Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”
Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”
You're viewing a single thread.
Piracy isn't stealing anyway. You're not removing the data from the original owner.
But the original creation cost time and money, which you're not reimbursing the creator for. The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn't cost anything.
It's like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it's not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn't even happen if everyone acted like this, or the organizers would have to pay for it all by themselves.
If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you "bought". Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
Would you call it Piracy if I lend a bluray from a friend? I didn't pay for it and yet I've watched it.
No, because it's so widespread and natural that it should be expected and already accounted for in the price. But there is no hard line imo, and simplified examples often fail to capture all the aspects that go into the decision. E.g. I'd say paying for one person at a concert and sneaking in another would basically be piracy, even though the two situations are very similar on a surface level.
I think it's about reasonable expectations both parties of the agreement can have, based on established social norms. If you buy a movie for personal consumption you should be able to expect that you can watch it whenever you want, and also share that experience with friends and family. And at the same time the seller should be able to expect that you limit it to a reasonable number of personal contacts, and don't start to sell it to strangers or run a movie theater, because that expectation was used to set the price.
So if piracy was "widespread and natural" it'd be bueno?
If that would be possible then yes, or course.
That's bascially the Start Trek future, where everybody's needs are met and people can just do whatever they want. It doesn't "cost" anything to create stuff, so it's fine to copy everything for free. But that's not the reality we are living in. In our's somebody has to pay for things, and if everyone pirated everything then things couldn't be made anymore.
An example where it kinda works is open source software. People don't charge for copies, because they expect to get help with their work and also be allowed to use other OS software without paying for it. As long as that balance holds it works out fine, but there are a lot of projects that required too much investment from the creator's and didn't provide enough back for them to keep going. And even there, companies profiting from OS projects are expected or even required to pay it back, by contributing code and paying for engineers and sponsorships.
To further the thought experiment. I digitize my Blu-ray and put it on a private tracker to share with ONLY my friends. Is that piracy?
Copywrite laws are antiquated at best and need to be destroyed at worst.
If you need more proof look at bullshit like how Paramount+ until recently couldn't show flagship shows like Picard in Canada because the rights were given to Crave.
So as a consumer I want to go to the owner of the property and I can't watch it because the owner told me they gave a copy of it to someone else.
Trust me, they're working on ways to prevent that too as we speak.
The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.
under what ethical system?
Mine, obviously. But feel free to correct me if you disagree with something.
there's no reason to believe what you claimed. a claim made without justification can be dismissed without justification.
They made a justification. They showed you how people couldn't make these things without people paying for them.
They showed you how people couldn’t make these things without people paying for them.
but that's not true. people make things all the time without being paid.
people make things all the time without being paid.
Less people make things without being paid than those who make things to get paid. That is a common fact we can both agree on. If you need the number of open source games compared to the number of paid games then I recommend you grab those numbers yourself.
github shows a hundred thousand repositories for the query "hangman". assuming 10% of them are false positives it's still a great number.
there are over one hundred fifty thousand results on github for "tictactoe".
just how many paid games do you think there are, by the way?
this doesn't prove anyone ever needs to be paid to make something. a single counter example disproves the claim.
What unjustified claim did I make that you disagree with? Seems all rather uncontroversial to me.
The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.
i don't need to disagree to disbelieve. i do disagree, but without establishing your justification for this claim, it's kind of hard to argue against it.
The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn't, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.
It’s like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it’s not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn’t even happen if everyone acted like this
That's a systemic problem, something I wouldn't personally care about. The "system" is just so horribly screwed up and skewed against us that I just no longer care if it works or not.
If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you “bought”. Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
This rubs me the wrong way too, yes. Though I'm really beyond moral justifications, I just stopped caring.
Same here. The world is unjust so act accordingly.
Which doesn't mean be an asshole to everybody and steal everything you can but be an asshole to assholes and steal from franchises.
How do you feel about jumping the turnstile at a train station?
Counter question: Do you think that running libraries is theft?
Public Lending Right programs exist in 35 countries to compensate authors whose works are in libraries.
Great! Let's do that for any type of media!
They do already.
Amoral at worst. Public transportation shouldn't have a fee at use. Tax the rich, invest in transport
Not asking about the morality, asking whether or not the people making this argument on piracy consider jumping the turnstile to be theft, in the most practical sense. Not in an ideal world, but in the real world, would you consider that theft?
A turnstile jumper is also exploiting the products and services produced by offers without paying the cost to use them. Nothing is being "removed" in that situation either.
Ah, in that case, no that is also not stealing.
What would you call taking or using something without paying for it, then? Resources are still being spent to transport the person who has not paid for them.
Who is losing resources when you hop a turnstile?
The transportation authority who maintains the trains and stations.
Only if the rides are a scarce resource. Which they aren't. Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.
Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.
Nothing? Not even the fuel required to transport the extra weight of somebody who hasn't paid? Not even the wages for the employees who conduct and maintain the trains?
You can argue that the amounts are miniscule, sure. But "miniscule" does not equal "zero".
When you're paying, you're not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.
What you're describing is called "marginal cost" and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you'd be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.
I think I figured out the disconnect here. Yes, hopping a turnstile is against the law. It is still not considered theft. It is called fare evasion, and it is more akin to a traffic violation. The reason I was confused, and why I assumed you meant morality, is that nobody is saying piracy isn't against the law. The article never said that either.
Jumping a turnstile and taking a physical, actually scarce resource is not comparable to duplicating a digital, artificially scarce resource.
The train requires ongoing maintenance and can only hold a finite amount of people. Taking the train seat for free takes away something from another person. Downloading media does not use any ongoing resources, and does not take anything away from another consumer.
Comparing the morality of physical goods to digital goods are not really a good comparison specifically because of the artificial scarcity brought on by making something digital to try to make it more expensive doesn't map to the real scarcity of physical goods.
Again, I have to ask: How do you think those digital goods are made in the first place? Somebody labored to create it. They deserve to be paid for it.
Not sure why this is such a hot take.
How much should they be paid for it? In a situation where the streaming services have a stranglehold on the market and are extracting a big amount in rent-seeking price vs actually paying the people who labored to create it, should we continue to pay and give in to their morally dubious tactics? In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?
How much should they be paid for it?
However much they're asking. They put a price tag on it for exactly this question.
In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?
Not really. Civil disobedience is about refusing to follow a law, not choosing to break a law. There's a difference between the two concepts; one involves going about your day as normal and ignoring laws, and the other is going out of your way to break a law. Piracy is no more a form of civil disobedience than looting a grocery store is.
Ah, that's not my understanding of civil disobedience. I prefer this definition: "civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/)
I suppose the piracy aspect might not be public enough to count as civil disobedience though, unless you count as public the noticeable cumulative effects of all piracy.
Right, but in this instance you're not damaging the government through these actions. You're damaging private entities. Civil vs criminal.
EDIT: Although, piracy often crosses both civil and criminal statutes in many cases, because copyright law is weird like that.
Agreed, and to me the solution is not "let's hope the companies play nice", but rather to bring in anti-monopoly regulations, like Canada's Bill C-56.
We need to force companies to add interoperability, transparency and fairness imho. Like the ongoing fight to force Apple to allow competing browsers in iOS. Or alternate app stores for Android and iOS.
That is a false equivalency.
The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven't paid for.
Pirating takes away a possible purchase. You haven't actually used any of their resources or cost them anything.
If I wasn't going to buy it anyway they haven't lost anything.
If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you've actually cost them resources.
I don’t get this logic at all. Piracy doesn’t take away a possible purchase. There is an assumption that the media downloaded was ever going to be paid for. In 100% of the cases where I downloaded pirated content, I was never going to pay for the product, even if it was available to me by other means. Further I cannot remove a sale from someone when I never possessed the money to pay for it anyway.
I believe most people that pirate cannot afford to buy digital releases or pay for streaming services etc… (not all cases of course). In these situations nobody loses. The media companies didn’t lose anything because I was never going to buy it, and it wasn’t stolen because they still possess the media.
Edit - I agree with you Lmaydev I replied to the wrong comment.
The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven’t paid for.
And media costs money to make.
If I wasn’t going to buy it anyway they haven’t lost anything.
If you weren't going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That's the thing, if you're interested enough in a product to want it, then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.
If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you’ve actually cost them resources.
How do you think scene groups get their materials in the first place? They just find it on a flash drive on a park bench?
More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do. The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
And media costs money to make.
But not to copy, which is what you are asserting is being "stolen". No one is claiming that turnstile jumpers are taking away money from train manufacturers. You're having to mix analogies, because copying something isn't theft.
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse. The point is that in both examples, somebody is exploiting somebody else's labor without paying.
There is no labor in making digital copies.
You are trying to blur the line between the media/art/music/film, etc, and the reproductions of it.
Artists do deserve to be paid for their work, but artists do not deserve to maintain ownership over the already-sold assets, nor whatever happens to those assets afterwards (like copies made). If you want to say they should retain commercial rights for reproduction of it, sure, but resell of the originally-sold work (e.g. the mp3 file), and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work? Nah.
They didn't put in labor towards that. To say they did expands "labor" far beyond any reasonable definition.
and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work?
But by this definition then, it should be ok for only one person to buy the item and then just copy and give it to everyone else, and the original author receives payment from a single item?
If it comes from their copy, sure. But streaming proved that people won't do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.
People only started reverting to piracy when services started cannibalizing access to content and demanding more money than the access was worth.
Most video games don't contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.
You're literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.
You're trying to blur the line between what is and what should be. We don't live in an ideal world.
Yup, many people (like you) consider copyright morally okay, and many people (like me) consider copyright infringement morally okay.
Not an ideal world for either of us, I guess.
If you weren't going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That's the thing, if you're interested enough in a product to want it then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.
I don't agree with this at all. There are tons of things someone might want to use or have but not enough that they'd be willing to pay for it. Or over a certain amount of money.
The fact is that the person in question is still taking something without paying for it. A sense of entitlement (I want it badly enough that I should have it for free) doesn't change anything in this equation.
Sure, they are procuring something worth money without paying for it. But this is a very different argument than you would not pirate something if you would not also be prepared to pay it.
The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
Rips do exist, ya know?
And physical media's never stolen, right?
The data to validate this is scarce, but I'd wager that most rips come from stolen physical media. I don't think there's too many people out there going "I just paid $20 of my hard-earned money for this Blu-ray, so now I'm going to give it away to strangers for free". The whole "paying for something" thing is kinda antithetical to piracy in the first place. But again, there's no real way to quantify this.
So you just dmit that you assume everything is stolen. That's motivated reasoning, buddy.
We're literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao
We're literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao
So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point. And the reason that it must be stolen is because it is connected to piracy.
Don't act surprised if you're downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.
The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
The origins of most of all western countries' wealth comes from theft, full stop.
More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do.
That's only the case for pre-Bluray release content. Most of it was just captured from rips, Amazon Prime or Netflix.
Depends on the circumstances I guess, but no matter how I feel about it people jumping the turnstile aren't stealing the train.
Are they stealing a ride?
I don't like this analogy, because there's a real, albeit small, cost to the subway of that free ride, in terms of fuel and increased maintenance. Digital piracy has literaly no real cost to the producer except the nebulous "lost sale."
It should be a free service anyway. Without free public transport, democracy does not exists. Same reason healthcare and education should be. So sure, you are “stealing” a ride - something that should be yours anyway because people are not born with the ability to travel kilometers of cityscapes, something that is now mandatory to survive and thrive.
You're also potentially blocking a seat that could be used by a paying passenger, and the operator will statistically run more/longer trains at higher cost to cope with increased demand.
Digital piracy has literaly no real cost to the producer except the nebulous “lost sale.”
You know that the pirated files were stolen in the first place, right? Movies and video games aren't just sitting out in the open free for somebody to snatch up like apples on a tree. They end up in the hands of scene groups by somebody in the studio taking an unauthorized copy of the product and distributing it.
Lost sales are damages, as demonstrated by the courts hundreds and hundreds of times over now.
Ever heard of "ripping" a disk, a stream, or a download? Movies, series, and video games get paid for by someone who then proceeds to make unauthorized copies, they very rarely come from anyone at the studio.
Lost sales are "legal" damages, which doesn't mean they're actual loss of anything, since people who were not going to pay, are worth exactly $0.
It's different when bootleg copies get sold, since then there is an actual payment that isn't going to the right person.
Does you license plate say "PRIVATE"? Because this is some real sovereign citizen logic, using definitions of terms that the rest of the world doesn't agree with.
Ever read the message at the beginning of a rip? You know, the one with the FBI logo on it. Remind me what it says?
using definitions of terms that the rest of the world doesn't agree with.
Like which one exactly?
Ever read the message at the beginning of a rip? You know, the one with the FBI logo on it. Remind me what it says?
There is none. Some rips used to come with a "Ripped by [some nick]" and a scene group logo, but they've grown out of fashion.
Just kidding, I know you meant this one: https://youtu.be/CXca40Z01Ss
Like which one exactly?
"people who were not going to pay" is not one singular group, but you use this as if everybody who isn't going to pay is part of the same demographic. Some people won't pay because they don't want it in the first place. Some people won't pay because while they want it, they can't afford it. And some won't pay but will take it anyway because they feel entitled to it.
Painting all these groups with the same brush is disingenuous at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
I have hundreds of CDs, which are bought and paid for. Tell me, again, how making copies and (hypothically, of course) giving them to friend[1] incurs a direct cost to the CD producer?
Nearly all pirated content was most likely originally purchased once, and ripped. There's no evidence that much of it is from shoplifted DVDs.
Nearly all pirated content was most likely originally purchased once, and ripped. There’s no evidence that much of it is from shoplifted DVDs.
There's no evidence that "much" of it is from purchased DVDs, either.
100% of the dozens of DVDs in this household were purchased. You have a few in your house that were shoplifted as a counter data point, maybe?
No, they're just stealing the fuel and wages the employees should be getting for maintaining the train.
The employees don't get paid less if some jumps the turnstile, the fuel cost to carry a single person is completely trivial, and I didn't say nobody should care about turnstile jumpers. I said its not stealing. If you damage the tracks and cause the train to derail you're a monster, and there are financial costs, but you still didn't steal the train. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
So are you arguing that turnstile jumpers are harming the company, but they are not stealing the service / train / ride? Like the literal word "steal".
Yes. That is in fact what I am arguing. I would also argue that the harm is tiny and can sometimes be justifiable, depending on the circumstances, but yes. It absolutely does do some non-zero harm, and yes there is no thing being stolen. That is the argument I am making.
Yeah alright makes sense. Sometimes it hard to know what people are exactly arguing about.
"Trivial" is not "zero".
Maybe, but it's also closer to the price saved on less wear and tear on the turnstile than it is the price of the ticket.
Ok, then make the trains a public service, collect taxes for it and make puplic transport free.
Analogous to the whole "piracy" discourse: Manage more media like libraries.
That would be a great idea, and could even help combat climate change.
I dunno, I mean are the train company allowed to take my money and then go "sorry we fell out with the fuel company so we're just gonna keep your money and not take you to your destination. Soz babe x"
You wouldn't download a train?
You wouldn't 3D print it?
In that case you're actually using a limited resource: space on a train. And by occupying it you're preventing someone else from using it (assuming a full train). Copying media doesn't cost any resources (ignoring the tiny amounts of electricity) or interfere with anyone else's ability to use that resource.
They don't compare.
What if that train is regularly running under capacity, or you are just standing?
You're technicall still using the company's resources (it costs some energy to run the empty train), so I still don't think it really compares to piracy.
But since they are miniscule compared to what they are wasting by running largley empty trains I think it's morally ok in that case.
I don't see how that compares. Trains need human labour and lots of resources to function.
How do you think movies, music, games, books, or any form of media is produced?
Operating a train is not creating a train. And media does not require resources to operate, so nothing is lost when digital media is used by someone without paying.
so nothing is lost when digital media is used by someone without paying.
Using, no. Acquiring, yes.
No, nothing was lost when the copy was acquired, because copying does not remove the original. Literally, nothing is lost.
Lost sales are considered damages, so yes something is lost.
EDIT: This is worse than arguing with SovCits.
Bruh, no one in here is arguing about legality, we're arguing about morality, and no one but corporate shills buy into "potential sales" having value.
You're trying to argue against what people just fundamentally, intuitively understand; copyright is a legal construct (not a moral one) that is 99% bullshit.
Bruh, no one in here is arguing about legality
What are you talking about? That's literally the entire point of the article and this comment section.
Now you're the one being obtuse, unless you're claiming that you're actually arguing that you can be charged with theft, which you can't be, because legally, copyright infringement isn't theft.
Yes, but then everyone started talking about morality.
What if you were never going to buy it?