone cares to understand what you're actually asserting, since you've again claimed 'I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing'. How can anyone understand what you mean without knowing what you take 'stealing' to mean, and why it matters?
Most people here would argue that a system that relies on exclusive ownership of ideas/digitally reproducible data in order to support those who do that labor (that we all benefit from) is one that is broken. In which case 'stealing' would be misplacing both to whom the harm being done and the party doing the harm, because it isn't the fault of the artist or the consumer that the system withholds the means of living from those who are unable to justify their existence through labor.
That's all irrelevant. I'm not making some hypothetical point. Whether you agree with "the system" or not, it is the system within which we live and operate and within which people need to make a living. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created. If we accept that and attempt to justify as anything other than theft, then those people will cease to create themselves or will have to work further into the system that you're arguing against as they will be unable to sustain themselves by creating things within that system.
If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things. All the straw man arguments about DRM and corporations that attempt to justify piracy only further reinforce the current system rather than some imagined system.
Stealing has a definition. It means that you're taking something from someone. If you can't understand 'stealing' in its most basic form, then there's no point in having a further discussion with you because you're only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.
It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.
You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.
It's just as much "stealing" as me not watching it at all.
I'm infringing on their copyright, absolutely, but I'm not taking anything away from them that they could otherwise profit from.
You can't reason with him. He is an anti-piracy troll.
For him, any comparison made to help him understand is a logical fallacy and any evidence presented against his argument is "irrelevant" as he puts it.
It is like arguing with a trump-like narcissist lol. "My argument counts and yours is wrong, but if yours is right then it is irrelevant, made up, and/or a straw man. If I don't understand something then it is an attack and I will insult you and instantly label you inferior."
It's sad honestly and just like them all he is all "think of the poor artists who created the media you love" while conveniently ignoring that in the music industry, many/most artists don't even get royalties because the record labels swindled then forced them to sign their lives and works away getting a couple pennies on the dollar.
Video game industry is salaried. All profits go to the corporations outside of indie games. Movies, outside of the big name stars, earn almost poverty wages and absolutely 0.00% of what gets sold because the studios are so incredibly corrupt.
Not to mention dead artists where unless they were extremely smart, their families are likely earning 0% of sold media.
Also not getting into the fact that copyright used to be very short until large corporations bribed lawmakers constantly and for so much corrupt money that they changed copyright to extend an extreme amount of time, otherwise things from the 90s would already be public domain if there wasn't so much blatant bribery and corruption done by the people you are "stealing" from.
Unless you are pirating things from Dolly Parton or someone who was business savvy enough to not get cheated by the studios, you are not stealing from the artists in any crazy mental gymnastic stretch of the imagination.
Piracy, at the very worst, is stealing from long time hard criminals. There is not a single big record corporation that has not committed a multitude of thefts, blackmail, drug dealing, bribery of government officials, and worse. That isn't even getting into the crimes of porn studios and movie studios. Disney mass murdered animals on camera for views as one example.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.
Then why is digital piracy legally considered to be copyright infringement instead of theft?
That’s irrelevant. I’m not arguing the legality of it.
If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.
Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.
Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.
An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please... Listen... Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please
You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.
Stop being dishonest.
Provide to me a copy/paste definition of "false premise" so i know you know more fallacies than "strawman" and "ad hominem". If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.
(That was ad-hominem)
Saying your argument is stupid isn't attacking you, dude.
That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.
ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Why did I have to look this up for you?
Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be "why is it stupid?" or what's wrong with my way of thinking?", not "stop attacking me, I'm under attack!" At the very least, don't misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn't apply.
He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn't useful or helpful.
The point is that he didn't provide any counter to the argument. He's done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don't need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I'm making.
That's a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.
I'm not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I'm arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You're stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don't care if people pirate things but admit that it's stealing and move on.
Piracy is stealing.
No it is not. By any definition.
You can think it's morally wrong, that's fine. But it simply, factually is not stealing.
That's the only point I'm making.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you're gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.
You're welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that's your prerogative.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it.
A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?
Permanently Deleted
LOL they know it's stealing. Some of them will even blatantly admit it with no guilt.
Wait, do you think people that pirate things all have the same beliefs or something? Such a weird way to logic. 😅 Truly, that's a new one.
Permanently Deleted
Well that's certainly a convenient way to validate your own beliefs. lol
"Everyone that disagrees with my worldview just isn't being honest!"
Stay scientific, friend
Permanently Deleted
Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).
Digital media should be bought the same way as physical media.
If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and I have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Would make sense if the artist was independent, but corporations pay either a wage or a salary. It is rare for an artist to be paid a percentage of revenue for that product, so the only ones who would be affected by piracy are the corporations who did not directly create the art.
If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.
That would be great, but that is not the case for the vast majority of media. Generally-speaking, media is encumbered with DRM, which prevents the consumer from being able to copy the data or watch it in any way they deem fit (see: streaming services requiring hardware DRM for 4K streaming, even when they charge extra for it)
Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).
So, given that this is not an option for the vast majority of content, the only alternative where consumers maintain full control over their own media-playing devices is to download a DRM-free copy.
As Gabe Newell famously said, piracy is a service issue. Steam also has the same problem of lack of ownership and DRM, though, so its users are at the mercy of Valve to not revoke access to purchases.
GOG is one company who does it right, IMO. Sell only DRM-free copies of games, and allow people to download their copy and back it up to whatever media they want to put it on. This type of practice is rare in the media world, though. Most media companies require DRM on their product in order to license it out.
Also on the first point, independent producers of content generally don't put DRM on their work anyway, so no reason not to buy their work.
This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument. I’m not arguing anything related to DRM or the structure of the market that creates some content.
This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument.
My point about DRM is highly relevant in this case, because a consumer cannot own something that is encumbered with DRM. They are renting a license for that product, even if the button they click on says "purchase", since, hidden in the EULA somewhere, the company decided to redefine the word "purchase". The company will always be able to revoke that license without notice or permission from the consumer, let alone a refund or any kind of compensation.
Relevant Louis Rossmann video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GZUCwVRLs
Again, it is not relevant because I’m not arguing against the OP. I am only arguing against the dishonesty and mischaracterization of piracy as being something other than stealing.
If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.
And if everyone just scanned that one person's bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can't make bikes anymore because they aren't getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.
This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as "I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don't need eggs." without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.
Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.
Are you saying that if I pirate a movie from 2019, the actors have not been paid for their screentime yet and won't be paid until I buy the movie in, like, 2028?
AHHHH I love seeing my own meme spread!!!
👆
I'm starting to think that everybody's thinking about this the wrong way. But I think really needs to happen is they need to be sued to oblivion with a class action lawsuit. They can say whatever they want in their user agreement and do their best to get away with it but if it's not enforceable in court then it needs to be shot down and shot down completely. This needs a class action lawsuit. There need to be several class action lawsuits. One against them, one against Sony and so on.
They have a lot of money and they might win in court maybe but they should at least be challenged in that venue.