I think you misread my comment.
I was offering a counter to @Valynor point of going to the extreme of
That counter being that the opposite, everyone paying for everything is actually worse. So to argue having a society going more towards that direction is not a strong argument.
They were following OPâs logic to its conclusion. The opposite would be âwhat if all people DIDNâT pirateâ, not "what if everything were privatized.
The opposite of âno one buying anythingâ is not âno one pirating anything.â
Yes, if vals extreme was ONLY âwhat if everything was piratedâ but that was only partially what the scenario was. Also included was the parameter
I think your disagreement is actually with the conclusion Val drew off of OPs logic and not my response to that, possibly incorrect, conclusion.
There is a big difference between never purchasing anything and always pirating things. For example even if everything was pirated, you would still need to purchase a car (or steal it) but if no one buys anything all of a sudden there are free cars.
why would you condemn piracy while acknowledging its the system causing this failure, not the pirates? Its the government or service that should be condemned for their practices, not the people unwilling to participate in an unfair system.
A DVD is a copy. If you take the DVD without paying for it and without the ownerâs/creatorâs permission, thatâs theft. In the same way torrenting a movie without paying for it is theft.
- the unauthorized use of anotherâs production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
If you want to change the definition of piracy to make an argument, thatâs fine as long as you explain what you mean by piracy. But using the dictionary definiton of it, itâs stealing. All Iâm saying is that people donât need to justify or explain why they pirate or steal, since it doesnât change the nature of their actions. Theft is theft no matter how you try to justify or rationalize it. Personally I donât really care, so if you want to steal, steal and be happy.
Only for software
Piracy had never been stealing. But everyone got caught on the propaganda.
You are forgetting the part where theft implies the rightful owner is dispossessed of the property being stolen. Thankfully, to this day, some dictionaries have not yet succumbed to the appropriation of the word âtheftâ by copyright holders: THEFT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Itâs worth thinking about how big business, to its own benefit, appropriated established and well defined terms in order to facilitate arguments similar to yours. âTheftâ and âpiracyâ definitely sounds worse than âcopyright violationâ. It is however misleading to discuss the matter under a framework that was devised by record label lobbyists
Are you saying that theft can only occur with physical objects? That seems like a bit limiting of a definition.
If a company used a GPL FOSS project for their own proprietary product i would call that theft, so by that logic other types of copyright infringement are also theft (note: i am not saying ALL because values may differ based on time passed since original was created etc, but as a concept, piracy is theft by the logic above)
No, I did not say that.
Some people have famously called all of open source theft. Youâd be playing into their hands by contributing to the normalization of such language where it does not apply.
Ironically, âpiracyâ is the other term that big business appropriated to make anyone give a crap about copyright infringement. I canât recall the name but there is a documentary that explains how record label lobbyists had the idea of calling copyright infringement âtheftâ. Since that was a leap in logic, they had a marketing agency come up with the idea of digital piracy. The whole thing is a house of cards that people have with time been conditioned to believe in and just treat as a matter of fact
All I know about this topic is, sometimes, piracy is justified, for example, I paid for Prime Video, but I am limited to a very low video resolution when watching on Linux (my preferred OS). Therefore, I might find a way to pirate the movies/shows I really want to watch in a high resolution. I paid for it. Itâs not like the service gives me some discounts if I watch on Linux anyway.
In this case, it feels like the service robs me first by forcing me to use a paid OS on desktop, either Windows or macOS.
However, if the service is very good, I wouldnât bother to pirate. For me, itâs a waste of time. For example, I am a YouTube Premium user, I have never pirated anything on YouTube or YouTube Music. Everything on there is available at its highest resolution/quality on any platform.
This, however, is not taking privacy into consideration, as all the major services donât accept Monero or other anonymous payment methods. So, there are some tradeoffs even if I am a paying customer. But I wouldnât mind for anyone to know whether I am a Prime Video or YouTube Premium member.
I hope there is a way to make those services respect users privacy more. On the other hand, I also wish the piracy sites would find a way to support the artists, creators, and everyone who makes the movies and shows that I like. But it seems neither of that is going to happen anytime soon 
If you steal a physical DVD, then yes. If you just make a digital copy of the DVD, thatâs not theft. Thatâs just copying.
Nitpit: thatâs allowed by the GPL as long as that proprietary product is used just internally (or runs on a server â thatâs what the AGPL is for).
But assuming that proprietary product is published for free I wouldnât call it theft either, this is actually a good example for copyright infringement or piracy. If it was sold for profit, itâs getting closer to âtheftâ even though the GPL developer doesnât âloseâ anything.
I think profiting from piracy (selling your copies) is definitely unethical and rightfully a crime. You could argue that itâs a kind of theft (even though the original owner doesnât lose anything) because these revenues should have gone to the copyright holder. But non-commercial piracy for private consumption? Thatâs not theft. And as itâs free, thereâs no way to know which revenues the copyright owner is missing out on.
If you steal a physical DVD, then yes. If you just make a digital copy of the DVD, thatâs not theft. Thatâs just copying.
And if you donât pay for it and torrent it from someone else who happened to make a copy of it, thatâs theft. (Edit: Since weâre being nitpicky, assuming the creator did not consent to it. If the creatorâs condition is that buying his content provides you only with a personal use license, then sharing it is a violation of the license and itâs theft.)
Very often a component of theft is depriving the owner of the item. If you have made a copy of the original, then some would not define that as theft. The original is intact and remains in their possession.
Wikipedia is interesting here:
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping, or using of anotherâs property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive the owner or rightful possessor of that property or its use.
So riddle me this then: Why is it that when a person buys an Amazon Kindle copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Amazon decides to delete your Kindle copy (for whatever reason) is not equally theft? They took value from you: You had an audiobook, and suddenly you dont? Clearly something has gone wrong if that isnt stealing.
Ok how about this as well, since we are all about profits and losses:
I bought a book/movie/CD/whatever and lend it to my friend because my friend is nice to me. Because my friend consumed the media and will likely not buy another copy, wont that be a loss to the business that owns the license to the media? Should we ban and make illegal shared media experiences as well?
I believe in the power and potential of open-source software, which is freely available to everyone. I also think people should absolutely donate and support such projects, and would prefer to over paid software. Whereas there are greedy entities who attempt to monetize similar services, often adding unnecessary (extra power usage = worse for environment) and potentially harmful elements such as trackers, because thatâs what greedy people do! I question the ethics of such capitalistic practices, especially when we consider the current state of the world. This is why I advocate for online piracy.
It depends entirely on the contract, agreement, and the license you agree to upon purchase. If you purchase a license to acquire an eBook to be used exclusively with the Amazon Kindle, then that is all youâre allowed to do by law. That is how licensing works. You do not purchase a license for unlimited and universal rights to the material, writings, product, or other creative content. You are voluntarily entering into an agreement when making the purchase, which binds you and the other party to the terms of the agreement. If you go beyond it, you violate the agreement.
Nobody is coercing you to enter into the agreement, it is strictly voluntary. If the agreement outlines that you are not just purchasing a license to view the material using a specific application or product, but that you have a personal license to view the material in any form, then it doesnât matter whether you get it via the Kindle App or torrent it, since itâs within the bounds of the agreement.
If you acquired an eBook and receive the rights from the copyright and IP holder to make unlimited copies and share those copies with anyone, then itâs completely fine to copy it, download it from somewhere else, or do anything else with it unless specified otherwise.
If we changed the law to say that when you buy an eBook, you are not just buying an eBook, but also a license to reproduce the content and share or even sell it, then the market would see a significant change, since there would be nothing from stopping one person from buying it and then sharing it with everyone, thereby giving the creator of it only 1 sale. The only way this could happen is if we made it illegal to have other types of license agreements.
In the case of Amazon, if they outlined in their Terms of Service that they can terminate your account under certain conditions. If you sign up, that means you entered into an agreement. If you purchase an eBook, you are purchasing a license, not a product. Should Amazon terminate your account and you lose access to any services and licenses, then that is between you and Amazon. This is a voluntary agreement. If you donât want to agree to those terms, donât use Amazon. Should you have only purchased a license to the content via Amazon and torrent the eBook from another location, then that is a violation of the agreement and yes, itâs theft.
This is why if you pirate content, but do not have a license for that content, then it is theft by definition as you do not have permission to the content from the copyright holder. This is not just how copyright works, this is how private property rights work.
I bought a book/movie/CD/whatever and lend it to my friend because my friend is nice to me. Because my friend consumed the media and will likely not buy another copy, wont that be a loss to the business that owns the license to the media? Should we ban and make illegal shared media experiences as well?
Iâm not advocating for anything, Iâm stating how contract law and licensing works. If you agree to an agreement, you are bound to it.
I think I know what you generally mean.
Its just that its frustrating that if shenanigans happen to digital copies:
Its vexing to see that you are technically correct because of how much youâve written and scoped it fairly in the eyes of the law. But its plain to see: its bad if we pirate it and corporations have the legalese on their side if they take away copies away from us. Itâs as if all these copyrights and licenses has allowed for the erosion of the meaning and concept of media ownership just to make corporations rake in profit.
Corporations get away with corporate things and people will pirate things. People are legally wrong and corpos are morally/ethically wrong.
It is what it is.
Corporations get away with corporate things and people will pirate things. People are legally wrong and corpos are morally/ethically wrong.
If you look at it from a libertarian perspective, both are technically immoral. People are stealing, which is immoral and a violation of private property rights, and corporations use the state, which has a monopoly on the initiation on the use of force, to enforce their rules, which is also inherently immoral and a violation of private property rights.
Again, as I said above, if you want to pirate, pirate. If you want to steal, steal. All Iâm saying is that you donât owe someone a justification or explanation for doing any of it. Itâs not good and definitely not great, but as you said âit is what it is.â
Probably the best option here is to simply take your business to other sites and marketplaces or buy from smaller creators who share your sentiment. The more people do it, the stronger that economy and community becomes. The best way to get others to jump onboard is by providing a viable and more preferable alternative.
Thatâs just not true, stop it.
Even lawyers at Harvard admit is not the same.
The âPiracy is theftâ is a slogan from the 80s anti piracy propaganda and has not legal framework to support it.
You can think it is wrong and inmoral all you want, but it is simply not the same as theft.
I think this topic is a bit too nuanced for an online forum imo
@Satoshi ignores the fact that he is buying into alternative meanings of well established words in order to make his arguments seem more legitimate, something me, you and others have pointed out. A shame since I think thereâs an interesting conversation to be had regarding the notion of copyright, its protection by the state and how that can be balanced to maximize the benefit to the public. That would lead us to an interesting question: Is it morally wrong to illegally acquire something you would otherwise never legally buy?