Looking for a serious non-meme answer to this question. Is

>>57369117
Piracy is theft, yes. And there should be more laws to prevent it.

>>57369250
I'll second this answer with a caveat:

More always on piracy equates to less privacy in the interwebs.

I don't like it but I am equally opposed to theft.

>>57369250
Agreed. Hijacking a ship and stealing the contents is theft. It's also assault.

No.

The copying argument doesn't apply to digital products because there's already an infinite amount of the product. It has no scarcity, only the price that people are willing to pay.

That being said I still pirate because I don't give a shit.

Copying is not theft, piracy is.

>>57369293
This isn't funny. People spent a lot of their time and money on making software, and you refusing to pay them for it is you stealing that time and money.

>>57369117
Copying is theft if they have a patent or trademark on the property that says you cannot copy it. So yes.

>>57369490
You think people get what they deserve?
People get what they get.
Pay me for the other worthless shit I do, asshole. You're stealing from me.

>>57371493
What a dumb comparison. You are just stupid.

It`s not theft.
It may be harm.

Still, we should pirate everything so everyone will switch to free licenses.

>>57371493
Top quality posts

>>57369490

Not at all. Pirating software binaries doesn't halt the developer's ability to sell licences.

>>57369250
Piracy is immoral, but it is not really "theft".

Theft implies that you take something from another person, and you deprive that person of the object you took.

In piracy, everyone is making copies. The original has not disappeared, nor has there been any significant economic loss (other than the cost of transferring the data over your network connection)

>inb4 "but the company loses money"
Only if the person would have bought the product in the first place.

If a normal computer user has enough money to buy a product, they would buy it, because piracy is a hassle and buying the product is a more streamlined process.

If a user doesn't have enough money to buy the product and they pirate it instead, the company loses no money because that person wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Yes, piracy is still immoral, but it is certainly NOT theft.

Cost of first unit is high, could be millions even hundreds of millions, everything after that has only marginal cost. But nobody can afford to buy a pill of drug or piece of software that costs millions. This is why the creator is granted a monopoly over his product so he can drop the price and collect the revenue over time.
Yeah monopolies are bad and restrictions to how people are allowed to use their computers for example are bad. But compared to a situation where lifesaving drug or some advanced software didn't exist at all, it is a choice between evil and lesser evil.

>>57369327
This basically. Their are applying a business model that's incompatible with the nature of the product. Infinite supply and little transportation fees makes paying a per unit fee really dumb. It makes more sense to sell services instead like a movie theater you get to enjoy the content on a big screen, or streaming sites buy licenses then sell streaming services.

>>57369117
No, it's copyright infringement. An entirely separate legal classification.
Anyone claiming otherwise is arguing over a non-legal definition that has no strictly nuanced meaning. In that case there is no "correct" answer.

>>57372150
>Anyone claiming otherwise is arguing over a non-legal definition that has no strictly nuanced meaning.
as if the legal definitions are more accurate, they vary wildly from country to country, for example is streaming(you don't make a local copy so it's not a download) illegal? This was a big legal question in my country. and even then enforcement varies wildly as well

>>57372150
You know damn well that legal definitions aren't necessarily correct definitions.

>>57369117
capitalism is theft
ip piracy is fighting against capitalism
it is the moral duty of every free human

>>57372197
They are if codified in publicly available law code. This, however, does not make them "right".

No, that's why there are two different words.

>>57371616
99% of all pirating is done by people who can afford the product.

>>57372241
>law code
what are you going hack the legal system lololololololololol

>>57372188
>streaming(you don't make a local copy so it's not a download) illegal?
Streaming is a time limited copy. Just one of the many gnarly bits that eventual gets worked out in various law systems
>as if the legal definitions are more accurate, they vary wildly from country to country
The act is that of infringing an originators "right" to control the copying of their original work. Some countries may not recognize this as a right, just as some might not recognize a right to "property".
All I'm saying is that arguing over the semantics of theft is ultimately fruitless, but one can specify legal definition for those who confuse the two.

>>57372303
Do you have any evidence to support that, at all?

>>57372336
Apologies, "a publicly available legal code" might have been more understandable.

>>57372404
99% seems a bit much, but piracy is massive in poor countries like russia poland china etc.
even in the western world i'd say 50% or so. A lot of pirated games i played for 1-2h and then deleted them because i didn't like them.

>>57369490
You cannot steal what someone does not lose in the process of stealing.

>Check GNU's "Words to Avoid"
>I HATE HOMONYMS AND GENERALIZATION: the page

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Piracy

>>57372396
>Streaming is a time limited copy
it's never complete
you only take very small snippets and delete them a few seconds later

>>57372750
>I hate people who hate buzzwords used for an agenda! They're all chink commies!!!

>>57369117
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/12/pirate-bay-co-founder-piracy-machine/

>>57372743
They lose the money that you would otherwise have used.

>>57372771
So I copy a book one page at a time and burn each page after reading. Do you really think that makes a difference?

File: Stallman.png (22KB, 359x422px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 359x422px

I WILL GO ON AN ADVENTURE

TO STOP PEOPLE FROM SAYING "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY"

WISH ME LUCK

>>57372804
Not how it works.

>>57372851
Yes it is how it works. You steal potential money.

>>57372870
>potential money
Thread over

>>57369117
infringing on a copyright is literally not theft in any legal sense. they are distinct legal entities with distinct legal regimes and case law. for example, a court can recognize that infringement occurred but that it was within the infringer's rights to do so, e.g. for educational purposes

MOST IMPORTANTLY, theft is CRIMINAL and can be prosecuted by the government. copyright infringement is in most cases CIVIL and is only enforced by lawsuit. there are exceptions, but they are not analogous between theft and infringement (for example it is criminal to author infringement tools, but it is not criminal to sell lockpicks)

ethically and philosophically, the basis for property and theft is Locke, which is explicitly not the basis for copyright in the US. the basis for copyright in the US is that the monopoly functions as an economic stimulus for the arts, which Congress is empowered to do by the Constitution. Copyright in the US is explicitly not based on any human rights, and especially not the rights that influence property law

>>57372835
lawyers and judges seem to think it does

>>57372870
in US law the philosophical basis for property is the exclusion principle in Lockean philosophy. it is literally not possible to steal something that is not exclusive in US law. furthermore, US law explicitly rejects "labor deserves compensation" arguments.

you only deserve compensation for your labor if you can find a way to realize it in the market. infringement is a civil action that harms your economic ability to realize compensation, just like e.g. slandering of your products; but that does not elevate it to criminal theft, any more than saying "Soylent causes cancer" is theft of Soylent's potential revenue

>>57372835
unfortunately it does, legally. if you do that it's a "performance" instead of a copy. the performance is not the same kind of economic substitute as a copy. it's analogous to playing a song vs. copying a CD.

the performance right is distinct from the copy right and is much weaker, which is why streaming services took off. it's technologically ridiculous because they're so wasteful

>>57373036
The what principle? Stop talking nonsense. I don't give a crap about American law, I am Swedish not American.

>>57373059
>"performance"
Ah, okay, that does make sense. I always wondered why streaming was so cursedly popular.

>>57373061
1. you should know who Locke is. he is somewhat influential in Western law.

2. your data is stored in US servers and therefore subject to US jurisdiction. US law is vastly more relevant to you than Swedish law when talking specifically about copyright online