>It's OK for me to steal this meat, I wasn't going

File: 1432757272688.png (109KB, 364x422px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 364x422px

Yeah? What are you gonna do about it?

Piracy != stealing;

>>56261968
oh yeah you're right I'm killing self now :D

What do you expect from a bunch of amoral underage idiots?

File: Basic Piracy.jpg (80KB, 556x1445px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 556x1445px

If you don't understand this, you're either lying to yourself at the expense of others or you're an idiot.

>>56261968
>food analogies

stealing the meat is not logically equivalent, because in this scenario, the store is missing the meat and has to buy more, thus losing money. In piracy, nothing is lost. Think of arguments that weren't debunked in like 2002 next time.

>>56261968
they're different - piracy makes a copy, stealing takes the original. the creator can still make money of the content if it's pirated but not if it's stolen

The only people who try to justify it are retards. The rest of us don't give a shit.

I only torrent rare out of print movies.

Copying =/= stealing. And before you say "muh potential sales" you can go back to r*ddit

File: Untitled.png (30KB, 496x424px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 496x424px

>>56261968

Oh, I don't care ^^

File: RF005.jpg (10KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 312x312px

>>56262000
>>56262040
>>56262054
>>56262094

See >>56262023

If something doesn't click, give your caretaker a call.

>>56262163
I am >>56262040
You redirected me to an entirely different scenario as if it was somehow a rebuttal to the bad OP. Come back when you graduate high school.

>>56262023
Actually, there's a lot wrong with this, even within the lenses of mainstream Western Philosophy.

John Locke believed that you could claim ownership of something by "mixing" your labor with it, provided that you leave enough of it that is as good as what you claimed for other people who could reasonably want to mix their labor. Locke could very well have thought that digital piracy is not stealing, as it satisfies this criteria. Locke is definitely a mainstream Western philosopher whose ideas regarding property rights continue to inform the West, so I don't think the concept of digital piracy is inherently incompatible with Western notions of property rights and traditional values.

There is certainly a lot of criticism that you could throw at Locke's ideas, but the point is that there are serious and mainstream Western philosophies that could be used to defend digital piracy.

>>56261968
How about because any attempts to stop piracy mean spying on us

>>56262023
>kids think a magical situation that can't happen is somehow relevant to sales of a LICENSE
You're not paying for the copy of the fucking data, you dumbshits, you're paying for a LICENSE TO USE THAT DATA.

I can torrent but other than movies nothing is really worth torrenting

Jesus is a pirate. he stole all the bread

>>56262262
What is DRM-free media and games?

Fuck you in the ass, pirate faggot. People like are ruining decent content producers and making only Hollywood blockbuster shit and reality shows prevail

>Intellectual property
>Actual property

HUEHUEHUEHUE

Fucking nerds.

I pirate everything, from games to movies, software, books, literally everything I can put in my hard drive, I download it.

I've never stolen anything material though, and never plan to do.

So basically:

1) I'm not a nigger so i don't steal tangibles things
2) I'm not a fucking nerd so i don't care about the morals of downloading intangible things.

:^)

Some people who pirate weren't going to buy it in the first place so no sale is lost.

>>56261968
OP, I actually agree with you. Piracy is one of those easy to do / hard to convict crimes.

HOWEVER, your analogy is as dumb as rocks. It may be good to make the random normie understand "piracyz em bad", however:

Physical goods are rarely licensed

> wew, you can't afford the new Toastinator 300 (tm)? just buy a second-hand one for cheap, I just found a vintage 200x model at a garage sale
Google ms office 2000. It's 170 pounds.

> I really wasn't liking the new vacuum cleaner, I sold it to a neighbour for a bag of hammers and a handjob
I really don't like the new MS Access 2016

> the local geezer died and his nephew is selling the house. he's getting rid of all his old books for a pound a box, no peeking, that's bonkers!
Man, I just got this old kindle, can't wait to make an account and buy some books*
(buy the license to the books)

I actually would be pro stricter enforcing of copyrights, as long as it would be illegal to market, present, suppose that a sale is "buying" a product, you're buying a license. No more "buy this book", it's "license this book", "buy now" is "license now", etc. Yesteryear, you could go to the shop, and the software was neatly written on a installation CD that came in a box with instructions, like an electric razor, or a toaster, normies thought about software like they thought about all physical goods.

File: RF001.png (487KB, 607x489px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 607x489px

>>56262236
>>56262262

Yeah not shit retard, someone put their time, effort, and expense into a thing, They either did it themselves or paid a fuck ton of money to hire other people together to create X. Whether X is a book, a game, a movie, a song, what the fuck ever they OWN it. It's the entire purpose of intellectual rights. THEY have say over how and when it is sold and how much. It doesn't matter if it's a physical thing, the point is that YOU pay to experience/use it. If they decide to give it away for free fine, but it's their choice. If they decide to charge $0.01 for it or $1,000,000 for it it is still THEIR CHOICE since THEY OWN IT.

Let me dumb it down even further for you fucking moron:

Creator says you must pay X amount to experience/use their creation. If you experience it without paying you are stealing the X amount he creator would have made from you using it thus the creator is out X amount.

If you think the price is too high then don't fucking experience/use it. Holy shit it's like talking to a child.

>>56262364
man, can't wait for that lifetime + 70 years time to pass so I can use windows xp legally :^)

>>56262364
That isn't how copyright works. It protects the rights holder from damages.

If they sell a copy to someone for $1.00 and that person then copies it and gives it to his friend to watch, the copyright holder has no right to benefit financially.

If he wants to he can sue and try to prove that he lost income due to the transaction but good fucking luck there isn't a judge in the world that would rule in his favor.

>>56262364

> what the fuck ever they OWN it
Legally, usually. But, since pirate's don't care about the law, you need to make a different argument to convince them. Pirates reject the idea of ownership of these things. You need to prove this statement.

> Creator says you must pay X amount to experience/use their creation. If you experience it without paying you are stealing the X amount

Prove it.

> Holy shit it's like talking to a child.

I could say the same thing. It's easy to prove you're right by making wild claims regarding the metaphysical characteristics of 'ownership' without backing them up.

The meaning of "ownership," "stealing," and "property," are important to this discussion. Some people do not share your definitions. Try and convince them rather than hurling insults -- you'd do a lot better.

actually it's legally worse (burglary) if you steal meat that you weren't going to pay for. If you say you planned on paying for it, it becomes petty theft or often no charge since "I just forgot my wallet"

File: 1469126088595.jpg (59KB, 453x439px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 453x439px

>>56262364
> Oh, you can't buy this medicine you need to survive? Tough luck, rich boy over here bought the rights to the drug and raised the price by 1000000000%
> Oh, you can't afford it?
> Stop being sick, poor and dumb and make your own then
wow, it sure is nice living in a world where copyright is infailible

File: Screenshot_2016-08-25-12-34-35-1.png (94KB, 1009x821px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1009x821px

>>56261968
>>56262122
Same.

>>56262364
>{{{{((((((stein))))))}}}}
>{{{{((((((berg))))))}}}}

File: Bionic Arm.gif (174KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x600px

>>56262436

Dude, why is everyone in this thread so obsessed with what will or won't pass in a court of law? I see so many people saying "well, good luck collecting or proving losses"

This is a thread about the inherent fallacy associated with the thought of "if I take or use something without paying for it, I am not fucking the creator out of money". Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. It's just shit logic. You can try to ascribe a bunch of legal loopholes or describe instances of corporate fuckery but at the base of it all you are fucking over the creator because in a world where it would be IMPOSSIBLE rip or copy media you would either pay for it or you wouldn't experience it. Bringing in said ability doesn't change the principle at ALL.

Also, don't take my due diligence as a pledge of innocence. I'm a hypocrite in living flesh, right now I'm listening to music streaming on youtube. It's the case that idiots still have this notion that they aren't affecting the creator at all. If you're going to do it then fucking do it and stop making excuses but realize that when you do it you are harming SOMEONEs income. Live with it and stop living with denial ideas.

>>56262364
Man, the makers of the atom bomb must've gotten really mad when Russian spies pirated their schematics. Sadly, they didn't have DMCA back then. :^)

>>56262566
Let me guess, you also jaywalk but believe in the benefits of the rule of law at the same time? You disgust me.

>>56262566
So if you use your friends skateboard, that is the same as stealing. If this was true donation centers and second hand shops would be immoral

File: Would you like to know more.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>56262478

Also realize that if the creator wants to make money or profit they also have to price it at a point that consumers will buy it. Your example is implying that someone will just make a shit ton of medicine then not want to sell it. They aren't fucking cartoon villains. And yeah sure, in AMERICA the shit is fucked up and they charge a shit ton because they know insurances will reimburse pharmacies and if a prior auth is needed it will usually go through.

File: Снимок экрана 2016-08-25 в 22.47.55.png (10KB, 404x76px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 404x76px

>not bringing communist utopia a little bit closer

>>56261968
>>56262023
you are presenting a scenario in which matter can be freely and instantly duplicated. this means the fucking concept of scarcity no longer exists. what the fuck does currency even do then?

>>56262023
That's retarded, you can't be faulted for having magical powers that allow you to create replicas of stuff.

File: large.jpg (46KB, 625x446px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 625x446px

>>56262283
Amen.

>>56262566
Because if I take a video that I paid for and share it with a friend the only wealth created is his enjoyment, there is no monetary gain and it can't be theft by very definition because nothing is stolen.

If you can't prove he caused damages then there is literally no reason to assume what he is doing is wrong, because it isn't.

File: RF004.gif (867KB, 500x470px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 500x470px

>>56262588
>>56262609
>>56262617

What the fuck are you guys talking about?

I know this is bait but why is a knee jerk reaction always some huge improbably scenario like fucking atom bombs and the USSR or wrong assumptions about charity. Donations centers are SECOND HAND GOODS LIKE YOU SAID. Meaning someone BOUGHT IT FROM THE CREATOR THEN DONATED IT. The creator got paid, the person had the item and it is now HIS BECAUSE HE PAID FOR IT. Why are you so dense?

And how does me believing in a private ownership and business practices have ANYTHING to do with my beliefs on public safety laws? Just because I think one law is right doesn't mean I believe ALL laws are right.

>>56262620
It is true that a rights-holder will want to (eventually) make money. It is also true that if the rights holder stops giving a fuck he can charge up the ass (which again is in his right).

Insurance does not come out of thin air, anon. Sooner or later, the insurance company will drop the drug or charge whoever needs it covered up the ass.

>>56262023
This would make sense, if Magic existed.

File: Starting with Greek Literature.jpg (1MB, 3672x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3672x3024px

>>56262733

And let me go ahead and clarify for >>56262708

The item is yours, you can do whatever you want with it, so long as what you do doesn't interfere with said creators profits. That is if you are keeping to the principle discussion because like I said you can do whatever you want but stop kidding yourself with discussion on fucking metaphysics.

>>56262733
> I know this is bait but let me proceed to fall for the bait
I just don't know who's baiting who anymore.
One of them is actually using the caret face.
Anon, pls, stop bumping bait threads by replying to second order bait replies

File: 1409046489756s.jpg (1KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 100x100px

>>56261968

>>56262773
>interfere with said creators profits
That is where you are grossly wrong. I can do whatever I want to fuck with the creators profits and its 100% legal, which includes things like giving him shitty reviews and recommending people not buy his video.

He doesn't have the right to profit from his video, he has to convince people to buy it.

File: Literature Starter Kit.jpg (418KB, 747x1417px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 747x1417px

>>56262638
>>56262640
>>56262770


What the fuck do you think copying a file is? You're taking information/media/experiences that someone wants to sell to make a living. Sure, technology isn't magic, but the action is the same. A creator wants to charge $0.99 for a song. Someone puts the song up online and lots of people download it for free without paying $0.99 for it. How are you not getting this? In this instance magic powers = the ability to copy something for free and not pay the creator.

>>56262620
Nice try, Martin Shkreli

File: RF007.png (305KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 600x600px

>>56262817

Again, for like the 4th time, stop bringing up the legality of shit in the court. I am not interested nor is the original message of the thread interested in legal loopholes or philosophies involving the metaphysical process of owning or selling.

The point and original meaning of this is people still think that not paying for something that someone is selling/charging for or giving away for free is in some way not taking money from the creator.

>>56262845
Maybe he shouldn't be doing the work without getting paid first.

Really makes you think.

>>56262889
It isn't taking money from the creator.
I'm seriously curious to know why you believe that it is.

File: FzefoxEMr_RZBCRL.png (144KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 499x499px

>>56262889
>>56262733
>>56262364
>>56262163
Man anon, I sure like your reaction images. Must have cost you something to have such eclectic tastes. Oh? You didn't buy the source material. Well, at least you licensed the images to be reused for online posting, right? You didnt? Not even to modify said work? You know fair use doesn't cover shitposting right? "comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work"

Legitimately obligates you to conclude.

ITT: white people explain why it is okay for them to act like niggers.

>>56262970
All the copyright laws in the world aren't going to jew a cent from something thats free. They need to find a new way to protect the value of what they are doing or else lower their expectations.

>>56262964
thank mr skeltal

>>56262845
Maybe the creator shouldn't try to make a living out of easily duplicable stuff that requires no additional work out of him after recording.

I work hard for my money, and I can't make money out of recording my self working and selling that to my boss. I have to work everyday, I don't think it's too much to ask that they do. I'm not going to give my money to pay for somebody's drug habit just because they played something cool once.

What technology gives, technology takes away. The only reason they could make fortunes selling records is because records were invented. So they can't complain about technology superseding that. It's like big box stores and malls crying about the internet destroying their business when they didn't give a shit about mom and pop stores.

Technology disrupts your business? Find a new business model, perhaps take a cue from musicians from the pre-record eras: Rather than expect that a good album will pay for you and your grandchildren decades after you're dead; instead actually make a living by playing music for audiences. You can't pirate work.

>>56262023
>testdriving is stealing and you should assume the quality of anything based on face value
wew

>>56262288
An actual retard that thinks stopping piracy would change Hollywood movie shitfest lel!

>>56262964
thnk mr skltal

New rule: Anyone equating piracy to theft must pay royalties for the songs they get stuck in their head.

>>56262964
thank mr skeltal
Isn't that a PNG?

>>56263025
shut the fuck up

File: RF002.jpg (41KB, 480x410px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x410px

>>56262964

I've already admitted I'm a hypocrite however the point of the conversation is whether pirating is taking a sale away from the creator, which it is. I don't care what you do, but at least realize what you're doing and stop making excuses.

>>56263112

What does his choice of profession have to do with this? It doesn't matter if you think his goods aren't hard to make or that his business practices are lazy. It all boils down to an interaction that person A is not paying for something that person B is selling.

All these justifications are just fabrications you make to justify what you're doing. It's no better than any other dogma. Again, do what you want but stop trying to bullshit a bullshitter.

>>56261968
I'm poor, that's why I torrent shit for free, no excuses here.

>>56262964
thenk mt skeltal

>>56261968
It's simple, if you can get away with it, then it's fine. Copyright is invented by law enforcement, it's their fault if they don't respond.
Also, you're copying digital data, not physical as >>56262023. You're an idiot if you think copying is bad. You're not even stealing from them, you're getting a copy from your "friend", seeders and such. It's like saying backups should be illegal because if you lose your data that's an equivalent of breaking your bike and you should pay for another or pay for repairs. Kill yourselves you filthy Jewish shitposters.

Just got a notice from my ISP about 15 minutes after torrenting a movie. Have never had this problem before. Will I get fucked if I keep torrenting shit? Will going through a VPN help?

>>56262023

Upon seeing that a person has the ability to duplicate physical objects, the cashier immediately asks the man if he could duplicate some of the cash in the cash register. While it is highly illegal and pretty dangerous for our economy if done on a massive scale, no one would believe that a person could duplicate materials in this way.

File: Logical_a00b39_5614369.jpg (52KB, 358x532px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 358x532px

>>56261968

File: 1466188276969.gif (4MB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 360x360px

>>56261968
It is. Sure hasn't stopped me. When I was younger I also copied rented tapes and then didn't even rewind them. Git gud

>>56263225
>Will going through a VPN help?
Yes. Provided you configure it so it doesn't act like it's a piece of swiss cheese.

>>56262283
This. Why didn't he bought more? That's just plain piracy.

>>56263225
>will getting a VPN after I've been busted help?
It's too late now. In future, you should use a VPN before getting a notice.

>>56263245
How so? Care to spoonfeed me?

File: lol.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>>56263239
>didn't even rewind them

i chuckled heartily

>>56263225
Yes, VPNs work, don't acknowledge jack shit about piracy. It may be used as evidence in a court of law if shit even hits the fan

>>56263245
>>56263258
Also, are private trackers safe?

>>56263184
>pirating is taking a sale away from the creator

You have no data to back this up. You may argue from a moral or ethical perspective that the creator is OWED for an act of piracy, but you cannot prove an act of piracy is a lost sale.

I'd care to wager that most piracy occurs among those who would not willingly pay for it anyway.

>>56263209

See:>>56262845

Also in your example of backing up data is based on using a proprietary OS then you are in fact using software that you should have already bought to back said data up. When you bought the OS you bought all the features it came with. There is no fault though if you are using an open source OS as these licenses are relaxed. Also why do you think that the creators of said OS wouldn't agree that backing up data is a right of those who bought their OS/functionality?

It's the decision of the creators how to charge and what to charge for. When you buy something it is yours and everyone except Apple or some other shit show company agrees with this. The only time it is a "bad" thing is when you interfere with other profits such as copying and giving the copy to someone else which brings us full circle back to piracy.

>>56263277
>I'd care to wager that most piracy occurs among those who would not willingly pay for it anyway.
Can confirm.

>>56261968
>Copyright infringement is stealing.
It literally is not. The US Supreme Court agrees.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud"

>>56261968
>Copyright infringement is stealing.
I know this is bait, but the law says otherwise. That's why we have a different term for it.

See ya again in a month you faggot.

>>56263277
this.

also, you can never get a real feel for the game without actually playing it yourself, trailers are bullshit and you're not at the controls when you watch other people play.

if i'm low on money and unsure about a game i fucking pirate it, and if it's good i will buy it when i can afford it.

>>56263179
skeltalposting is a art

>>56263261
Well I said the VPN but, provided it's not some fly-by-night provider, the chances are it'll be decent with the defaults.

The bit to worry about is your browser. Presumably you'll be using a browser to locate a torrent to download. For example google any DNS leak test websites and see what they show.

>>56263261
1. google torrentfreak vpn and get a good provider. (free ones are always shit and not secure).
2. download openvpn and enter your vpn details
3. ???
4. profit

>>56261968
"In common usage,theftis the taking of another person'spropertywithout that person's permission orconsentwith the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

>>56261968
>steal
You remove someone else property. The person have to buy the thing you stole again if he still wants it.

>piracy
You clone someone else property, the owner don't lose anything, but don't get anything either. No need to buy/make the thing again.

Do you get it? Now you will probably call me a pirate, a NEET, a loser, but I do buy things if I want to support the developer. Piracy for me is just a way to test the product before I buy it, like you do with cars. It wouldn't be needed if every developer made a demo of the software, like they used to do before.

>>56263359
>physical property

>>56262812


>>56262812


>>56262812

File: itt.gif (4MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 500x375px

>>56263277
>dubs
>that totally sound argument
moral fags will never recover

>>56262964
thank mr skeltal

File: 2016-07-29 23.52.36.jpg (58KB, 548x181px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 548x181px

>>56263225
>be American
>can't torrent
>get shot

Your "freedom" is a meme.

>>56263411
>Freedom*
>*ˢᵒᵐᵉ ʳᵘᶫᵉˢ ᵃᶰᵈ ʳᵉˢᵗʳᶦᶜᵗᶦᵒᶰˢ ᵐᵃʸ ᵃᵖᵖᶫʸ⋅

>>56263389
sauce?

>>56261968
>steal
stopped reading there

>>56263293
The OS has a feature to share data. It doesn't check for licensed data. Therefore I'm allowed to seed torrents, because the OS comes equipment with it. You can't do anything about it, if we don't want to pay to get a song we'll find a way to get it for free. This already means we're superior, we found a cheaper way of getting something whereas you had to pay for it. As >>56263277 said, they wouldn't even see my money in the first place. In 99.99999% cases pirated media isn't used for commercial purposes, but it does in it's way advertise the product. Windows, for example, wouldn't be nearly as popular if piracy didn't exist.
Piracy being "bad" only became a thing when American capitalism hit the world, prior to it it was very common and encouraged for people to copy others in many ways to improve their own products.
You're being cucked by money hungry companies who don't care about you at all, as long as they get their money.

>>56263485
Princess Dust

>>56262023
>man copies bike, says he'll pay for it later
>man comes back to pay for the copy
>store owner gets money for basically nothing and keeps the original

How is this bad again?

>>56263531
The first fap of the night is in your honour anon

literally who gives a shit, just let this thread die

File: jesus.jpg (26KB, 392x332px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 392x332px

>>56262283
Yep, free food and healthcare. Then people wonder why the Romans nailed that Jew to a cross.

>>56262964
>thank mr skeltal

>>56262023

Why would he expect money if he did not make the bike.

This comic is poor trolling.

>>56263525

No shit, getting currency is the entire point of a business. What that business does with the money is another story, but they are there to make money. Even the artist spreading his product is trying to make money with his art. Stop giving bullshit about how piracy spreads and helps sells. It might be true, like a lot of what you say, but the point still stands that when you don't pay the creator you take away their possible profit.

But let's stray away from the point like everyone in this thread seems to want to do. Let's delve into your little idea of the future. I assume you are an advocate for universal income, as I am, because if you aren't this is the only other outcome:

If creators can't make money off their creations, or enough to support themselves doing it because everyone just pirates their shit, then they will probably stop doing it full time. Not creating full time leads to huge gaps in creation and a substantial loss of quality (usually,some people are amazing and can keep this up while working full time). This however encourages an environment that seems to be anti-you (speaking to the jewish muh 9/11 bullshit). That is, the only way an artist such as a musician, director, etc. makes a living is by working for companies and being a wage slave. I mean really think about it, if everyone can get their music and movies for free, why would anyone pay for it? The good of humanity? If anything you're just supporting the idea that people will just take and take and give nothing in return. Sure some artists will make art for art sake, which is all well and good, but you're essentially depriving them of the opportunity to survive off their work and not through the HR department of a corporation. I'm not being cucked, I'm choosing to pay for things that I enjoy because I want the people who make them to keep making them. While I don't pirate files, I do stream and in that since I am still just as bad as I am viewing the stuff without paying.

>>56263821
You can't pirate someone's live experience of a concert. Yet.

>>56263821
>if everyone can get their music and movies for free, why would anyone pay for it? The good of humanity?
Just because you're selfish doesn't mean everyone else is. I regularly infringe on copyrights but often pay for it later if I happen to enjoy the work.

>>56263821
>if everyone can get their music and movies for free, why would anyone pay for it?

Everyone already can get any media they want for free.

>>56263821
>advocate for universal income

So you think everyone is entitled to free shit at the expense of someone else, but you're against piracy?

>>56263821
But you do give something in return. Pirate's code dictates that you should, during your lifetime, buy and seed at least 1 product :^). And nobody is stopping you from paying for the product after you pirate it, you'd be surprised how many people do that. (obviously not the majority).
You're not taking anything from the creator. If I go to a store and see a biology book and decide it's too expensive, I'll go to a friend who already purchased the book and he will teach me biology and show me the book. I might even take pictures of the book, which is perfectly fine since I didn't copy it, I "memorised" it using an external source of memory instead of my brain. Data is digital memory, which is information, which is free to be shared and cannot be "stolen". Unless you're completely against freedom of speech and information. In which case you're a victim of brutal capitalism who thinks money is the most important thing on the planet.
Also, people don't earn that much from selling music and movies so you have no idea what you're talking about. And that type of media is already completely free, go on YouTube and listen to a song, it's temporarily downloaded but you can permanently download it. And are you using an adblocker? Because that's also a "theft" since you're preventing websites from getting income.
And even then, pirates make up less than 20%, probably less than 10% of consumers which isn't a significant loss at all for a large corporation, and smaller companies are much less likely to be pirated from because it's in the human nature to help those who aren't in the lead.
You're not even considering abandoned software and media. Probably 1/3 of torrents are devoted for things that cannot even be purchased anymore, like retro games, tv shows and movies, although they aren't as popular as trending torrents.

>>56264074
>selling music and movies
Meant to individuals. Most income comes from advertising, selling music to clubs and selling cinema tickets.

>>56263184
But the artest does not get paid every single time a song of theirs is played on the radio, right? So, people copying and then listening to the song does not equate to the artist losing money. It does equate to them becoming more popular which will in turn make them money.

>>56261968
Lol get fucked nobody cares

>>56261968
Flaws argument, there is an unlimited amount of software, not an ultimate amount of meat.

If pirate a movie the publisher loses no more money than if you didn't buy it

If you steal meat the store loses money.

I don't even pirate but your argument is stupid

>>56262236
You don't "mix" anything when using a finished product. The idea is completely irrelevant.