Why piracy isnt theft

Chat about just about anything else
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by randomizer »

FedoraRefugee wrote: :?: :?
If I pirate software the developer/publisher has not lost any more money than if I had not pirated it and chosen another product or no product at all. Is it now theft to choose a competing product as well? What isn't theft, buying everything? Do explain your rationale. So far most anti-piracy arguments here are all based on morality and sensationalism (ie. calling it theft when it's copyright infringement). Is it not possible to argue against piracy using logic instead? I should think it is, since I've done it several times on XtremeSystems.

I prefer not to argue based on ethics because it's a fundamentally failed argument from the start. I can call something ethical from one perspective and unethical from another. Ethics have no standard criteria with which to evaluate something.

EDIT: Just FYI, I'm not dismissing your moral objections to copyright infringement, I'm just not interested in debating on moral grounds because it just won't go anywhere. I do, however, object to the use of the terms "theft" and "stealing" because if you use those incorrect terms in a debate with piracy advocates you end up arguing purely whether piracy is theft or not (as we are now and I'm not even a piracy advocate :wink: ), rather than whether it is justifiable or not.
hinto wrote: Actually it is. People get paid by their employer because they (the people) give up time in order to make the employer money (make the company profitable). The employer pays them according to how much their (the employee's) time is worth.
-H
I am talking about software written by developers who are not paid. Do I steal from Kendall Weaver by using Peppermint OS?
User avatar
eiver
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:51 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by eiver »

Oh come on Fedora - don't take everything so seriously and personally. I am not trying to moderate the forum, because so far everything said in this topic is completely ok from moderators point of view. If I ever wanted to moderate this forum I would have used the little exclamation mark icon instead. We all just give some arguments or point out certain facts. Of course when we don't agree with each other, we try to prove that someone else arguments are invalid. Its cool. I pointed out you used an ad hominem argument and claimed its invalid, thats all. I am not accusing you for attacking another person on the forum nor for anything else for that matter. I just noticed that if someone else uses an ad hominem argument against you, then continuing his game is usually ineffective. Instead I think that pointing out that someones argument becomes ad hominem is more effective. The logic behind that is: I can be ruthless dictator responsible for killing millions and still make a valid argument in a discussion about human rights or I can be a serial child raper and still make good points in a discussion about child care. So far everything is cool and I really enjoy discussing with all of you guys. Ok, after clearing that up we can continue:

randomizer wrote: I prefer not to argue based on ethics because it's a fundamentally failed argument from the start. I can call something ethical from one perspective and unethical from another. Ethics have no standard criteria with which to evaluate something.
Argumenting based on ethics is ok. You just need to realize how ethics was created in the first place. It all comes from the game theory, which I mentioned earlier. Basically if everyone is honest (consumers and authors) it is a win-win situation, but the amount of "win" is small. Anyone who cheat will get a huge benefit over others. But if everyone cheats, then it is a lose-lose situation. This is what we usually see in the real world now. Most software is pirated, and most software is very expensive. A natural way in this scenario is to cheat - natural does not mean moral or right. In fact the very definition of being moral is not to choose a strategy which will benefit you most (cheating, or stealing), because we all know that once one person start stealing, everyone else will follow and we will end up loosing. So in that sense ethics comes directly from logic. The game that maps well to our piracy situation is the Prisoners dillema game. I didn't want to make this post ridiculously long so I omitted a lot of stuff I wanted to write to better explain the matter. So if anyone thinks, what I wrote is unclear - please point that out, so I can explain what I think in more detail.
User avatar
DrHu
Level 17
Level 17
Posts: 7523
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by DrHu »

eiver wrote:Argumenting based on ethics is ok. You just need to realize how ethics was created in the first place. It all comes from the game theory, which I mentioned earlier.
http://answers.ask.com/Society/Philosop ... _come_from
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ern-ethics
Really, I thought ethics came from Philosophy: secular or religious
--in the ancient past, at the dawn of Western civilization, aka the Greeks and Romans

Logic and Ethics are not the same thing
Ethics has a moral fuzzy position, Logic is a set of truth tables (yes|no)
User avatar
DrHu
Level 17
Level 17
Posts: 7523
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by DrHu »

FedoraRefugee wrote:Contrary to leftist belief, the free market operates on known, tried, and true principles. They can be corrupted and diverted, but if left to its own device the principle is simple and sound.
..the free market operates on known, tried, and true principles
I wouldn't call anything we have a free market, it is driven by monopolies and there is no free anymore, if ever there was..

The market theories
  • May be tried (many aren't)
  • May be known (but not really understood completely, even by the experts)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/true
  • Date: before 12th century
    1 a : steadfast, loyal b : honest, just c archaic : truthful
    2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled
But they are not true, as in consistent with reality
--or the sea change of the financial collapse wouldn't have happened as fast or as wide as it did, when it started: perhaps the theorists (economists etc) who managed that state of affairs failed to realize the implications quick enough or were otherwise slipshod in their understanding (complete grasp of the realities), and so like the titanic, it slipped away..

I still think piracy is piracy, and that's all I could say to that: any sophist arguments are mere technical repetitions of dubious grounds..

But I want to give an example of "free" market business attitude:, and I could say rightest instead of leftist

In many a business, the owner, has an inherent interest in its success; employees of that owner have far less invested, but if you watch or see some business people in operation, you might notice that they seem to want or imply that an employee should have as much concern about the business as the owner does
  • That position is basically absurd, it attempts to make the employee a partner, when he is nothing of the like
    --there is no great reward in working as long as the owner wants you to (time and effort), if there is no profit in it, other than the normal paycheck
And yet, many business owners get very offended when they cannot get an employee to work as long or as hard as themselves; forgetting completely or ignoring the difference between an employee and an owner..
  • Leftists see businesses as exploiters in the main
  • Rightists see businesses as the bringer of wealth
    --forgetting or ignoring, wealth for whom ?
Last edited by DrHu on Fri May 28, 2010 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by FedoraRefugee »

randomizer wrote:If I pirate software the developer/publisher has not lost any more money than if I had not pirated it and chosen another product or no product at all. Is it now theft to choose a competing product as well? What isn't theft, buying everything? Do explain your rationale.
Webster online dictionary:

Theft
Pronunciation: \ˈtheft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date: before 12th century

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball

Okay but what is property?

Main Entry: prop·er·ty
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-pər-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural prop·er·ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Anglo-French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
Date: 14th century

1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : virtue 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable e : a book or script purchased for publication or production
3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes.

If you take for free something that you are SUPPOSED to be paying for then how can it NOT be theft? :roll: What you are stealing is property, whether it is a copy of something or not. An idea can be property. It is irrelevant whether you are not stealing the original and YOU FEEL the owner would never miss what you are taking. It is totally beside the point.

If you pirate software the developer IS losing money, he lost YOUR sale! What if EVERYONE felt as you do and chose to steal the free copy that is easily available? Then how could the developer earn his living? I really do not see what the hangup is here. You do not even have to have any morals to clearly see this. You are creating an argument to justify an action. By saying that if you had to pay his price you would not have bought the product anyway or chosen a cheaper competing product is also irrelevant. THEN DO IT!!! Instead of stealing the example product! Then, if enough people did that the manufacturer would have to lower his own price to compete.

It is that old, stupid saying that you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you are not willing to buy the product then you have no right to that product. You cannot say that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so that is why you just took it for free! That is as clear as it gets.
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by randomizer »

FedoraRefugee wrote:If you pirate software the developer IS losing money, he lost YOUR sale!
Incorrect, he lost my potential sale. There is absolutely no way to prove if I would have bought it were it not available for free. If i choose to use Linux instead of Windows, Microsoft has not lost a sale, they simply haven't gained one. If I choose to pirate Windows, Microsoft has not lost a sale, they just haven't gained one. If I buy a pirated copy of Windows then they have lost a sale because I did intend to pay for it. That is a lost sale, not a lost potential sale. But buying a pirated copy is not usually the focus when we're discussing piracy and as such I won't go down that tangent.
FedoraRefugee wrote:What if EVERYONE felt as you do and chose to steal the free copy that is easily available?
If everyone thought as I do they wouldn't be infringing copyright.
FedoraRefugee wrote:You are creating an argument to justify an action.
If this is really what you think then you have inverted my opinion on the matter to increase the impact of your own argument. It's one thing to make a strawman out of my argument, it's another to tell me that I'm arguing against my own opinion.
FedoraRefugee wrote: By saying that if you had to pay his price you would not have bought the product anyway or chosen a cheaper competing product is also irrelevant. THEN DO IT!!! Instead of stealing the example product! Then, if enough people did that the manufacturer would have to lower his own price to compete.
I agree. This is one of my usual arguments. Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean that piracy is justified. Copyright laws don't have an exception for low income earners.
FedoraRefugee wrote:If you are not willing to buy the product then you have no right to that product.
Once again I'm in total agreement.
FedoraRefugee wrote:You cannot say that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so that is why you just took it for free!
It is a common excuse, and it's also a very bad one. But this is not what I am arguing. I'm not saying that because you may not have bought it anyway that this gives you the right to break copyright laws. I'm saying that because you may not have bought it that it can't be counted as a lost sale.
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Nick_Djinn »

I am glad I got some interesting discussion going here. :D


But for all you authoritarians out there who are saying that morality is determined by the state, end of story.....first of all, you are wrong. Second of all, you are wrong.

1. Morality is not absolute nor is it governed by law. Law may be an expression of morality, but cultural morality changes as ideas change....Ideas change as people discuss them, like here on this forum.

Nice try attempting to stifle discussion and intellectualism and maintain the status quo.


2. The US legal system does not consider copyright violation to be "theft".

Look up the laws for theft. Look up the laws for copyright violation. You will see that they are not prosecuted under the same codes. If you pirate a $20 album you will NOT be charged with petty theft. You will be charged with copyright violation.


So you are wrong and you are wrong.


Does that mean that its ethical to file share? Ethics are subjective. I am not a capitalist. I have different views on these things. I am not a champion of the corporations to see that they get all of the money 'they are entitled to'. I have other priorities.

Its funny how the same person in one thread will argue that piracy drives prices up as an argument then immediately says it drives prices down as an argument.....Do you actually know what you think or are you making it up as you go along? Taking whatever position is diametrically opposed to what you perceive is your opposition?

Unlike most of the capitalists here, I subscribe to an ideology of 'class war'. This is a modifier in how I view the issue of copyright violations and even outright theft, though they are generally two different things.
Last edited by Nick_Djinn on Fri May 28, 2010 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by FedoraRefugee »

DrHu wrote:I wouldn't call anything we have a free market, it is driven by monopolies and there is no free anymore, if ever there was..
I agree that what we have is not a pure free market. Nothing is ever pure, you can pick anything apart. A free market would be totally unregulated, we all know we cannot have that. There do need to be regulations to keep things honest. As far as everything being driven by monopolies...I disagree. Really, in the US, most of the monopolies are in the public service sector. Things like electric and cable service. Out in the private market all I see is choice! Computer operating systems are the exception, but no one is preventing another company from starting up. MS is just too big to compete with, though did you see that Apple is now worth more than MS for the first time?
The market theories
  • May be tried (many aren't)
  • May be known (but not really understood completely, even by the experts)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/true
  • Date: before 12th century
    1 a : steadfast, loyal b : honest, just c archaic : truthful
    2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled
But they are not true, as in consistent with reality
--or the sea change of the financial collapse wouldn't have happened as fast or as wide as it did, when it started: perhaps the theorists (economists etc) who managed that state of affairs failed to realize the implications quick enough or were otherwise slipshod in their understanding (complete grasp of the realities), and so like the titanic, it slipped away..
I disagree. The capitalistic idea of a free market was what enabled my country to grow from an agricultural center to an industrial world power. Real men were able to follow their own visions and in the process they created wealth and jobs for everyone. What put the brakes on everything was when regulations made it impossible for a manufacturer to produce in this country and forced them into cheaper markets. Now we do not produce anything. We are simply riding on what we once were. Bring production back and we would boom again. Really, it is that simple.
I still think piracy is piracy, and that's all I could say to that: any sophist arguments are mere technical repetitions of dubious grounds..

But I want to give an example of "free" market business attitude:, and I could say rightest instead of leftist

In many a business, the owner, has an inherent interest in its success; employees of that owner have far less invested, but if you watch or see some business people in operation, you might notice that they seem to want or imply that an employee should have as much concern about the business as the owner does
  • That position is basically absurd, it attempts to make the employee a partner, when he is nothing of the like
    --there is no great reward in working as long as the owner wants you to (time and effort), if there is no profit in it, other than the normal paycheck
And yet, many business owners get very offended when they cannot get an employee to work as long or as hard as themselves; forgetting completely or ignoring the difference between an employee and an owner..
  • Leftists see businesses as exploiters in the main
  • Rightists see businesses as the bringer of wealth
    --forgetting or ignoring, wealth for whom ?
I think I am missing the point. But I agree with what you are saying. Why should my employees care how much profit I make? They are only concerned with what I pay them, which is NEVER enough... :roll:

Leftists see businesses as exploiters in the main - But are you not biting the hand that feeds you? Listen, I can see your view, employers will hire as cheaply as possible, they do not want to give benefits, they essentially do not care about employees. But that is where the free market comes in. Henry Ford showed this in the early 1900's when he paid his employees unprecedented amounts over the competition. He got a larger number of the most qualified employees to work for him. If I did not pay my guys what they are worth then they would go work for someone else. They do not have to love me, and I do not have to love them. It IS a partnership albeit a limited partnership. They do their part and I do mine and we all profit. I profit a great deal more than they do...But I am the one taking the risks. I am the one giving them the chance to shoot rivets in aluminum.

Rightists are correct, businesses are a bringer of wealth. For everyone, including the entire market. If I do well I can give my employees a raise. The smart business owner KNOWS that he needs to keep his employees happy. If my employees are happy they will perform better, I can do more jobs and we all make more money. There are less mistakes that we have to waste time going back to fix. But...Even further, when I can give my employees more money they enjoy a better quality of life too! They can now go out and buy that new car they have been looking at. This benefits the car dealer and the auto manufacturer. Then they sell more cars and they can afford to pay their people better. Then their people can now go to Mcdonalds for lunch instead of eating brown bag sandwiches. So the Mcdonalds gains business, they need to hire on a few more grillmen for the lunch shift. They also buy more hamburger meat and buns. That enables these sectors to expand their production. And on and on and on...

This is why socialism is a flop. Unless...You ever could put central control into the hands of the people, the workman, the laborer. But you cannot. The US democratic republic comes closest to doing this, or at least it did...With socialism you really have no choice except put the government in power. Total control. My friend, our government cannot even run a post office and keep it in the black!!! This has been my experience living in my country. Maybe you have different experiences. I do not think this is a black or white issue and there is no wrong or right. It is all a huge experiment and we just stumble along century after century trying to improve our condition. But I do know one thing, unless I can own the wealth I create there really would be no point in creating it! :wink:
Last edited by FedoraRefugee on Fri May 28, 2010 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Biker
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:58 am
Location: Where my hat is

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Biker »

randomizer wrote: Incorrect, he lost my potential sale. There is absolutely no way to prove if I would have bought it were it not available for free.
You can split hairs all day long, but in the end, if you steal something that is not normally provided for "free", it is a lost sale. It doesn't matter if you had no intention of paying for it or not.
Linux User #384279
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Nick_Djinn »

This is why socialism is a flop.
Stalinist/Maoist Communism is a flp. However, the average quality of life for the normal working class tends to be higher in many Northern European Democratic Socialist countries than it is in the US....Switzerland is more democratic and yet more socialist. Granted its a smaller country, but maybe the states should emulate that model and the fed should be a loose uniter of the federations.
Unless...You ever could put central control into the hands of the people, the workman, the laborer. But you cannot
The Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain.

The Mondragon Corporation continues to this day to pull off a working model of workers self managment and workers collective ownership of the means of production, democratically.

The Democratic Socialist countries are MORE democratic than our Republic.
Nick_Djinn
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 7:12 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Nick_Djinn »

Biker wrote:
randomizer wrote: Incorrect, he lost my potential sale. There is absolutely no way to prove if I would have bought it were it not available for free.
You can split hairs all day long, but in the end, if you steal something that is not normally provided for "free", it is a lost sale. It doesn't matter if you had no intention of paying for it or not.
:lol:

You have not absorbed a word anyone has said have you? Do you watch Fox news? :lol:



Image
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by FedoraRefugee »

randomizer wrote:Incorrect, he lost my potential sale. There is absolutely no way to prove if I would have bought it were it not available for free. If i choose to use Linux instead of Windows, Microsoft has not lost a sale, they simply haven't gained one. If I choose to pirate Windows, Microsoft has not lost a sale, they just haven't gained one. If I buy a pirated copy of Windows then they have lost a sale because I did intend to pay for it. That is a lost sale, not a lost potential sale. But buying a pirated copy is not usually the focus when we're discussing piracy and as such I won't go down that tangent.
It does not matter if you WOULD have bought it! If you pirate the item they LOST a sale! You have the item, they do not have your money. Case closed! You can twist words and definitions and over-analyze it all you like, it is stealing. :D
If everyone thought as I do they wouldn't be infringing copyright.
You do the same thing you are accusing me of!
If this is really what you think then you have inverted my opinion on the matter to increase the impact of your own argument. It's one thing to make a strawman out of my argument, it's another to tell me that I'm arguing against my own opinion.
I stated that if everyone felt as you do then the manufacturer would not make ANY money! You may be right, it would not be copyright infringement because the creator would no longer be in business and there would be nothing to steal!
FedoraRefugee wrote: By saying that if you had to pay his price you would not have bought the product anyway or chosen a cheaper competing product is also irrelevant. THEN DO IT!!! Instead of stealing the example product! Then, if enough people did that the manufacturer would have to lower his own price to compete.
I agree. This is one of my usual arguments. Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean that piracy is justified. Copyright laws don't have an exception for low income earners.
FedoraRefugee wrote:If you are not willing to buy the product then you have no right to that product.
Once again I'm in total agreement.
FedoraRefugee wrote:You cannot say that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so that is why you just took it for free!
It is a common excuse, and it's also a very bad one. But this is not what I am arguing. I'm not saying that because you may not have bought it anyway that this gives you the right to break copyright laws. I'm saying that because you may not have bought it that it can't be counted as a lost sale.
[/quote]

Agreed! UNTIL you steal it! THEN it becomes a lost sale! You took possession of a good without paying for it! That is not only a lost sale, it is theft!
Last edited by FedoraRefugee on Fri May 28, 2010 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Biker
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:58 am
Location: Where my hat is

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Biker »

Nick_Djinn wrote:2. The US legal system does not consider copyright violation to be "theft".

Look up the laws for theft. Look up the laws for copyright violation. You will see that they are not prosecuted under the same codes. If you pirate a $20 album you will NOT be charged with petty theft. You will be charged with copyright violation.


So you are wrong and you are wrong.
Are you that dense? Theft can be covered under several statutes and it IS covered under several statutes, laws, and regulations. If you steal a $20 album, you will be charged with the most likely charge that can be made to stick and prosecuted. And since the punitive damages can be much higher with copyright infringement, guess what you're going to get nailed with?
Nick_Djinn wrote: Does that mean that its ethical to file share? Ethics are subjective. I am not a capitalist. I have different views on these things. I am not a champion of the corporations to see that they get all of the money 'they are entitled to'. I have other priorities.
That's obvious. Amazing how people continue to justify illegal behavior.

Nick_Djinn wrote: Unlike most of the capitalists here, I subscribe to an ideology of 'class war'. This is a modifier in how I view the issue of copyright violations and even outright theft, though they are generally two different things.
They aren't different. Keep thinking that as the judge sentences you after you're caught. And when you cry to the media how unfair it is that the ruling class has put an end to your unjustified crime spree, perhaps then you may get a clue. I doubt it, though.
Linux User #384279
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by randomizer »

Biker wrote:You can split hairs all day long, but in the end, if you steal something that is not normally provided for "free", it is a lost sale. It doesn't matter if you had no intention of paying for it or not.
See now you've made a claim here without providing any reasoning. You're telling me I should agree with you - your reiteration that it's a lost sale and that it's theft - because you're right. Sorry but that's just not how to have a debate. But ok, I'll play along. No it's not theft and no it's not a lost sale, because it isn't.
Biker
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:58 am
Location: Where my hat is

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by Biker »

Nick_Djinn wrote: You have not absorbed a word anyone has said have you? Do you watch Fox news? :lol:
No, I just ignore pitiful excuses that attempt to justify illegal behavior.
Linux User #384279
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by randomizer »

FedoraRefugee wrote:It does not matter if you WOULD have bought it! If you pirate the item they LOST a sale! You have the item, they do not have your money. Case closed! You can twist words and definitions and over-analyze it all you like, it is stealing. :D
If I walk into a store and steal a DVD player, it must be replaced which costs the store money. That store has lost something and they will lose more to replace it. If I pirate Windows, Microsoft does not need to replace that copy of Windows. They have lost nothing and they have gained nothing. If you can't see the difference here then we will have to agree to disagree, because it seems to me as though you can't tell the difference between a loss and the lack of gain.
FedoraRefugee wrote:You do the same thing you are accusing me of!
I don't follow, do elaborate.
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 864
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by randomizer »

Biker wrote:No, I just ignore pitiful excuses that attempt to justify illegal behavior.
Well I have not read all of Nick's posts (in fact I didn't even read the OP) but so far I've not seen anyone justifying illegal behaviour so let's keep it that way.
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Nick_Djinn wrote:I am glad I got some interesting discussion going here. :D


But for all you authoritarians out there who are saying that morality is determined by the state, end of story.....first of all, you are wrong. Second of all, you are wrong.

1. Morality is not absolute nor is it governed by law. Law may be an expression of morality, but cultural morality changes as ideas change....Ideas change as people discuss them, like here on this forum.

Nice try attempting to stifle discussion and intellectualism and maintain the status quo.


2. The US legal system does not consider copyright violation to be "theft".

Look up the laws for theft. Look up the laws for copyright violation. You will see that they are not prosecuted under the same codes. If you pirate a $20 album you will NOT be charged with petty theft. You will be charged with copyright violation.


So you are wrong and you are wrong.


Does that mean that its ethical to file share? Ethics are subjective. I am not a capitalist. I have different views on these things. I am not a champion of the corporations to see that they get all of the money 'they are entitled to'. I have other priorities.

Its funny how the same person in one thread will argue that piracy drives prices up as an argument then immediately says it drives prices down as an argument.....Do you actually know what you think or are you making it up as you go along? Taking whatever position is diametrically opposed to what you perceive is your opposition?

Unlike most of the capitalists here, I subscribe to an ideology of 'class war'. This is a modifier in how I view the issue of copyright violations and even outright theft, though they are generally two different things.
So glad you have the definitive answers!

1. Morality comes from God...or the Creator or Supreme Being however you view Him. Without that touchstone morality is simply what we make it. Murder could be wrong or right, your choice. In fact, if we are all just evolved from elements and are simply a freak accident and there is no afterlife or judge then it really does not matter anyway. You would be a fool to live according to ANYONE'S ideas of morality, you should be raping, pillaging, and plundering your way through life because this is all you got and it does not matter anyway. You are creating your own chains! But that is all for another thread! Fell free to start it.

2. I covered this in an earlier post. I agree that some cases have distinguished between the two, others have not. It is irrelevant.

3. I clearly stated why piracy drives prices up. I just let my nine year old read it then quizzed him on what I wrote. He fully understood. Sorry you cannot hang! :lol:

4. Class war? Lol! Maybe one day you will grow up and become a productive member of society... :D
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Nick_Djinn wrote:Stalinist/Maoist Communism is a flp. However, the average quality of life for the normal working class tends to be higher in many Northern European Democratic Socialist countries than it is in the US....Switzerland is more democratic and yet more socialist. Granted its a smaller country, but maybe the states should emulate that model and the fed should be a loose uniter of the federations.
Yeah, you claimed this before...Yet per capita America is wealthier. I disagree. I think we have the highest quality of life in this country. But...We also have a greater range of incomes than Sweden, which I believe is the example you wanted to use? Switzerland is a parliamentary democratic republic. Anyway, comparison to Switzerland works too. You have to consider that America is a melting pot with cultures from all around the world. It also has vastly more people than either of these small European countries. You are comparing apples and oranges. But yeah, America has more poverty level people, but our poverty level lives better than the average income in most countries. If you consider that most poverty level here have two cars, own a home, have more than one television, usually at least one big screen LCD, have cell phones, computers, cable and internet...Then I would have to say our quality of life is just fine. :D

The Anarcho-Syndicalists did in Spain.

The Mondragon Corporation continues to this day to pull off a working model of workers self managment and workers collective ownership of the means of production, democratically.

The Democratic Socialist countries are MORE democratic than our Republic.
Spain has 20% unemployment and is fixing to collapse. If it is so much better then why are you here? :wink:

BTW, I watch Fox news! It is the only news that actually reports news anymore! CNN is also acceptable, though not the same quality. Fox is fair, they have both sides of the argument on though there is no doubt they lean to the right. That is fine with me though as I am on the right! :D What do YOU watch? MSNBC? :lol:
User avatar
markfiend
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: Why piracy isnt theft

Post by markfiend »

My take on copyright infringement, downloading, and so forth:

There is an argument that goes as follows:
If a man has an apple, I take the apple, he no longer has the apple. This is theft, as I have deprived him of his apple.
If a man has a digital file, I take a copy of the digital file, he still has the digital file. This is not theft as I have deprived him of nothing.

Obviously this does not take into account the effort the other guy may have put in to creating the digital file in the first place. But if the content creator agrees with this philosophy and gives his time for free (e.g GPL software, creative commons stuff, etc.) then fine.

The problem for the "ban all downloads" authoritarians is that extensive research suggests that the more music (for example) a person downloads, the more music that person is likely to buy. I have certainly in the past illegally downloaded music, decided I liked the music, and then gone and bought the same music. Perhaps I'm in a minority here though! But this download was not a 'lost sale'; I went and bought it later.

Another thing is that if someone were prevented from downloading a certain piece of music, you have no guarantee that he would instead buy it: most likely he'd just do without. So there's no way that this download was a 'lost sale' either.

Also, the music business can't put the download genie back into the bottle. The more strenuously they chase after downloaders, the more they reinforce the idea that they're the bad guys, chasing kids for thousands of dollars for downloading a couple of mp3s.

So while I agree that in principle, freeloading other people's creativity is "a bad thing", there are shades of grey.

And finally:
FedoraRefugee wrote:You would be a fool to live according to ANYONE'S ideas of morality, you should be raping, pillaging, and plundering your way through life because this is all you got and it does not matter anyway. You are creating your own chains! But that is all for another thread! Fell free to start it.
If this is what you think morality would be like without a god, I'm quite glad that you believe in one!
Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
Post Reply

Return to “Open chat”