Is Piracy Stealing?

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

err, you seem to have a very simplistic, narrow minded view of the typical music pirate

I ... I ...I.... I ... I ... I .... I... I ...I ... I ... I ... I...I ...

JustPlainLucas

Sure, pirates are not having a positive effect on the music industry. And I'd also say major labels are not having a postive effect on the music industry. Especially the fact that they choose not to adapt to piracy but rather to simply condemn it and blame it for their own failings.

Good music sells. I really believe that. I believe that not one genuinely original and creative artist has failed solely because of music piracy. There are simply so many pirates (read: the majority) who will still buy music/albums/tickets from the bands they love (and the bands they discovered through piracy). It's just a bit convenient for all the non-pirates to generalize that all the pirates just want stuff for free, and never give back financially to the artist...which is flatout naivety in my opinion. It's will be a net gain for some artists and a net loss for others. And I beleive the great artists will receive a net gain. Of course, I can't prove that. Just as you can't prove that they can't. Either way, music is far from dying. Music quality and quantity is increasing expodentially (despite what some classic rock elitests say :P)

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Do you buy the album if you DON'T like it?

MrGeezer

No. But how is that any potential loss of revenue for the artist? If I was never going to like the music in the first place, I was never going to buy the CD. I don't know anyone who buys CD's from a band they have heard nothing about or have no idea what they are like. :| If I always bought music, and I check outed a song of theirs legally and didn't like, I am not going to buy the CD. End result, Artist gains no revenue. If I never bought music, and I downloaded an album of theirs illegally and didn't like it. I don't buy the CD. Artist gains no revenue.

Shallow words, since you were interested enough to seek it out. You ended up being convinced to NOT buy it based on information which was obtained illegally.

That's a potential loss of a sale.

Now...would the same apply to a movie? Do I get to legally watch an entire movie for free, and then decide AFTERWARDS whether or not I think it was worth my money? Obviously not, for obvious reasons...once I've already seen the whole thing, it's clearly in my best interests to say that it was crap so that I don't have to end up paying for it.

Ever been to a restaurant and ordered a steak? Ever had that steak come to you overcooked? Do you send it back immediately so that it can be fixed? Or do you eat the entire meal, and then complain about how it was overcooked when it's time for you to pay?

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

err, you seem to have a very simplistic, narrow minded view of the typical music pirate

I ... I ...I.... I ... I ... I .... I... I ...I ... I ... I ... I...I ...

PerilousWolf

Sure, pirates are not having a positive effect on the music industry. And I'd also say major labels are not having a postive effect on the music industry. Especially the fact that they choose not to adapt to piracy but rather to simply condemn it and blame it for their own failings.

Good music sells. I really believe that. I believe that not one genuinely original and creative artist has failed solely because of music piracy. There are simply so many pirates (read: the majority) who will still buy music/albums/tickets from the bands they love (and the bands they discovered through piracy). It's just a bit convenient for all the non-pirates to generalize that all the pirates just want stuff for free, and never give back financially to the artist...which is flatout naivety in my opinion. It's will be a net gain for some artists and a net loss for others. And I beleive the great artists will receive a net gain. Of course, I can't prove that. Just as you can't prove that they can't. Either way, music is far from dying. Music quality and quantity is increasing expodentially (despite what some classic rock elitests say :P)

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

err, you seem to have a very simplistic, narrow minded view of the typical music pirate

I ... I ...I.... I ... I ... I .... I... I ...I ... I ... I ... I...I ...

JustPlainLucas

the profit thing is really just a red herring. the real argument is whether you can actually own an idea. if profit for services that you deem necessary is what matters, then its really not about ownership, but rather profit. its just a really shallow argument.Atheists_Pwn

Suppose I spend a decade doing serious academic research, and $100,000 getting a serious education. I come up with a BRILLIANT idea that will literally change the world.

Suppose you come along behind me, happen to see my papers, and then decide to pre-empt my brilliance by submitting MY life's work as your own. In your mind, do you REALLY see that as being just?

Now suppose that I'd already submitted my work and gotten the appropriate recognition. Why should you be able to simply leech off of my hard work and effort?

Now, if I don't WANT to have exclusive rights to my idea, then I can leave it free for everyone to make/use. But I'm hard pressed to find anyone whose ever HAD an important idea who thinks that there should be no incentive for people to come up with important ideaas. If I can spend my life coming up with an idea without receiving ANY compensation, then what is the incentive for me to come up with ideas?

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]the profit thing is really just a red herring. the real argument is whether you can actually own an idea. if profit for services that you deem necessary is what matters, then its really not about ownership, but rather profit. its just a really shallow argument.MrGeezer

Suppose I spend a decade doing serious academic research, and $100,000 getting a serious education. I come up with a BRILLIANT idea that will literally change the world.

Suppose you come along behind me, happen to see my papers, and then decide to pre-empt my brilliance by submitting MY life's work as your own. In your mind, do you REALLY see that as being just?

Now suppose that I'd already submitted my work and gotten the appropriate recognition. Why should you be able to simply leech off of my hard work and effort?

Now, if I don't WANT to have exclusive rights to my idea, then I can leave it free for everyone to make/use. But I'm hard pressed to find anyone whose ever HAD an important idea who thinks that there should be no incentive for people to come up with important ideaas. If I can spend my life coming up with an idea without receiving ANY compensation, then what is the incentive for me to come up with ideas?

I watch movies for free all the time, completely legally. Being interested in something does not mean you want to pay for it. Im interested in going to a psychic to troll. Will I pay for the session? Nope.Atheists_Pwn

And there are plewnty of ways to listen to music for FREE, and completely LEGALLY.

That's the thing...you DON'T have to sneak into a movie theater in order to see if a movie is worth your money. You also don't have to illegally pirate music in order to see if it's worth your money.

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Do you buy the album if you DON'T like it?

MrGeezer

No. But how is that any potential loss of revenue for the artist? If I was never going to like the music in the first place, I was never going to buy the CD. I don't know anyone who buys CD's from a band they have heard nothing about or have no idea what they are like. :| If I always bought music, and I check outed a song of theirs legally and didn't like, I am not going to buy the CD. End result, Artist gains no revenue. If I never bought music, and I downloaded an album of theirs illegally and didn't like it. I don't buy the CD. Artist gains no revenue.

Shallow words, since you were interested enough to seek it out. You ended up being convinced to NOT buy it based on information which was obtained illegally.

That's a potential loss of a sale.

That's silly. I could be convinced to NOT buy it based on information which was obtained legally at no cost. That's a potential loss of a sale. That's a risk an artist takes, that not everyone who hears their music will like it (and buy it). Whether or not a person was able to forumalte that opinon through legal or illegal means, it makes no difference to the potential revenue of an artist.

Also, I am not defending movie piracy. I don't pirate movies and it's not what I am discussing

"Now...would the same apply to a movie? Do I get to legally watch an entire movie for free, and then decide AFTERWARDS whether or not I think it was worth my money? Obviously not, for obvious reasons...once I've already seen the whole thing, it's clearly in my best interests to say that it was crap so that I don't have to end up paying for it."

Are you saying pirates will intentionally convince themselves that the music they download is bad, so they don't have to feel guilty about not buying the CD?

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]I watch movies for free all the time, completely legally. Being interested in something does not mean you want to pay for it. Im interested in going to a psychic to troll. Will I pay for the session? Nope.MrGeezer

And there are plewnty of ways to listen to music for FREE, and completely LEGALLY.

That's the thing...you DON'T have to sneak into a movie theater in order to see if a movie is worth your money. You also don't have to illegally pirate music in order to see if it's worth your money.

I dont have to pay. I dont have to find what I want the way you want me to either. Laws arent important when discussing whats right or wrong. If you think it is, then you have a slave mentallity

yes I do see that example as being fine. You dont own the idea. How do you figure its leeching? Did newton cry that people used calculus? Did he "own" calculus? You dont have any exclusive right to any idea you come up with, at any time, ever. I will simply use whatever I want to, whenever I want to.Atheists_Pwn

Einstein got paid good ****ing money for his ideas.

How much effort do you think he would have put into it if there was zero incentive for it and he couldn't make a living off of it?

THAT'S the point here. Great ideas usually don't come about while someone's singing in the shower. They take serious work. If there's not serious incentive for people to put in that work (such as being able to insure that others can't just come along behind them and copy their works without compensating them), then there's a lot less incentive for people to come up with ideas.

Einstein may not have held a copyright on relativity, but I guarantee that much of his work was done with the expectation that he would be able to make a living off of his work. In the sense of piracy, its very nature is in opposition to the way in which people earn a living.

Are you saying pirates will intentionally convince themselves that the music they download is bad, so they don't have to feel guilty about not buying the CD?

PerilousWolf

Many ABSOLUTELY do this.

I know a hell of a lot of people with thousands of illegally downloaded songs in their music libraries that they listen to on a regular basis. I've asked many of them if they've considered buying the album and a common reply is "nah...it's just not good enough to warrant buying."

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

Are you saying pirates will intentionally convince themselves that the music they download is bad, so they don't have to feel guilty about not buying the CD?

MrGeezer

Many ABSOLUTELY do this.

I know a hell of a lot of people with thousands of illegally downloaded songs in their music libraries that they listen to on a regular basis. I've asked many of them if they've considered buying the album and a common reply is "nah...it's just not good enough to warrant buying."

Wow, I know no people like that. I've found most people determined enough to pirate a lot of music are always big music fans that still buy a lot of music and go to gigs etc. It's your anecdote against mine :P

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]yes I do see that example as being fine. You dont own the idea. How do you figure its leeching? Did newton cry that people used calculus? Did he "own" calculus? You dont have any exclusive right to any idea you come up with, at any time, ever. I will simply use whatever I want to, whenever I want to.MrGeezer

Einstein got paid good ****ing money for his ideas.

How much effort do you think he would have put into it if there was zero incentive for it and he couldn't make a living off of it?

THAT'S the point here. Great ideas usually don't come about while someone's singing in the shower. They take serious work. If there's not serious incentive for people to put in that work (such as being able to insure that others can't just come along behind them and copy their works without compensating them), then there's a lot less incentive for people to come up with ideas.

Einstein may not have held a copyright on relativity, but I guarantee that much of his work was done with the expectation that he would be able to make a living off of his work. In the sense of piracy, its very nature is in opposition to the way in which people earn a living.

No your first post did not mention stealing. You asked if you created 100 albums and dumped them in a dumpster would you be losing revenue. So reading your next posts.....it was not clear at first what you were talking about.LJS9502_basic

I didnt say I mentioned stealing in my first post.

When we are talking about revenue and revenue that is lost and that loss in the context of piracy, I dont see how I should clarify (although I did from my second post). We are on the same thread right?

It is divided per unit. That is how business assigns it. And as I explained above.....making revenue from other sources does not mean one has not assigned cost to the first item. They are not the same. The article you read probably was talking about how console developers can afford to lose money per console until the break even point since the games help the bottom line so the company isn't losing money....or it shouldn't be if they know what they are doing. Each price point on a console has it's own break even point. The higher cost....naturally less units have to be moved to reach that point. However, the markets supply and demand also have much to say about which price point is likely to be best.LJS9502_basic

Yes....if you take a product...whether physical or non physical that has a price assigned to it without paying that price....you are stealing revenue from the company. I've answered that already for you. The answer remains the same.

When talking about the business aspect of the equation....you cannot think in legal terms. They are not the same.

LJS9502_basic

After that clarification (which I am surprised is needed) I'll ask the question again.

Did the company/musician/record company lose money from me making 100 copies out of my legitimate album copy which I then threw away?

This time I wont expect an answer (since the question is semi-rhetorical anyway) and just get to the point I am trying to make.

Your argument is that whether or not the item is physical, an illegitimate copy of it creates revenue loss for the company that produced it and everyone involved, and is therefore theft no matter this. Right? (I assume I understood your point; if not, well... oh well)

So, my answer to the question I asked you for the 3rd (?) time (this time super-clarified), is that, no, there is no revenue loss because the copies were not distributed to anyone and therefore no possible purchasers of the legitimate product were lured into preferring the illegitimate product over the legitimate one and thus the company losing customers' money out of this process.

And what does that mean? That copying in and of itself is not stealing. It has the potential of creating revenue loss for the company that created the product but its not theft by default.

I am not saying that piracy should altogether be considered as non-theft due to that, but I am saying that the way you try to establish that piracy is flat-out equal to stealing, is not correct.

Most of the piracy stuff is just propaganda. A vast and overwhelming majority of people who pirate things have absolutely no intention of ever buying it to begin with. Had the option to download it not been available, they simply would have went without.

Its as close to a victimless crime as you can get. Of course it has to remain illegal otherwise everyone would do it, including the people who currently pay for content.

Comparing Piracy and theft of digital content would be like comparing me mugging you for your wallet and me being able to download your wallet off the internet without attacking you and without you losing your wallet.

I do not condone or particpate in either. If i cant afford something i just dont get to enjoy it. I honestly cant enjoy something that i know i didnt pay for. At that point i would rather just do without.

Though it technically a(nd legally) is not stealing, the effect to the owner of the object is the same.

daqua_99

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

xhellcatx

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

xhellcatx

It is not right thats for sure but its not as bad as stealing

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

McJugga

And by the way, I know someone who was arrested for shoplifting a pack of gum. Yep. And I know a someone who was arrested for Pirating Music.

[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

xhellcatx

And by the way, I know someone who was arrested for shoplifting a pack of gum. Yep. And I know a someone who was arrested for Pirating Music.

[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

xhellcatx

And by the way, I know someone who was arrested for shoplifting a pack of gum. Yep. And I know a someone who was arrested for Pirating Music.

Something being illegal does not mean its wrong. Infact, we should be breaking certain laws out of principle.Atheists_Pwn

There are some very rediculous laws out there, I agree. Such as the minnesota law that states it is illegal to eat hamburgers on a sunday, or Entering Wisconsin with a Chicken on your head is Illegal (i thought it was duck, my bad.. ), Or oral sex = illegal. These are all actual laws in Minnesota. Yea... I think those can be broken. (you can find these laws here )

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Something being illegal does not mean its wrong. Infact, we should be breaking certain laws out of principle.xhellcatx

There are some very rediculous laws out there, I agree. Such as the minnesota law that states it is illegal to eat hamburgers on a sunday, or Entering Wisconsin with a Chicken on your head is Illegal (i thought it was duck, my bad.. ), Or oral sex = illegal. These are all actual laws in Minnesota. Yea... I think those can be broken. (you can find these laws here )

In defense of Piracy, Piracy is not stealing in it's modern day connotation. Sure, it's getting something for free, but it is not stealing. Stealing requires that you take something from someone, whereas piracy is making a copy, and taking the copy, while the original owner still has his/her's. However, it is copyright infringement, the copying of ideas, which is illegal.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Something being illegal does not mean its wrong. Infact, we should be breaking certain laws out of principle.Atheists_Pwn

There are some very rediculous laws out there, I agree. Such as the minnesota law that states it is illegal to eat hamburgers on a sunday, or Entering Wisconsin with a Chicken on your head is Illegal (i thought it was duck, my bad.. ), Or oral sex = illegal. These are all actual laws in Minnesota. Yea... I think those can be broken. (you can find these laws here )

I dont care if he got paid for it, he doesnt own the ideas, hell, he didnt even own the money. I can get paid for absolutely anything. Effort does not mean you deserve profit. Im pretty good at street fighter4, I put effort towards it. By playing against people, I am providing a service to those who also seek to get better. Einstein didnt do what he did for profit. He was naturally bright. Humans have been doing things since the dawn of our species because they either needed it, or wanted it and they just did it. Capitalism is NEW. You argument is shallow, because it rests entirely on a society that would require this sort of compensation. The variable can be replaced, and the whole argument shatters. Everyone wants to be able to have a decent life with good standards, it does not mean they wouldnt do the work anyway. If you think people need profit to do the things humans do naturally anyway, then you dont understand pre-capitalist history at all.Atheists_Pwn

Humans absolutely need to be able to make a profit in able to do the things that they want. It has nothing to do with what people want. It's able what people are ABLE to do. And in a world in which serious art costs serious time/effort in order to make, many people CANNOT DO THAT unless they are given a chance to make money off of it. In a world in which everyone got what they need for free, and was totally taken care of, I'd be fine with people not being paid money in exchange for their work. But we live in a world in which I have to pay money just in order to eat and have a roof over my head. In such a world, I absolutely require money in exchange for my work.

[QUOTE="xhellcatx"]

What I dont understand is if you were never going to buy it, why are you downloading it? If you don't want it, why obtain it? Internet Cleptos? "Must Downloadz teh EvErYtHiNg Syndrome"? .... I dont get it. I think that if you pirate something, you did have intentions or desires to purchase the product, or else you wouldnt obtain it in the first place.

THAT is what I think, and it makes sense to me :x

Atheists_Pwn

You're also not entitled to obtain what you're unwilling or unable to buy.

not in a traditional sense

you cannot count the number of copies pirated as the number of copies not sold. People that pirate would not have bought the game, period.

in short, piracy is fairly irrelevant

you cannot count the number of copies pirated as the number of copies not sold. People that pirate would not have bought the game, period.

mrbojangles25

Proof?

Again, suppose that there's about 50 cents worth of materials in a loaf of bread. Suppose that loaf of bread is sitting on a store shelf with a price tag of $3. Now suppose I steal that loaf of bread. Did I steal 50 cents, or did I steal $3?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

you cannot count the number of copies pirated as the number of copies not sold. People that pirate would not have bought the game, period.

MrGeezer

Proof?

Again, suppose that there's about 50 cents worth of materials in a loaf of bread. Suppose that loaf of bread is sitting on a store shelf with a price tag of $3. Now suppose I steal that loaf of bread. Did I steal 50 cents, or did I steal $3?

Now suppose I go home and make my own bread. Did I steal $3 from you?McJugga

You didn't answer the question. How do you KNOW that the people pirating music would not have otherwise purchased it?

And again, with physical items, the price that they're selling is generally higher than they paid for it. They are looking to make a PROFIT. If you steal an item that costs $3 and they only paid 50 cents for it, how do you define the loss? Is it a loss of $3 since that item has been removed from inventory and they can no longer sell it? Or is it a loss of 50 cents, since they only paid 50 cents for it?

Please answer the question, because it's relevant.

And as far as your analogy, a better one would be stealing their recipe and then making the same bread at home.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

you cannot count the number of copies pirated as the number of copies not sold. People that pirate would not have bought the game, period.

McJugga

Proof?

Again, suppose that there's about 50 cents worth of materials in a loaf of bread. Suppose that loaf of bread is sitting on a store shelf with a price tag of $3. Now suppose I steal that loaf of bread. Did I steal 50 cents, or did I steal $3?

I think this is a more relevant analogy to piracy than actually stealing bread.

software isnt exactly physical; publishers even state that when you buy a product, your not actually buying it...but instead buying the rights to use it. There really is zero connection between traditional theft and software piracy.

To reinforce my earlier comment, what I meant is that piracy will always be a constant. There are people out there that will simply not buy a game (for various reasons), so it is pointless to call their piracy theft.

Theft, to me, implies a loss of some sort. Publishers lose nothing to pirates because they (the pirates) have nothing to contribute. If 100 people are going to obtain a copy of a game, it would break down like this:
-70 of those people would buy a copy new
-20 people would pirate it
-10 would wait until the price drops

If DRM lessened the number of pirates to 10, guess what? Those other 10 still will not buy the game. They just wont have anything to do with it.

I agree with DRM to the extent of making life just difficult enough to stop the casual pirates, but as far as actually eliminating pirates, the only thing a dream like that will do is alienate the legitimate customers

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

Luckily I play classical music and the peeps at my 'concerts' are mostly old and don't go in for piracy - they have legitimate copies bought from a legal digital download site, on CD or even *gasp* vinyl :P

pianist

What instrument do you play? It's hard not to notice an abundance of white hair at any cIassical music event...

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

subscription

Yes, but I'm still holding the content for later use. That would be an unauthorized reproduction.

I think this is a more relevant analogy to piracy than actually stealing bread.

software isnt exactly physical; publishers even state that when you buy a product, your not actually buying it...but instead buying the rights to use it. There really is zero connection between traditional theft and software piracy.

To reinforce my earlier comment, what I meant is that piracy will always be a constant. There are people out there that will simply not buy a game (for various reasons), so it is pointless to call their piracy theft.

Theft, to me, implies a loss of some sort. Publishers lose nothing to pirates because they (the pirates) have nothing to contribute. If 100 people are going to obtain a copy of a game, it would break down like this:
-70 of those people would buy a copy new
-20 people would pirate it
-10 would wait until the price drops

If DRM lessened the number of pirates to 10, guess what? Those other 10 still will not buy the game. They just wont have anything to do with it.

I agree with DRM to the extent of making life just difficult enough to stop the casual pirates, but as far as actually eliminating pirates, the only thing a dream like that will do is alienate the legitimate customers

mrbojangles25

Like I said, a fair analogy would be if you stole the recipe and then make the exact same bread. If you just make bread, what you've made isn't the same product. Just like how I can write and perform my own rock song, but I can't illegally download a rock song that was made by someone else. It's not the same "product".

However, in the case of stealing bread, it is absolutely relevant to the discussion of whether or not we can assign an assumed loss without ever knowing if it was an actual loss. When you steal even physical objects, it's often impossible to know if that object would have otherwise been purchased. That is NOT something that is exclusive to intangible media. However, does that mean that the theft of a $3 loaf of bread can't STILL be seen as a loss of $3?

However, in the case of stealing bread, it is absolutely relevant to the discussion of whether or not we can assign an assumed loss without ever knowing if it was an actual loss. When you steal even physical objects, it's often impossible to know if that object would have otherwise been purchased. That is NOT something that is exclusive to intangible media. However, does that mean that the theft of a $3 loaf of bread can't STILL be seen as a loss of $3MrGeezer

I didnt say I mentioned stealing in my first post.

When we are talking about revenue and revenue that is lost and that loss in the context of piracy, I dont see how I should clarify (although I did from my second post). We are on the same thread right?Teenaged

Again like I said your wording was not clarified enough (actually not at all) and you made it seem like what I already explained: that prices are fixed and everything in the market works simply by dividing the profduction cost into the produced items. The previous statement without any sort of clarification is very misleading. Besides I am sure you are aware that I am not an expert on economics. Just trying to make sense out of what I know.

Teenaged

The album belongs to me, meaning that I bought it from the story (a legitimate copy) and then I made 100 copies which then I threw away.

After that clarification (which I am surprised is needed) I'll ask the question again.

Did the company/musician/record company lose money from me making 100 copies out of my legitimate album copy which I then threw away?

This time I wont expect an answer (since the question is semi-rhetorical anyway) and just get to the point I am trying to make.

Your argument is that whether or not the item is physical, an illegitimate copy of it creates revenue loss for the company that produced it and everyone involved, and is therefore theft no matter this. Right? (I assume I understood your point; if not, well... oh well)

So, my answer to the question I asked you for the 3rd (?) time (this time super-clarified), is that, no, there is no revenue loss because the copies were not distributed to anyone and therefore no possible purchasers of the legitimate product were lured into preferring the illegitimate product over the legitimate one and thus the company losing customers' money out of this process.

And what does that mean? That copying in and of itself is not stealing. It has the potential of creating revenue loss for the company that created the product but its not theft by default.

I am not saying that piracy should altogether be considered as non-theft due to that, but I am saying that the way you try to establish that piracy is flat-out equal to stealing, is not correct.

Teenaged

However, if someone pirates an album...the person owning the rights does lose revenue on that album since it has been duplicated without the compensation for said album. Nonetheless, this is not equivalent to your original premise.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

you cannot count the number of copies pirated as the number of copies not sold. People that pirate would not have bought the game, period.

McJugga

Proof?

Again, suppose that there's about 50 cents worth of materials in a loaf of bread. Suppose that loaf of bread is sitting on a store shelf with a price tag of $3. Now suppose I steal that loaf of bread. Did I steal 50 cents, or did I steal $3?

Bad analogy. If you could make your own music/software/games, then you would not need/want a service that the people making them are providing. That's all it is. You are paying for a service. If you want or need a service, you pay for it.

For example, I own a contracting company in my spare time. If people could make their own software, they wouldn't need to pay me 150 dollars an hour to do it. I provide a service that they need, and I do it well, and as such they pay me to obtain software.

The question is, did the person pirating need or want the service? Of course they did. They should pay for it. That's the beauty of capitalism. Use of something is still considered a service. If you go to a hotel, stay in a room, then leave without paying the bill, is that not stealing? I mean, by the logic I see in this thread, the person would not have paid for a room if they had not taken it for free, so they shouldn't have to pay right (I mean, they could just stay in their car or on the street)? Or as some argue, the person could have built their own house, so the service they took advantage of should be free am I right?

Now mind you, I think its the job of developers to keep criminals from illegally stealing software, so I'm not here to judge. I dohowever have a problem with people blatantly telling me that taking a service for free when it has a price attached is not stealing. It is stealing. Do it if you want, but don't try to make yourself feel better by calling it something other than what it is.

Not that it matters, it won't be long until piracy doesn't exist. I know that you guys won't believe me, because people think "if there's a will, there's a way". In my personal experience, the majority of licensing is changing to being stored on the provider's side. No more of the traditional client side license checking. It is near. You will have to be online soon to use most pieces of software that require a license.

We do that on most products in this company (besides the ones I manage...unfortunately). So if someone tries to access our services illegally, we know. That causes more of a burden on our support side, but it's well worth the extra cost of support.

Piracy is a form of theft. While there are no tangible objects taken from someone, content is taken without permission. It's not a question of whether the owner or creator of a product is deprived of a copy of the game, etc., but that they are deprived of the money they deserve to makeon the purchase of said product. A company makes a game, or a movie, or an artist makes music, etc. and that work takes time and money to make. When you pirate a game, you completelyignore the work that went into making it, and take for your own enjoyment something that you have absolutely no right to take.Bottom line, piracy is a way of getting around paying for something. You get for free what everyone who legally purchases the game paid to get. Thus, piracy is unfair to both the makers of the game, and to the community of honest gamers who still have enough respect to pay for their entertainment. Rationalize it however else you want, but you are STEALING content when you pirate it.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"] You just answered your own question. If you weren't allowed to record TV shows, then Tivos would be illegal.GeekLord482

Yes, but I'm still holding the content for later use. That would be an unauthorized reproduction.

One, its not that expensive. Second, it's not hard at all to keep permanent copies of that stuff, especially if you run your cable subscription through a computer. It's no different than renting movies at a DVDPlay or RedBox machine and ripping a copy to keep for yourself.

And yet one of those situations is viewed as being clean and the other as piracy. This is an example of the fundamental problem I have with those who scream about piracy when most of those raving about it the loudest have done so themselves and perhaps without even knowing it.

If that's the case, then anyone with a VCR back in the 80s was a pirate as well. But time-shifting was protected by Supreme Court precedent, so that's seen as OK. But now if I do that stuff over an internet connection, I've committed a criminal offense. Curious and curiouser.