It is an assumption, based on their reasoning and how when you draw the discussion out
If you're talking about me, specifically, then I don't know why you're generalizing and saying that all pirates are like that. Unless you're a mind reader, I doubt you have any idea what others are truly thinking unless they announce it themselves.
"You appear to be defending pirates. Therefore, you're a pirate yourself!"
at which point they shift the discussion to "whose ethic"
I didn't shift the discussion (if that's what you're saying). You just didn't give me much to reply to. Since you stated that it was factually wrong (or, at least, that is how it appeared), I merely wanted to know how you came to such a conclusion (the knowledge that there are absolute morals and that piracy is wrong).
The mental acrobatics they perform are really quite impressive.
I think that's true no matter which group is arguing.
No, I didn't. I did imply that I wasn't specific enough, however. I said that they essentially have given the check to someone else, voluntarily, with the other person usually expecting it.
and that basically everyone who splits hairs over what to call it does so for selfish reasons.
That's just an assumption on your part. I doubt you have any idea what they're thinking. They could be someone who is against copyright infringement and yet believes that it isn't theft.
How about you just use some common sense if you have access to any. If you need someone to explain pornography to you it would just be a waste of time to continue the discussion.
It's okay to me. If the parents don't want that, they can go through the effort of blocking it.
And don't say its the parents fault if you were a parent you would know quite well there no way in hell you can keep an eye on them all the time.
Too bad for them, then. I certainly don't care enough about a child accidentally viewing porn (don't care at all, actually) that I'd want ISPs to make access to porn opt-in.
You're forgetting something: if a child views porn, their innocent little mind will be obliterated in less than a second. They'll never be the same again. Therefore, ISPs should make viewing porn opt-in (even though that means that people who want to go an extra mile to 'protect' their children are inconveniencing others)!
So if someone mails you a check and I intercept it, that's OK?
Physically taking something that is essentially someone else's isn't the same as copying something, either. I say "essentially someone else's" because they could have just given you the check. The medium through which they give you the check is irrelevant, I think.
The difference is that pirates do none of that. They don't intercept checks. All they do is not support the creator.
How about if I rob your rich aunt, of whom you're the sole heir, the day before she dies?
Well, you definitely robbed my rich aunt, then.
And my only point wasn't that the creator didn't lose anything they already had. It was also that the pirate didn't take any of their time, resources, money, or property, either.
I can actually prove to you that there is a negative effect on sales
I'm not even arguing about that. I believe that, between all of the pirates in the world, there is almost certainly a negative effect on sales. I just don't believe it's theft.
Who says the content creator wants you downloading their song off of limewire?
My point is meant to be taken all at once. The fact that physical theft was involved and the fact that they merely assumed that they wanted to sell it to them in the first place is why I believe that is not a good analogy.
And the store can buy more milk.
And if someone stole a television from your house and left money for another one, you could go get another one. It's much different because, temporarily or not, you're taking away something that they had previously and forcing them to go get another (thereby using up their time and potentially their resources). That does not happen with piracy.
then money IS lost
What money? Does it vanish from the wallets of the creator(s)?
because the costs of production and time were not recouped
The pirate didn't incur those costs. And they don't incur more when they pirate something. The pirate just didn't support the business, and didn't even interact with them in the least (absolutely nothing that they had other than some hypothetical profit, as far as I know, was lost). I think it's a huge stretch to call that theft.
That's a false assumption. Everyone has SOME money
It was just a "what if" scenario. And no, I think it is perfectly possible for someone to have no money (although how they'd have an internet connection is beyond me).
You're looking at this as a micro-decision without considering the macro effect.
I'm only saying that I think the term "theft" does not describe copyright infringement.
But if we change the system so that it's OK to just download things without compensating the creators, then there is no compensation for the creators.
Perhaps not. Perhaps there would always be people who would give them at least some money. Personally, I believe it would be far less. But, who knows?
In any case, if that is what society decided, that is what will likely happen. I believe that, even without being paid, people would always continue to make games, software, art, music, movies, etc (although perhaps not many, if any, big-budget movies or games would get made).
you're really stealing from everyone else who does pay for it
I see. So I steal from them by... potentially allowing a creator or business to go bankrupt whilst not affecting the creator/business in any way (thereby making the ones who do pay for it miss out on potential future gain).
I don't see that as theft. Copyright infringement (in countries where it is illegal), yes, but not theft. I 'lose' potential gain all the time, and yet I would not call it theft. For instance, the guy who walked past me on the sidewalk could have given me all of his money. I don't think the fact that he didn't do so makes him a thief. The difference, of course, is that copyright is generally acceptable to most people (probably). But that doesn't change my point. I think that definition of "theft" is far, far too broad.
Try telling the bus company that you're not stealing when you get on the bus without paying since you didn't have the money to pay the fare anyway and sitting in the seat that would otherwise be empty didn't cost them anything.
Even if they said that it is, that would not mean that it is. That is just their idea of what theft is, not mine.
And that only really applies if there are no other people on the bus, and you, the one who didn't pay, forces the bus driver to waste their time and resources (which could be considered damage) to drive you somewhere at your personal request. Pirates usually don't interact with the creator at all (unless they're using their servers or something such as that).
The store is losing milk, is it not? Who says they wanted to sell to them? The people in your scenario are taking away someone else's property whilst going on the assumption that they wanted to sell to them and just leaving an amount of money less than the store sells it for doesn't hurt them.
An example of actual, physical theft.
Whereas in the case of piracy, all that is potentially lost is hypothetical profit. The pirate didn't interact with the creators, take anything from them, use up their time, or do anything to them. They made a copy of their products. They didn't support them. But I seriously think it's stretching it to call it "theft." I call it "copyright infringement."
Value is lost
But nothing they had is gone. If they lower their prices or their goods drop in value, the pirate didn't steal the value away (somehow). Rather, it was their (or someone else's) decision for it to happen.
Actual money is only lost if the pirate went up and robbed the store.
No, wanting it to some extent means you buy it or don't.
Or you pirate it. That's obviously also an option.
You don't get something for nothing just because you don't have or don't want to spend the money.
Assuming you have no money, what do the original creators lose when you pirate something that they made? Does some of their money magically vanish? Their property? Their time? What exactly do they lose?
Loss of potential sale is theft, plain and simple.
Potential loss of potential profit. In any case, how is it theft? Besides hypothetical profit, what exactly did they lose that they already had? I lose chances to gain something all the time, I'm sure, but I think it's a stretch to call it "theft." Losing this particular chance is often called "copyright infringement."
If you can't recoup the cost, you can't create more.
Not exactly the pirate's problem.
The cost of creating is owned money, you spend the money with the hopes of making it back, as well as enough to continue creating.
That's a risk. Even if no one pirated anything, there would still be a risk that you wouldn't make any money back. The only thing that pirates are doing is not supporting the business. I don't think that not supporting something (whilst also not interacting with it in any way) is the same as theft. I think that definition of "theft" is far too broad.
Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't make it OK
And the fact that you do agree with the law doesn't make it "okay," (okay to whom?) either.
There is no such thing as something for nothing.
Copying. Well, I suppose you do need electricity and such...
They are criminals, they are breaking the law.
As someone else pointed out to me, which laws? This isn't necessarily true in all countries.
I welcome you to counter my argument, your previous attempt did nothing sway my convictions.
For you to have downloaded/copied it, you had to want it on some extent. If you didn't want it, you wouldn't download it. If you did, you would buy it.
Wanting it to some extent does not necessarily mean that you would have bought it.
1) They might want to save money for other things that they deem as more important. 2) They might not even have money. 3) In some cases, the person might not have even been able to buy it in the first place (due to their location). 4) In some cases (perhaps most, but who really knows how many?), they might have bought it if they didn't pirate it.
And even if a person in the fourth category pirated something, I still do not believe that something was stolen. I believe that an act of copyright infringement (technically, all of them qualify) occurred and a chance to make a profit (potential profit) was lost. I only think that something is stolen if the original owner loses something that they already had (such as property or currently owned money), not just the chance to earn more money. I'm sure you can (and will) argue that copyright infringement is still harmful, but I didn't state anything about that.
Any other argument is just lying to yourself to justify that you are not a criminal.
I see. So you're 100% correct and anyone who challenges you is 100% wrong. In my opinion, not even accounting for the possibility that you may be wrong is quite arrogant.
In any case, I don't think that there's very many pirates who believe that they are not criminals. They're obviously breaking the law. Whether those laws are just or not is up to the individual to decide and is a different matter entirely.
It may be unfortunate to hear, but not everyone shares your opinion about what is "right" or "wrong." And they're not necessarily wrong.
After thinking about it some more, I think you may have a point. I think it would be useful is copyright terms were more predictable and didn't end simply because the original creator died. Though I still think that copyright terms need to be drastically reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
It is an assumption, based on their reasoning and how when you draw the discussion out
If you're talking about me, specifically, then I don't know why you're generalizing and saying that all pirates are like that. Unless you're a mind reader, I doubt you have any idea what others are truly thinking unless they announce it themselves.
"You appear to be defending pirates. Therefore, you're a pirate yourself!"
at which point they shift the discussion to "whose ethic"
I didn't shift the discussion (if that's what you're saying). You just didn't give me much to reply to. Since you stated that it was factually wrong (or, at least, that is how it appeared), I merely wanted to know how you came to such a conclusion (the knowledge that there are absolute morals and that piracy is wrong).
The mental acrobatics they perform are really quite impressive.
I think that's true no matter which group is arguing.
which even you now admit is bullshit.
No, I didn't. I did imply that I wasn't specific enough, however. I said that they essentially have given the check to someone else, voluntarily, with the other person usually expecting it.
my point was that it is wrong on some level
Wrong according to whom?
and that basically everyone who splits hairs over what to call it does so for selfish reasons.
That's just an assumption on your part. I doubt you have any idea what they're thinking. They could be someone who is against copyright infringement and yet believes that it isn't theft.
Or they care, but not enough to do anything about it.
Don't worry. They'll only go after the big, bad terrorists...
I think that's true.
Right. Every pirate claims that all things that involve copying in any way must be harmless. According to my straw man, at least.
How about you just use some common sense if you have access to any. If you need someone to explain pornography to you it would just be a waste of time to continue the discussion.
Thats OK by you so it seams
It's okay to me. If the parents don't want that, they can go through the effort of blocking it.
And don't say its the parents fault if you were a parent you would know quite well there no way in hell you can keep an eye on them all the time.
Too bad for them, then. I certainly don't care enough about a child accidentally viewing porn (don't care at all, actually) that I'd want ISPs to make access to porn opt-in.
You're forgetting something: if a child views porn, their innocent little mind will be obliterated in less than a second. They'll never be the same again. Therefore, ISPs should make viewing porn opt-in (even though that means that people who want to go an extra mile to 'protect' their children are inconveniencing others)!
So if someone mails you a check and I intercept it, that's OK?
Physically taking something that is essentially someone else's isn't the same as copying something, either. I say "essentially someone else's" because they could have just given you the check. The medium through which they give you the check is irrelevant, I think.
The difference is that pirates do none of that. They don't intercept checks. All they do is not support the creator.
How about if I rob your rich aunt, of whom you're the sole heir, the day before she dies?
Well, you definitely robbed my rich aunt, then.
And my only point wasn't that the creator didn't lose anything they already had. It was also that the pirate didn't take any of their time, resources, money, or property, either.
I can actually prove to you that there is a negative effect on sales
I'm not even arguing about that. I believe that, between all of the pirates in the world, there is almost certainly a negative effect on sales. I just don't believe it's theft.
Who says the content creator wants you downloading their song off of limewire?
My point is meant to be taken all at once. The fact that physical theft was involved and the fact that they merely assumed that they wanted to sell it to them in the first place is why I believe that is not a good analogy.
And the store can buy more milk.
And if someone stole a television from your house and left money for another one, you could go get another one. It's much different because, temporarily or not, you're taking away something that they had previously and forcing them to go get another (thereby using up their time and potentially their resources). That does not happen with piracy.
then money IS lost
What money? Does it vanish from the wallets of the creator(s)?
because the costs of production and time were not recouped
The pirate didn't incur those costs. And they don't incur more when they pirate something. The pirate just didn't support the business, and didn't even interact with them in the least (absolutely nothing that they had other than some hypothetical profit, as far as I know, was lost). I think it's a huge stretch to call that theft.
That's a false assumption. Everyone has SOME money
It was just a "what if" scenario. And no, I think it is perfectly possible for someone to have no money (although how they'd have an internet connection is beyond me).
You're looking at this as a micro-decision without considering the macro effect.
I'm only saying that I think the term "theft" does not describe copyright infringement.
But if we change the system so that it's OK to just download things without compensating the creators, then there is no compensation for the creators.
Perhaps not. Perhaps there would always be people who would give them at least some money. Personally, I believe it would be far less. But, who knows?
In any case, if that is what society decided, that is what will likely happen. I believe that, even without being paid, people would always continue to make games, software, art, music, movies, etc (although perhaps not many, if any, big-budget movies or games would get made).
you're really stealing from everyone else who does pay for it
I see. So I steal from them by... potentially allowing a creator or business to go bankrupt whilst not affecting the creator/business in any way (thereby making the ones who do pay for it miss out on potential future gain).
I don't see that as theft. Copyright infringement (in countries where it is illegal), yes, but not theft. I 'lose' potential gain all the time, and yet I would not call it theft. For instance, the guy who walked past me on the sidewalk could have given me all of his money. I don't think the fact that he didn't do so makes him a thief. The difference, of course, is that copyright is generally acceptable to most people (probably). But that doesn't change my point. I think that definition of "theft" is far, far too broad.
Try telling the bus company that you're not stealing when you get on the bus without paying since you didn't have the money to pay the fare anyway and sitting in the seat that would otherwise be empty didn't cost them anything.
Even if they said that it is, that would not mean that it is. That is just their idea of what theft is, not mine.
And that only really applies if there are no other people on the bus, and you, the one who didn't pay, forces the bus driver to waste their time and resources (which could be considered damage) to drive you somewhere at your personal request. Pirates usually don't interact with the creator at all (unless they're using their servers or something such as that).
and they reason that the store isnt taking a LOSS
The store is losing milk, is it not? Who says they wanted to sell to them? The people in your scenario are taking away someone else's property whilst going on the assumption that they wanted to sell to them and just leaving an amount of money less than the store sells it for doesn't hurt them.
An example of actual, physical theft.
Whereas in the case of piracy, all that is potentially lost is hypothetical profit. The pirate didn't interact with the creators, take anything from them, use up their time, or do anything to them. They made a copy of their products. They didn't support them. But I seriously think it's stretching it to call it "theft." I call it "copyright infringement."
Value is lost
But nothing they had is gone. If they lower their prices or their goods drop in value, the pirate didn't steal the value away (somehow). Rather, it was their (or someone else's) decision for it to happen.
Actual money is only lost if the pirate went up and robbed the store.
No, wanting it to some extent means you buy it or don't.
Or you pirate it. That's obviously also an option.
You don't get something for nothing just because you don't have or don't want to spend the money.
Assuming you have no money, what do the original creators lose when you pirate something that they made? Does some of their money magically vanish? Their property? Their time? What exactly do they lose?
Loss of potential sale is theft, plain and simple.
Potential loss of potential profit. In any case, how is it theft? Besides hypothetical profit, what exactly did they lose that they already had? I lose chances to gain something all the time, I'm sure, but I think it's a stretch to call it "theft." Losing this particular chance is often called "copyright infringement."
If you can't recoup the cost, you can't create more.
Not exactly the pirate's problem.
The cost of creating is owned money, you spend the money with the hopes of making it back, as well as enough to continue creating.
That's a risk. Even if no one pirated anything, there would still be a risk that you wouldn't make any money back. The only thing that pirates are doing is not supporting the business. I don't think that not supporting something (whilst also not interacting with it in any way) is the same as theft. I think that definition of "theft" is far too broad.
Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't make it OK
And the fact that you do agree with the law doesn't make it "okay," (okay to whom?) either.
There is no such thing as something for nothing.
Copying. Well, I suppose you do need electricity and such...
They are criminals, they are breaking the law.
As someone else pointed out to me, which laws? This isn't necessarily true in all countries.
I welcome you to counter my argument, your previous attempt did nothing sway my convictions.
Neither did yours...
Because they're just copying. The original creator loses nothing that they already had.
The name of the crime (in some places where it is a crime) is "copyright infringement."
Non-commercial copyright infringement is not a crime in most countries
That's true. Then there's the whole problem (not really a problem to me) of different countries having different laws. Sorry about that.
For you to have downloaded/copied it, you had to want it on some extent. If you didn't want it, you wouldn't download it. If you did, you would buy it.
Wanting it to some extent does not necessarily mean that you would have bought it.
1) They might want to save money for other things that they deem as more important.
2) They might not even have money.
3) In some cases, the person might not have even been able to buy it in the first place (due to their location).
4) In some cases (perhaps most, but who really knows how many?), they might have bought it if they didn't pirate it.
And even if a person in the fourth category pirated something, I still do not believe that something was stolen. I believe that an act of copyright infringement (technically, all of them qualify) occurred and a chance to make a profit (potential profit) was lost. I only think that something is stolen if the original owner loses something that they already had (such as property or currently owned money), not just the chance to earn more money. I'm sure you can (and will) argue that copyright infringement is still harmful, but I didn't state anything about that.
Any other argument is just lying to yourself to justify that you are not a criminal.
I see. So you're 100% correct and anyone who challenges you is 100% wrong. In my opinion, not even accounting for the possibility that you may be wrong is quite arrogant.
In any case, I don't think that there's very many pirates who believe that they are not criminals. They're obviously breaking the law. Whether those laws are just or not is up to the individual to decide and is a different matter entirely.
It may be unfortunate to hear, but not everyone shares your opinion about what is "right" or "wrong." And they're not necessarily wrong.
In a very real sense, piracy costs the creator money by illegitimately reducing the worth of that product.
A potential loss of potential profit. The creator's currently owned money doesn't just vanish (as far as I know).
but acting like piracy doesnt affect the "economy" of creative works is overly simplistic, and incorrect.
I think all he mentioned was hypothetical sales. And I'd say he's correct. Not everyone would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it.
That's not possible. All file sharers must accept that all copying (whether it has any real effects or not) is good or they're hypocrites (somehow).
However, what annoys me is the hypocrisy
It's only hypocrisy if they're the exact same situations (not if they're simply similar in your eyes).
Pirates will howl with rage if you categorize them as thieves, but they think nothing of calling credit card fraud by the same hated term?
Which pirates? That's just a generalization. And I think what someone does with the credit card makes a difference to said pirates.
That's certainly true.
After thinking about it some more, I think you may have a point. I think it would be useful is copyright terms were more predictable and didn't end simply because the original creator died. Though I still think that copyright terms need to be drastically reduced.
He is clearing stating that he lacks confidence in the rest of what he's saying,
That isn't what he said, though. He said that the rest of his comment is "bullshit." Perhaps he should have phrased it in a different way.