Piracy is not "theft" - and is actually a net good?

[sha123]

@exaCORE

I think this topic is a bit too nuanced for an online forum imo

So is privacy and security

[Satoshi]

So are you saying that piracy, as in downloading content without acquiring a license and/or without making a purchase, even though that is what the owner of the rights requires, is not theft? In your mind, should reproduction of any digital content be permitted at any time for any reason? Would you say that piracy is either moral or at least not immoral in the above example?

To clarify even further, what is your definition of “piracy” and what is your definition of “theft”?

The “Piracy is theft” is a slogan from the 80s anti piracy propaganda and has not legal framework to support it.

Actually it does have a legal framework, for example DMCA and see here for more: Copyright Law of the United States | U.S. Copyright Office.

Even lawyers at Harvard admit is not the same.

Here is the abstract from the original paper:

Contrary to a popular belief of lawyers having the most strict perception of law, law professionals actually strongly skew toward more favorable views of digital sharing. According to our qualitative study, relying on in-depth interviews with 50 Harvard lawyers, digital piracy is quite acceptable. It is considered fair, especially among friends and for noncommercial purposes. We argue that this not only can indicate that the existing law is becoming outdated because of its inability to be enforced, but also that ethically it is not corresponding to what is considered fair, good service, or being societally beneficial. The common perception of relying on a fixed price for digital content is eroding. We show that on the verges of business, society, and law, there is a potential for the new paradigm of digital commons to emerge.

Just because some law professionals think that piracy is more favorable and argue that the existing law is outdated, doesn’t mean that it’s not the law. These are social arguments, especially in regards to “fairness”, not moral arguments nor what the law currently is.

@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 there’s 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?

I’m not making any arguments on “maximizing the benefit to the public” or other social arguments and I care very little for it. I’m stating what it is and isn’t. Those two are very different things.

[Reset0609]

@Satoshi

I’m not making any arguments on “maximizing the benefit to the public” or other social arguments and I care very little for it.

You fundamentally misapprehend the point of copyright laws then.

@Satoshi

I’m stating what it is and isn’t. Those two are very different things.

All I have seen is an inadequate use of bunch of loaded terms as a jumping off point to talk about laws in an attempt to equate law with moral code.

[anon29374801]

Seems hypocritical to say

@Satoshi

I’m not making any arguments on “maximizing the benefit to the public” or other social arguments and I care very little for it. I’m stating what it is and isn’t. Those two are very different things.

but then you are willing to make “moral” arguments, which I think would fall into the “social argument” arena (as far as I can tell, since it seems to be a made up term), such as

@Satoshi

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 I’m saying is that you don’t owe someone a justification or explanation for doing any of it. It’s not good and definitely not great, but as you said “it is what it is.”

[Satoshi]

@Reset0609

All I have seen is an inadequate use of bunch of loaded terms as a jumping off point to talk about laws in an attempt to equate law with moral code.

@Reset0609

All I have seen is an inadequate use of bunch of loaded terms as a jumping off point to talk about laws in an attempt to equate law with moral code.

None of what you said are any arguments, so if you want to continue the discussion, make an argument.

@anon29374801

Seems hypocritical to say

@Satoshi

I’m not making any arguments on “maximizing the benefit to the public” or other social arguments and I care very little for it. I’m stating what it is and isn’t. Those two are very different things.

Elaborate on how what I said is hypocritical.

@anon29374801

but then you are willing to make “moral” arguments, which I think would fall into the “social argument” arena (as far as I can tell, since it seems to be a made up term), such as

@Satoshi

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 I’m saying is that you don’t owe someone a justification or explanation for doing any of it. It’s not good and definitely not great, but as you said “it is what it is.”

Moral actions and moral arguments fall under morality and has nothing to do with society or culture.

Once again, I’m not hearing any arguments or any references to any laws, codes, or statutes nor any specific legal cases. I understand that the users are biased here leaning one direction rather than another, just how I would be attacked in a conservative forum should I make an argument for open borders or in a liberal forum for making an argument against abortion. I understand people here feel strongly about the topic of discussion, however I attempted to be objective about it. As some others mentioned, I don’t believe this is the right place to discuss this given how the discussion turned out.

I will not reply any further in this thread, unless someone makes a concrete argument, whether it’s for or against, and references relevant laws in question. Otherwise, this turns into nothing more than a circle jerk, which is unproductive. I’m happy for anyone to point to any legal cases or statues should my understanding of copyright and contract law be erroneous. I didn’t mention this before, but I am not a lawyer.

[anon29374801]

@Satoshi

Moral actions and moral arguments fall under morality and has nothing to do with society or culture.

This is silly to act as if society and culture do not have a massive effect on what people consider moral.

@Satoshi

Elaborate on how what I said is hypocritical.

You are making moral and social judgements while refusing to hear counter moral and social judgements.

This is the slippery slope you put yourself on by basing most of your arguments on very subjective terms.

@Satoshi

I’m not making any arguments on “maximizing the benefit to the public” or other social arguments and I care very little for it.

@Satoshi

I’m not hearing any arguments or any references to any laws, codes, or statutes nor any specific legal cases.

No arguments regarding morality, society, laws, statutes, legal cases, codes…what kind of arguments are you willing to respond to at this point?

[Reset0609]

@Satoshi

None of what you said are any arguments, so if you want to continue the discussion, make an argument.

Indeed what I have done is poke holes at your argument. I am not under any obligation to provide something else for you to divert your attention to, which is what you are requesting. If you do not want to defend what you have stated, that is fine by me, I already have said what I wanted to say about it…

@Satoshi

I’m not hearing any arguments or any references to any laws, codes, or statutes nor any specific legal cases.

Perhaps because the topic is about the benefits (or lack thereof) that ‘piracy’ can have, and not laws or statutes? Once again, you seem to be arguing under the impression that law equals morality. Can you please explain why do you think that is the case?

[dumpster]

Online “piracy” is a violation of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is obviously profoundly different from physical property. The concept of IP alone is millennia younger than property.

Is piracy theft in the traditional definition of theft? Of course not. It is a modern societal violation more akin to counterfeiting currency or plagiarism than to physical robbery.

Put simply, intellectual property rights are a legal system to incentivize innovation. I think it is incredibly important to recognize that innovation and art existed well before the earliest germs of intellectual property law.

I also think that any system that ceases to be a net positive should be swiftly excised with extreme prejudice. I wonder if we’ve reached that point with intellectual property.

What’s really important are medical patents, not Mickey Mouse. The morality of torrenting vs account sharing vs paying doesn’t rate compared to the human cost of inaccessible medicine.

[exaCORE]

@dumpster

What’s really important are medical patents, not Mickey Mouse. The morality of torrenting vs account sharing vs paying doesn’t rate compared to the human cost of inaccessible medicine.

Wait how did we get to the healthcare industry from piracy?

[devious.passenger]

@Satoshi

To clarify even further, what is your definition of “piracy” and what is your definition of “theft”?

You can have your own definitions, you can point at a dictionary but none of that matters. Dictionary definitions change based on how people use the terms. Nobody ever waits for a word to be added to the dictionary first and only then start using it. It is pointless to use this as the main argument. Just look at the most common usage of the words today instead.

When people hear the word “stealing”, they normally think about someone taking a physical object from someone who owns it without their permission. It is usually implied that the owner loses the access to that object. Assume a situation where colleague takes your phone without your permission, uses it for an hour and then returns it. Normally people wouldn’t use use the word “steal” in this case and say something like “the colleague took/used my phone without my permission”. Similarly, nobody ever says that they’re going to use torrent software to “steal” a movie from the internet. If downloading a movie without permission was the same as stealing, we would simply use the word “steal”.

Claiming that digital piracy is theft oversimplifies a complex topic and makes it harder to have a productive discussion about it.

Therefore, I’d like steer the discussion to something more interesting. Is piracy always immoral and is it always causing damage?

Let’s start by comparing these simple scenarios:

• 1. I steal a music album CD from someone who paid 10$ for it.
• 2. I buy a music album for 10$, create a copy of it and give it to a friend.

Are both scenarios causing 10$ worth of damage?

[Reset0609]

@devious.passenger

Are both scenarios causing 10$ worth of damage?

No, clearly not. Just because someone illegaly acquires something does not mean they would otherwise buy it. Thats one of the most preposterous arguments that is often made. (not saying it is the argument you’re making, just giving my 2c)