I know what I'm doing, I just don't care

Piracy explicitly is not stealing.

Piracy is attacking ships at sea and is usually done in order to rob them.

Piracy is midnight oyster and clam harvesting without a license to break the oyster cartel, making restaurant oysters and clams more available and cheaper to customers.

It is from this grand tradition along the US West Coast that the notion of media piracy rose, and much like the Golden Age of Piracy robbing the Spanish Silver Train, piracy is associated with snatching ill-gotten gains from those who don't deserve it, sometimes benefiting communities that do. (YMMV).
This is why you get a letter of marque to give you legitimacy. I've been letioning my government for one endlessly so I can attack Russian shipping in the balkans.
- A letter of marque means you can find safe port at colonies of the issuing state so long as you are attacking its enemies (usually Spanish vessels during the Golden Age).
And privateering is piracy when you have the consent of a government to attack ships belonging to another government
- Privateering usually meant the state's navy issued the ship and demanded a substantial share of the prize leading to creative accounting at sea. It was a deal taken typically by naval officers who might otherwise be tempted to desert when going on the account is offering better prizes and career options. (Desertion to piracy was a big problem in the Queen's Navee.)
Yes it is

that's an interesting definition, and one that appeals to me especially as a fan of "harmless" theft (taking something that the owner will never notice is gone, nor be inconvenienced by the lack of)

It's literally the legal definition. Copyright infringement has never been theft. Media companies have been trying to change the definition of theft, though.

It used to never be a crime, only a civil offense. This means the rightsholder has to sue you, rather than the state prosecute you, but also that the burden of proof is "the balance of probabilities", ie whichever side tips the scale past 50/50 with their argument, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" which is more like >99%. However in the last decade many countries have introduced "commercial copyright infringement" as a criminal offense. Off the top of my head, in the US I think the threshold for that is like $1,000 or something.

It's not about it being "harmless" but the fact that you're not taking something away from someone. If I steal your laptop and sell it, you no longer have a laptop. If I copy data, you still have your original copy.

This is also why there's a different crime for "joyriding" instead of just stealing a car. If you steal a car, you might argue that you were just taking it for a drive, and never intended to permanently deprive the owner. In that case it's easier to convict you for joyriding instead of theft.
- Permanently Deleted

Piracy is best compared to riding a bus without a ticket.

Regardless of the semantics of what we call theft, or whether theft requires denying somebody access to some good, there's an ethical issue with copying other people's stuff without permission. If a person breaks into another persons home and makes copies of all of the documents in their home private or otherwise, they've at least committed a crime in the form of breaking and entering. But if a person is invited into another persons home, and then without pemission copies all of the documents in the house, that still feels like a wrong act? Like, if you invite me into your house and I start copying down your personal journal, your family photos and other stuff you have lying around, to me that sounds like I'd be doing something wrong by you?

Edit: I do want to point out here that I'm not saying piracy is inherently wrong/bad or never justified.

Corporations are not people, no matter what the Supreme Court says.
- Literally nothing in my post claimed that, or even really implied that so I'm not sure what your point with this is?
  
  You are discussing piracy in the context of media and copyright infringement, in which the owner of the pirated material is a corporation and the pirate is an actual person.
  
  By comparing the act of pirating corporate owned digital material to a fictional scenario in which one person is copying another person's physical possessions very much implies that you see the corporate owners of digital material as people.
  
  EDIT: I understand your point by the way. Is it ethical to pirate things? Maybe or maybe not, but I think the stance of most people here is that pirating stuff that is produced by giant, obscenely wealthy media conglomerates is generally okay.
  
  EDIT: I understand your point by the way. Is it ethical to pirate things? Maybe or maybe not, but I think the stance of most people here is that pirating stuff that is produced by giant, obscenely wealthy media conglomerates is generally okay.
Sure, but breaking and entering is a crime - just like theft. Copying someone's documents is wrong, but it's not a crime (not unless you commit a crime with those documents, eg fraudulently take out credit). In that case, it's a civil offense against the victim - just like copyright infringement.

Crimes are prosecuted by the government. To be convicted of a crime you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - in other words, it's more than 99% likely you did it.

Civil offenses are prosecuted by the victim. The burden of proof is "the balance of probabilities", ie it's more than 50% likely you did it. The victim must also show actual damages.

In the US, media companies have perverted the law around copyright infringement, and they manage to get awarded statutory damages well in excess of any actual damages they incur. This is why we had all those ridiculous Napster lawsuits where people were fined hundreds of thousands for downloading a handful of songs. In the rest of the world, they could only be awarded actual damages, and the lawsuits weren't really worth anything.

Media companies would really like copyright infringement to be theft, and they've lobbied hard for that. However they haven't managed it, not yet anyway. They did manage to establish a crime of commercial copyright infringement, though, where if you pirate a significant amount of material or do it for profit you could be criminally charged.
- Sure, but breaking and entering is a crime - just like theft. Copying someone’s documents is wrong, but it’s not a crime (not unless you commit a crime with those documents, eg fraudulently take out credit). In that case, it’s a civil offense against the victim - just like copyright infringement.
  
  My issue is mostly just to do with the moral status of piracy rather than the criminality of it. It feels like in some cases piracy should be justified and in others it shouldn't be. The criminality of an act is a separate thing. I think I was kind of explaining things poorly with my examples. The distinction between breaking into a home vs not in my example was meant to show the act of copying somebodies personal documents could still be wrong whether or not a crime had taken place under current laws.
  
  Crimes are prosecuted by the government. To be convicted of a crime you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - in other words, it’s more than 99% likely you did it.
  
  Civil offenses are prosecuted by the victim. The burden of proof is “the balance of probabilities”, ie it’s more than 50% likely you did it. The victim must also show actual damages.
  
  This is very interesting. Establishing damages over reproduction of ones personal documents seems like it would be almost impossible to establish unless an actual crime had also taken place.
  
  In the US, media companies have perverted the law around copyright infringement, and they manage to get awarded statutory damages well in excess of any actual damages they incur. This is why we had all those ridiculous Napster lawsuits where people were fined hundreds of thousands for downloading a handful of songs. In the rest of the world, they could only be awarded actual damages, and the lawsuits weren’t really worth anything.
  
  Media companies would really like copyright infringement to be theft, and they’ve lobbied hard for that. However they haven’t managed it, not yet anyway. They did manage to establish a crime of commercial copyright infringement, though, where if you pirate a significant amount of material or do it for profit you could be criminally charged.
  
  This train of thought for me seems to lead towards the most satisfying justifications I can think of for why media piracy is probably morally justifiable.
  
  This is very interesting. Establishing damages over reproduction of ones personal documents seems like it would be almost impossible to establish unless an actual crime had also taken place.
  
  That's pretty much exactly right. However I think there is something to be said along the lines of "What reason would you have for copying the documents, if not to commit an offense?"
  
  This train of thought for me seems to lead towards the most satisfying justifications I can think of for why media piracy is probably morally justifiable.
  
  I feel like the main reason some businesses are completely against piracy is because it helps keep their prices in check. Many businesses take the piss with pricing, however when it gets bad enough people look to alternatives. If there is no alternative, if piracy wasn't an option, then businesses would get away with ripping off people even more than they currently do.
  
  That's pretty much exactly right. However I think there is something to be said along the lines of "What reason would you have for copying the documents, if not to commit an offense?"
  
  People do all sorts of nosy invasive things solely for the sake of curiosity and keeping tabs on others I guess? But at a certain point maybe it could just be shoved under some kind of stalking offense?
- Kinda sounds like it might be easier to get away with if it was a crime and the burden of proof was higher
  
  "I didn't know the router Comcast gave me came with an unprotected 'Guest' network enabled by default. Someone in one of the other apartments must have been using it to download torrents"
  
  Sounds like a reasonable doubt to me, I'm sure there'd be plenty of other explanations. Plus the work to retrieve everyone's computers to investigate who actually downloaded it would be prohibitively intensive in anything other than the most extreme cases
  
  In that case it would be less about reasonable doubt that you did it, and more about whether an IP address proves the identity of a user. I would say it doesn't meet the bar of 50%, however it's a bit of a grey area that hasn't been properly tested in court.
Permanently Deleted
- The ethical issue here has nothing to do with damaging any property at all.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Why would something be unethical if nobody is hurt?
  
  Why are you conflating damaging property with causing harm? It's at least arguable that an invasion of privacy is harmful, regardless of whether or not property damage occurs.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  In my example privacy invasion definitely occurs. If you disagree with that, then you should review what I initially said.
  
  If the notion that when people don't want to share things with you, you have an unqualified right to take those things, and that doing that is just inherently not damaging, then I think your position is unrealistic and incredibly self serving.
  
  Do you have some point to make here besides claiming you're just never doing anything wrong when it serves your interests?
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Your point is wrong. My point is that you can't always (ethically) just copy other peoples stuff, just like you can't always just take things from people. My point is not that piracy is never justified. My point is not that you are personally doing something wrong by pirating things. My point is not that you can't be justified in copying other peoples stuff sometimes without permission. My point is not that piracy or copying other peoples data and documents always causes harm.
  
  Edit: When was pirating "publically available" software specifically ever central to my point?
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Here's another example. Say a person makes pornographic photos and videos for their significant other, suppose that content gets leaked onto the internet and is uploaded to popular torrent sites without their permission. How is piracy of this sort of content not an invasion of privacy? How is piracy of this sort of content not unethical?
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  wut??? nobody in their right mind downloads that stuff! that is NOT what we are talking about, we are talking about movies and games and music
  
  I felt like it was pretty clear that I was not talking about things as small as pirating a couple movies and games from multimillion dollar companies?
  
  you really made this up out of nowhere. nobody defends distribuiting private pictures of people... and BTW in that case is not piracy by definition...
  
  Is it not piracy? Please clarify the difference to me?
  
  Permanently Deleted
Very strange comparison, those private copies are specifically private. If you want our comparison to work, I'd be selling these private documents to others... Making them not very private.
- My example doesn't require a "for sale" vs not distinction so I'm not sure why you're imposing that property on it? People pirate unreleased media, unofficial media, bootleg media and other forms of media that aren't for sale already, so being for sale is definitely not a necessary property of the cases we're concerned about when we're talking about the ethics of piracy.
  
  And even if we restrict ourselves to talking about things that are already for sale: 1. Why does something being for sale suddenly make it not private? Many things for sale are already certainly not public. 2. Why does something being for sale suddenly make taking it without permission magically morally acceptable?
  
  I'm imposing that property on it because for the overwhelming majority of media that is absolutely the case.
  
  If it's for sale it's something you do not mind other people seeing. My documents I do not sell because I don't want people seeing it. If I were to sell them, clearly I don't mind people seeing it.
  
  Making it for sale means you intend to share it, even if conditionally. Also "taking it" doesn't apply, making a copy isn't taking anything.
  
  I’m imposing that property on it because for the overwhelming majority of media that is absolutely the case.
  
  I don't see why this is such a necessary property of media? Arguably there could be more media inside peoples private homes and hard-drives that is not for sale than media that is for sale. On top of that, this kind of thing depends on how we define media, we can take more or less inclusive definitions of this term.
  
  It should also be clear that the kinds of things that I'm talking about in my original post refers to more than just movies, music, games and software (despite me using "media" as a convenient example in my previous post).
  
  If it’s for sale it’s something you do not mind other people seeing. My documents I do not sell because I don’t want people seeing it. If I were to sell them, clearly I don’t mind people seeing it.
  
  I don't agree. I'd bet a lot of people are willing to sell plenty of ordinarily private things given a high enough price. I don't think the notion that something is for sale all of a sudden makes that thing magically not private? When you sell something you don't always make the thing you're selling available to the public, just to the buyer, and until the sale is complete you're not typically giving anybody full access to the thing. If it were public/not private the minute you made it for sale, then what is the point in selling it?
  
  Making it for sale means you intend to share it, even if conditionally. Also “taking it” doesn’t apply, making a copy isn’t taking anything.
  
  This isn't true either. Sometimes people make things for sale with no actual intent of selling. And the intent to share, does not make something all of a sudden not private either. You might share something (perhaps a secret) with a friend, that doesn't mean the thing you are sharing suddenly becomes not private/public, but that the scope of people you're will to share this thing privately with has increased by a small amount.
  
  I also disagree with the notion that making a copy just inherently isn't "taking" things. This is also a matter of definitions, but people actively use the word "taking" to encompass more than just physical things. Phrases like "he took my idea", "she took my credit card information" and so on are examples of this. Obviously people do consider "taking" to include acts of copying in some cases. If you mean something else by taking, that's fine, but your personal definition for taking isn't really relevant when the point I'm making regards a more inclusive notion.
  
  If you're talking about having family photos pirated, there's a privacy issue, not a property issue. Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that's on you, but you'll be yapping in the void as that isn't what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.
  
  As for the term of taking, it's clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn't mean the same as taking a shit either, it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.
  
  If you’re talking about having family photos pirated, there’s a privacy issue, not a property issue.
  
  It's pretty clear that I'm talking about more than just family photos. It's also pretty clear that what I'm saying is that privacy problems are one of possibly many issues with copying data without permission. My actual point here from the start has been that it's not always ethical to copy other people's data without permission.
  
  Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that’s on you, but you’ll be yapping in the void as that isn’t what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.
  
  All of the types of media and data I'm talking about are distributable in a colloquial sense. This conversation is about the fact that copying data without permission isn't always ethical. The data we're talking about here absolutely includes secrets, private documents and so on.
  
  As for the term of taking, it’s clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn’t mean the same as taking a shit either,
  
  I don't think that's what's happening. I'm talking about the ethics of copying data. Perhaps sometimes copying data can be considered theft, but whether or not copying data is theft, has nothing to do with my point. A thing being called theft doesn't make that thing morally wrong or right. The term theft itself has little to do with the actual issue we're talking about.
  
  Also, I've never actually claimed piracy is theft. I'm also not claiming piracy is morally wrong, or even that theft is inherently morally wrong for that matter (a person can be justified in stealing in some cases).
  
  it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.
  
  Lets assume you're right and that literally everybody in the world uses these words the way you do (they don't). I don't think arguing "but that word means..." makes a very good argument against the fact that copying data from other people just isn't always morally right. The fact that you don't like how I use certain words is just not a good argument against what I'm saying. If you understand what I mean and you disagree with what I'm saying, then why not argue against my point instead of complaining about the fact that you don't like HOW I use certain words? If you understand what I'm saying and you agree that sometimes it's wrong to copy other peoples data without permission, then why are we still discussing this?

Piracy is stealing- but so is capitalism so it’s fine.

It may sound the same but making a copy of something is absolutely not the same as taking something. It’s an important distinction.
- You're taking away the profit they deserve for the work and effort it took them to create the information.
  
  They only deserve what people are willing to pay. It's like those scammers in foreign countries who push bracelets on you and then demand money for them. If people aren't willing to pay $600 for your software, you don't automatically deserve that money just because you said you do.
  
  Push bracelets on you? Who is forcing you to use their software? Please let me know, we can call the police man, that's fucked up.
  
  asfasffasfsda
  
  What if I can't afford it? What if I wouldn't pay for it even if I could? How are you harmed by me putting it on my wall? You still have 500 photos to sell, and you didn't lose a customer because I never was one to begin with.
  
  I don't think I'm entitled to it, I just think it's a victimless situation. I download shit because I can and because I wouldn't pay for it anyway. And noone is harmed or effected in any way.
  
  asfasfasf
  
  I never made any justifications or claims of morality. I don't think pirating is some moral service in most cases, but I also strongly disagree that it's immoral. And yes, it may be a small percentage, but there are people out there pirating purely for archival sake. Archive.org has dumps of old games for pretty much every system. Lots of retro games would be unplayable now if people hadn't pirated them. Same with books and movies that go out of print. It definitely does help to keep the media alive.
  
  My main point though was that I strongly disagree that there's any immoral or unethical about it, provided I'm not profiting off your work. You literally would never even have a way of knowing, if i kept a copy just for personal use. It's also definitely not theft, it's a civil matter and in civil matters you have to prove damages, which is impossible in the example you gave because there is no damage to you (or your reputation).
  
  safasdfasdfsafsfa
  
  And if I never intended to buy the product?
  
  So you never intended to buy the product but you intended to use it?
  
  Do you understand they are charging you for the usage, not for your intentions or moral views?
  
  asdfasdf
  
  Exactly. They are twisting reality to justify their shirty actions.
  
  They say there's no moral argument yet they try to defend themselves with more arguments, even as I say nothing about morality lol
  
  Yes. If I don't think it's worth paying the price they're asking, I will download and play it for free. It if were not available to download for free, I would simply not play it. They lose nothing either way.
  
  If I would have paid for it, but downloaded it for free simply because I could, you're correct they would be losing profits. But that's not always the case as you seem to be claiming.
  
  sadfsafasdf
No, it very much isn't. Don't buy into the media companies trying to rewrite the law in their favour. Copyright infringement is not theft.
Property is theft. <Bolshevik chorus swells>