Well, /g/?

File: IMG_1677.jpg (36KB, 609x324px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 609x324px

WTF I HATE PIRACY NOW

>>59447011
I don't care.

File: yourhead.jpg (63KB, 498x658px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 498x658px

>>59447011
A friend wants to buy a game. I tell him it sucks don't do it. He didn't buy it because he trusts me.

I'm a thief, right OP? Lawl.

>>59447011
the only people who claim otherwise are people who try to justify their piracy, usually teenagers, or literal autists/communists like Stallman.

I love piracy and I love theft
I don't have to justify anything

I'm going to keep pirating and there's nothing anyone can do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

File: 1467225881389.jpg (368KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 3000x3000px

>>59447011

>>59447011
it's not stealing income because i would not buy it if i could not pirate it. it's either i pirate it (and recommend it to friends who may buy it) or i don't (and you get no free advertising at all)

so really they should be thanking me :^)

>>59447038
You're an accomplice in theft

>>59447011
It makes the assumption that the pirate was going to, at some point, definitely buy said goods [resulting in income]. Flawed premise.

Not justifying piracy, not a pirate. Just saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

>>59447111
>tfw to intelligent to fall for OP
this

>>59447074
This here so much, fuck off it's not even nearly same as stealing and nobody actually loses money

Funny how all the pro piracy are jews. Pirates will be hanged on day of the rope for killing white profits and listening to ZOGs.

>>59447090
What's this pic implying? The hook is so huge it cannot possibly catch that little fish.
So only intelligent people fall for OP's bait because the dumb ones just agree with him?

>>59447142
>all the pro piracy are jews
How do you mean?

File: MerchantsMarauders[1].jpg (97KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 970x545px

ARRRR, I'M a PIRATE !!!

And I don't like copying videogames. But I like plundering coastal villages, and sailing with my ship under a black flag.

>>59447011
>implying people will buy it if they cant pirate it

File: 1475492710725.jpg (684KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1024x768px

>>59447011
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as "piracy." In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.) If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "unauthorized copying" (or "prohibited copying" for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor." A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that "piracy" and "theft" are smear words.
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

>>59447201
This sounds reasonable.

Thanks Stallman poster.

Jesus pirated bread and fish

>>59447201
I think that pirates did that primarily to steal stuff from the ships; take what they have no rights to. In that aspect "unauthorized copying" does resemble piracy.

Scientific research shows it doesn't steal income and might in fact increase income because pirates buy more shit than others and piracy increases exposure.

>>59447290
What pirates did was stealing. People who share content, create a copy.

>>59447011
I gues this this what they call "brainwashing".

>hurr durr ur stealing our monies
https://youtu.be/GZadCj8O1-0

>>59447011
if someone was not willing to pay how is it stealing income?

File: Pablo.jpg (149KB, 720x926px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 720x926px

>>59447011
>he's not an outlaw
>he lets other men determine what he can do

>>59447319
I'm not saying those two are exactly the same. I pointed out a similarity, you pointed out a difference.

However, the fact that they're making a copy doesn't make it right. In every product, there is the cost of research factored in. In electronics it's often a very big portion of the product's price. Somewhere I've read that manufacturing an iPhone costs 20$, but that was probably bullshit (I mean, the screen costs much more, maybe it was the cost of assembling everything). Anyway, even if you sum up the cost of all parts and assembling those parts, you won't be even close to the total. You can't just ask Apple to give you the plans of the phone, or better, include the plans of assembly lines and make your own iPhones. I mean, you can ask but you know what the result would be. In computer software, however, there is near 0 cost for assembling as you just copy the finished machine code onto a DVD or even just distribute it through the Internet. The ease of "manufacturing" (I don't mean coding, I treat that as product research) software enables even the customers to do that. But there is still the cost of designing and coding a program and it's totally not okay to ignore that. It costs many hours of work to finish a program and that's what the price consists of. Pirating software is saying "fuck you" to all those people that worked on it. I think that people on /g/ should know what it takes to make software. ...Right?

tl;dr: software is intellectual property


Also, I'm not really opposing piracy absolutely. I think it's fine to pirate a game to evaluate it since the developers now want to get your money before they even finish the game, holy fuck. I don't do that personally though.

But then making a shit product is also theft

>>59447011
>pirate software
>developer makes zero dollars
>don't pirate it
>dev still makes zero dollars
Where is the theft?

>>59447553
This. If I can't pirate it, I won't buy it anyway. If I can pirate it, I may buy it if it's good.

File: 12-35-34-1461168854299.jpg (13KB, 540x489px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 540x489px

>>59447011

Majority of pirates are not potential customers,you cannot measure loss of profit since they wouldn't buy the software even if there wasn't any torrents available.

>>59447766
lost income through potential sales. Refusing to pay and not using the software is fine, refusing to pay so you pirate it means you've deprived the developer of a sale and yet you still use his product, you have not funded his effort in creating the software.

File: 1460689766324.jpg (152KB, 1039x1024px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1039x1024px

>>59447897
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property” — a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”
The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.
To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property".
It was created by corporate shit heads. It only sounds meaningful to people who are happy to bend over for those corporate shit heads. None of whom have ever created a worthwhile damn thing in their lives.
Intellectual property = bullshit.

>>59447796
I will never understand how people can justify to themselves that its absolutely fine to refuse to pay for something because they can pirate it and use it anyway. If there is a price attache to it, that means the developer obviously wants to be compensated for their work. By pirating, you're essentially telling the developer that their software is good enough for you to use but you dont want to fund the developers efforts, which in turn means the developer may not want to maintain or upgrade said software, which fucks other paying customers over because you childish autists think there is a distinction between pirating and stealing. Pro tip: there isn't, and the only people who think there is are the cunts ripping off developers the world over by pirating

>>59447878
That's the thing though, there is no potential sale.

>>59447931
Intellectual Property = someone/some group/company/org has invested time and money,whether thats finding and recruiting others to do the coding while they fund them or handling setup + infrastructure costs etc, or if they fund and build everything from the ground up, to create something that they want to be able to sell and/or distribute without fear of said creation being imitated or stolen. IP doesnt only apply to big corperations filled with a legion of suits, its there to protect peoples original ideas from being stolen by freeloaders, e.g. the people on this board trying to justify piracy to themselves

>>59447931
>None of whom have ever created a worthwhile damn thing in their lives.
You are a fool if you genuinely believe this.

>>59447933
Morality doesn't matter nor has it ever mattered. There is only power.

People have the ability to screw IP owners over very easily so they'll use it as long as it's easier than paying for the service.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about laws that cannot be enforced.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
It's the ultimative red pill about copyright.

>>59447011
Boo hoo, someone think of the corporations.
Indie artists already listen to fans and sell music on friendly platforms.

>>59448011
nice to see someone else watched it

>>59447019
DON'T DO IT JEB

>>59447948
Ok so theres no potential sale, I'll concede on that then, but someone is using someone elses work for free when the developer intends for it to be used once a copy has been paid for with money, presumably so said developer can afford to at least pay the utility costs needed to actually create the software. If you refuse to pay for software, then don't use the software. Just because you CAN pirate it doesn't mean your entitled to free use of it. Assuming you have a job, how would you reacct if you created something, or fixed something and your company decided that they didnt want to pay you for your work but they still wanted your creation, so they jus took it and used it?

Again, what if a developer decides to get outof software because nobody will pay for their work but finds it totally acceptable to steal a copy and use it anyway? Thats acceptable to you?

>>59448051
please watch: >>59448011
it's ebin

>>59447997
If thats the case, thats fine, can't argue with that. What im getting at is don't try to justify pirating software like you're doing somebody a favour. If you pirate because fuck it you can, then power to you. If you pirate because you think you're acting as some sort of ethical white knight, sticking it to the man for the silent masses, thats where I have an issue

>>59448063
Yeah, like im going to give any more of my time to some has been that autists put on a pedestal, If Stallmans words and opinions had any weight he wouldn't be regarded as some mentally disturbed meme

File: 1480844727438.png (30KB, 450x343px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x343px

>>59447011
obligatory

>>59448110
Why even join a discussion when you're biased as fuck anyway?

>>59448138
So its ok for those who support piracy to act biased, then its considered a discussion. but when someone takes the other side of the argument, suddenly they shouldn't have joined the conversation? If you're going to throw that kind of accusation around then you need to accept that anyone arguing for piracy is just as biased, in which case there shouldn't be a discussion because why join one if you're biased as fuck anyway?

>>59448110
>thinking stallman is a meme
>>>/r/eddit

>>59448185
>thinking that people who consider stallman a meme are the exception and not the rule
>>>your safe space

>>59447011
Our Freedom > Company Profits

>>59448138
>why even join a discussion if you have an informed opinion anyway?

>>59447011
100% brain washing cancer.

The thing is not about theft, it's about copyright and patents. Completly different things.

File: 200px-Homesewing.svg.png (13KB, 200x204px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x204px

>>59447290
>yarrrrrr camrades aboard aboard, seize those bilge rats!
>surrender all your belongings, let us quickly do a 1:1 copy for ourselves and me and me crew will let you free!
this is what gullible goyim believe

>>59448290
Copyright and patents mean I own it. It is my intellectual property. If you also use it, you are stealing from me. It is literally my property by law.

>>59448323
>intellectual property
Such thing doesn't exist senpai.

>>59448323
>by law
laws are ink on paper, your intellectual property can get cucked, cuck faggot

File: 1471679639618.png (50KB, 592x128px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 592x128px

>>59448323
So when I buy a CD from you, you own it?

>>59448344
>>59448357
Save your snappy comebacks for court
>>59448364
No, I own what is on the CD.

>>59448323
Copyright means that you have the right to create copies. It doesn't mean you own it. Learn 2 law.

File: pirate.jpg (211KB, 1066x678px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1066x678px

>>59447078

>>59448458
>No, I own what is on the CD.
lmao

>>59447933
>but if you don't pay for it then the developers will know you don't want to pay for it!! A-autist!
Fuck you. Also the only software I'll pay for is software that doesn't carry a threat against users.

>>59448501
convincing

Forbidding people to share puts people into a devilish dilemma: If you don't share something with your friend, you're a bad citizen, if you share it, you're a bad citizen too because of insane copyright laws that force you to be a bad citizen.

Be a good citizen.

Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Just because littering is wrong doesn't make it murder.

Words have actual meanings. Lying about them just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

>>59447201
Based Stallamn once again btfo the MPAA and RIAA cunts

It is capitalism.

When there is several competing products, people choose the best.
"Piracy" has long meant less of a hassle when getting the product and when using the product.

The only field where piracy didn't make a positive impact has been in the software industry.
Pirated software might contain malware, and software companies put malware in their own products to avoid people pirating it.

But the movie industry and the music industry have only improved over the years.
Admittedly, they are minimum a decade behind technology.
Movies we get through neflix today is of worse or of equal quality to the movies available on torrent sites a decade ago.

Piracy is a distribution problem.

>>59448323
> If you also use it, you are stealing from me. It is literally my property by law.
The law also says that copyright infringement is not theft.

>>59447655
It is intellectual property. But how are you entitled to own something of the intellect, an idea?
That's not how the market is supposed to work. Did Newton stopped working on the theory of the gravity or inventing calculus because he did not own that idea and the profits that could be made from it? Did Ford stopped creating the production chain because others could copy him, as they did? In fact Ford found problems to put it in practice because someone had a monopoly over the production of cars. They 'owned' the idea of automobile. Why should we think it would be the same for say, music, game and software developers? They should just find other way to make money. Donations, advertising, cheaper games maybe? Do we stop making memes because we don't have property over them and everyone can copy and distribute them for free? Obviously it's not the same but those are some interesting questions.

>>59447011
Where is the original though?
original=cash
copy=free
copy!=cash
original!=free
copy!=original
(¬A) ⊕ A
Conclusion: all copies should be free.

>>59448737
>intellectual property
why do you keep using that term?
there is no such thing in law

>>59447011
Here's the difference:

1: if you steal a car, you deprive the owner of something that's objectively and provably worth many $1000s of dollars.

2: If you download a file, you deprive the uploader of something like $0.0001 worth of electrical energy. If they claim that it was really "worth" $50, that's just a fantasy -- it's basically an arbitrary number that they pulled out of their ass -- it's simply the amount they WISH people would pay them for it.

But the biggest problem is that if you take that kind of thinking to its logical conclusion, then you make the logical fallacy that things are worth only what their market price is. So for example, you'll end up claiming that the market price of a copy of a Linux OS (which is $0) necessarily means that Linux is actually worth nothing.

File: 1464317665723.jpg (17KB, 299x383px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 299x383px

>when someone stole your car but it's still there

>>59448323
>it's law therefore it should be
It's law in Saudi Arabia to burn people for witchcraft, should it be?

>>59448753
It was used in the post I replied to. Call it patent if you prefer that term.

>>59448761
GNU/Linux*

So if I pirate the same game 10 times I can make a company I don't like loose money faster :thinking:

>>59448843
No, the count goes by person who would buy the game.

>>59448875
>the count goes by person who would buy the game.
So If I don't want to buy the game but pirate it because I can do it for free it doesn't count?

Great, I'm not a thief then.

>downloading the latest hollywood cuckbuster is stealing
>downloading child porn is supporting the industry

really gets the noggin joggin

>>59448875
stop viewing human beings as "potential customers" or anything else that dehumanizes them. Think of them as living, breathing, thinking beings.

There is no customer until a person presses the "buy now" button or hands over cash in a store.

Before there is a customer, there are no (0, Zero) sales to lose.

>>59447011
By that reasoning, opening a competing store next to another store is stealing from the other store, since you're depriving them of the income they would otherwise have were you not competing with them.

That's not stealing. The definition of stealing is removing the original, not removing income.

>>59447265
underrated

>>59448975
this

finally

/thread

I don't judge pirates cause tons of people including me do it but don't pretend piracy isn't theft.

>>59448984

The competing store example is even worse, since you're depriving your competitor of his income and taking it for yourself.

In piracy, you're not taking the copyright "owner"'s (alleged) income for yourself, you're (allegedly) just depriving him from it.

If you are to believe OP's argument, then competition is theft. In fact, it is the ultimate form of theft.

>>59448964
Piracy does support the industry a little bit. It's also a little harmful. This is why these "piracy is theft" arguments can't easily be squashed.

If I steal your business card and then show it off to a bunch of people I still stole your business card. You might get more business out of it, but it doesn't mean I didn't steal it.

It's similar with piracy. If you pirate something you are helping that product a bit, but you're also potentially narrowing their customers by excluding yourself from the customer base.

>>59449035
See >>59448975

Depriving someone of customers is not stealing.

Removing the original (as in taking someone's actual, concrete business card) is stealing.

Stealing has a very clear definition. Stop blurring it, you fucking film/music industry shill.

>>59449035
The positive in the competing store part is that we consider competition to be good as long as the products differ. This is why fair use is a thing.

>>59449056
I'm not arguing about whether it's stealing or not. That's just semantics. I'm arguing harm vs benefit. You know, the thing that actually matters here. Copyright laws exist for the benefit of society or at least they're supposed to.

>>59448753
>>intellectual property
>there is no such thing in law

Technically, it's true that IP law is actually specified in terms of separate "copyright", "patent", and "trademark" rights, and that the general term "intellectual property" is rarely (if ever) used within the text of the legal statues.

However, it is common practice in the field of law to use the term "intellectual property" as a generic term to refer to the three specific areas I mentioned above. When a term becomes widely used in the legal field, then it is generally acknowledged as being the "correct" way to refer to it, even if it turns out to be annoying jargon to the ears of non-lawyers.

Here's another example of this: Some lawyers will advertise their services as "family law". Well, it turns out that "family law" is really just a marketing euphemism for "divorce lawyer" -- about 95% of "family law" practice relates specifically to divorce cases, such as division of property and custody rights. Yet, despite the fact that the term "family law" is never used in the legal statutes, "family law" is in fact the de-facto standard way of describing that particular area of law by those who actually practice the profession.

>>59449059
>we consider competition to be good
Some people consider competition to be good (myself included), but it's not universally considered a good thing. One could argue it's prejudicial. See Ha-Joon Chang. Read about economies of scale.

>>59448975
The problem with this whole semantics problem around piracy is that intellectual property is only supported by social convention. Actual properties are supported by objective reality, as in you can't have this chair because it is in my house, physically, and you don't have objective, physical access to it.

Now, softwares are abstract things, they are patterns of electrical currents, and they can be reproduced infinitely. Chairs can't. Can you really "own" a pattern or a way to do something?

If we had another verb for owning something that isn't objective, and also another verb for copying that thing without the permission of the original maker, none of these threads would exist.

>>59447992
>its there to protect peoples original ideas from being stolen by freeloaders,
If it was really filling that role, would we be having this conversation?

>>59449073
>That's just semantics
Semantics is the entire point here.

>I'm arguing harm vs benefit. You know, the thing that actually matters here.
You might have an utilitarian ethical viewpoint, but not everybody does. One could argue what really matters is one's duty, no matter whether it hurts or benefits others.

>Copyright laws exist for the benefit of society
That's a pretense, they exist for the benefit of a small class of wealthy elites.

>>59447011
piracy generates income and only removes a small subset of that income generated

>>59449102
i like your thinking

>>59448816
Thank you for pointing out the mistake in my post. I stand corrected.

>>59447011
Not if the person wouldn't have played the game if they had to pay for it.

>>59449099
The problem with any situation that doesn't have competition is that there's much less improvement. No competition can lead to a good local maxima, but in the long run you're probably going to fall behind because there's less incentive for improvement.

>>59449159
Not at all. Theodor Adorno argues that competition leads to self-centrism and objectification. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself competition to be a good thing, but be warned that not everybody thinks so.

On capitalism (an entire system built upon that premise), there are multiple examples of progress being withheld for the sake of profit.

Empirically speaking, medieval monasteries and European family ventures are a good example of perfection achieved without competition but rather cooperation. To this day, there is no higher standard of, say, wine, than French and Italian wines which are grown by local families who are simply passionate about what they do. There are also a number of modern examples that show how cooperation can be better, like cooperative scientific development in universities.

Competition always involves the seek of some immediate, temporary prize. Passion, on the other hand, can drive us indefinitely.

Copyright law is meant to protect the copyright holder or the inventor.
It's really a capitalistic idea meant to make a smart inventor rich regardless of HOW his very own production of the item behaves in the market.
If there was no copyright law anyone could pick up a patent or idea and produce something and the whole focus would be on how well it is produced not if someone has the right to produce it.
So you you look at it closely copyright law is a step back and will produce inferior products.
It's not enough to come up with an idea you need to make that idea practical and even Kant noticed that.
e.g. It's not enough to make a cure for a disease you need to find a useful way to produce and to sell it and be successful in the market otherwise what's the use of that cure if it will never reach the majority of the people or if it's held back by a troll i.e. Martin Shkreli.

>>59449304
>Piracy is not theft but it's still rightfully illegal
No, piracy is not illegal. It is unlawful. There's a difference.
See: http://pld.cs.luc.edu/courses/ethics/sum16/mnotes/theory_filesharing.html#law
>Like imagine you trespass on private property and leave without doing any damage. Does that make it okay and legal?
Yes. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

Not even sony would believe for a second that, as a poor student, I was going to pay full price for vegas just to fuck around on.

>>59449304
Trespassing in uncultivated land is allowed in most of Europe

>>59449355
People do not agree on the distinction of illegal and unlawful and Black's law dictionary says unlawful is a synonym to illegal and vice versa.

>>59449073
>Copyright laws exist for the benefit of society or at least they're supposed to.

No. Those laws do not exist for the benefit of society. They exist as a mechanism to allow politicians to give favors to rich businesses, in exchange for political contributions. The interests of "society" are of no consideration in that exchange.

For example, a number of years ago the US congress passed the absolutely dreadful "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" -- a multi-billion dollar gift from congress to the entertainment industry to extend copyright to an astonishingly long term. In exchange for that act of "kindness", the entertainment industry richly rewarded the congressmen who voted for it with lavish campaign contributions. Corrupt deals between rich cronies have absolutely nothing to do with benefiting society.

And look at the huge amount of content available on the Internet that's not under copyright restrictions -- for example, all the free software that's available. Some of that software is very high quality (such as Linux). The existence of that wealth of high-quality content is absolute proof that copyright is not needed to benefit society.

I understand why you posted what you did. You heard the corporate propaganda, and you simply repeated what you had heard. But some day I hope you can start thinking on a higher level than the drivel that corporations are spoon-feeding to you.

>>59449441
Cool, let's agree that copyright isn't illegal but just unlawful though. If both are the same, nothing is lost. If there's a distinction, then "unlawful" is more accurate.

>>59449304
>Like imagine you trespass on private property and leave without doing any damage. Does that make it okay and legal?
Yes but the file is not private. 'If you were to copy private files that would be wrong.

>>59449308
But if you ignore copyright laws, nobody will want to do the work of inventing something because then everybody else will be able to freely use his idea and the time he spent on it will be essentially wasted.

>>59449462
If they both mean the same thing, we can agree that copyright infringement is both illegal and unlawful.

>>59447011
Which is why software should be a public good paid for by taxes. Same for Google, Facebook and other botnets. All paid for by public money and run in the public interest.

>>59449481
>If they both mean the same thing
But you just said there's no agreement on that.

>>59449502

Go back to bed, Richard. And stop eating stuff you picked from your toes.

>>59449510
Which is why you can't argue that one thing is unlawful but not illegal. People can't agree on the difference between them which is why they are used as synonyms.

>>59449430
>Like imagine you trespass on private property and leave without doing any damage.
Even if you are doing damage, it can be legal.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/

>>59449565
>Which is why you can't argue that one thing is unlawful but not illegal
I can, but that's beside the point. The point is the term "unlawful" should be preferred because, if both are the same, then nothing is lost, but if they aren't, then it is the most accurate term.

>which is why they are used as synonyms
False.

>>59449478
>will want to do the work of inventing something because then everybody else will be able to freely use his idea
So the whole economy will collapse?
That's more BS, the inventors will strive to be active producers in the market and win not in the idea land but in the market land; inventors will focus more on the production of their inventions, focused on not winning high cash prizes for their patents from the big corporation but winning the actual buyers and competing with the big corporations. That would mean high market diversity(not just a few huge corporations dictating quality and price) and high market diversity means high competitive and high product value at cheap prices. It's an actual nightmare for the 0.1% that dream of ruling the world at every level.

>>59449308
>So you you look at it closely copyright law is a step back and will produce inferior products.

This is good point, and I rarely see it discussed very much. Both copyright and patent rights actually serve to discourage high-quality works and products.

For example, the business model of the pharmaceutical industry is entirely based on patents. What that means is that if there's some substance that can't be patented, then it will simply not be used in a drug. Unfortunately, there is a long list of non-patentable substances that have a great potential as drugs -- but they will forever be unavailable to us because the pharmaceutical industry was based on a model that prevents their usage.

The tragedy is that we'll never know what great medical treatments we're missing because of this. Instead, the pharmaceutical industry broadcasts their false propaganda that "patents are necessary for innovation", and they try to bury the dirty little secret that they actually can't give us any innovations that come from non-patentable sources.

Actually piracy increases income (if it's a good app). That's why Adobe and Apple intentionally make their stuff easy to crack. And because it basically makes their program the only choice, not letting the open alternatives grow.

>>59447011
Piracy is theft. Yes. And?

>>59447011
A pirated copy is not a lost sale.

Many pirates also buy, and most of the rest had no intention of buying at all.

>>59449571
http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

> “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights,

Isn't copyright infringement prohibited by law in the US?

>>59449574
Or, you know, the big corporations can just take his invention, copy his production methodology, and then produce identical products for cheaper, thus forcing him out of the market, since there's no patent law to stop them.

>>59447011
>Well, /g/?

We will start to respect piracy laws once the Chinese and other thieves stop openly stealing everything without consequence.

As long as the movie industry keeps letting the chinks copy their shit... no American or European will NOR should they respect privacy laws.

>>59449589
Usury is theft, but it's allowed.

Piracy is not theft, but it's not allowed.

Fuck this gay Earth.

>>59447156
only fat and dumb basement dwellers will bite and intelligent healthy people will ignore it

>>59449603
http://pld.cs.luc.edu/courses/ethics/sum16/mnotes/theory_filesharing.html#law

>What is "illegal"? Are copyright violations "illegal"? Usually, something is "illegal" if it involves a violation of criminal law. Defamation (libel/slander), for example, is seldom referred to as "illegal", despite the potential legal consequences. ("illegal" = expressly against the law, "unlawful" = not authorized by law, but implicitly not in compliance)
>Actually, as we discuss copyrights, it is worth noting that essentially all infringement is a civil matter, not a crime against the state (ie it is not "illegal").

>>59449607
>As long as the movie industry keeps letting the chinks copy their shit... no American or European will NOR should they respect privacy laws.

Agreed. It's pointless to expect whites to respect "piracy" laws when 2 Billion Chinese and Pajeets are openly stealing media every day.

>>59449607
>As long as the movie industry keeps letting the chinks copy their shit... no American or European will NOR should they respect privacy laws.

This.

>>59449578
The end of the copyright system will force the inventors to invent more and be practical about it in the real world and not just assume that they can sell their product but take the risk and actually sell it themselves and if their product gets copied they need to invent more and diversify.
The producer with the best products will always be ahead and the winner will be the consumer ofc but remember producers are consumers themselves, it goes full circle.

>>59449608
>Piracy is not theft, but it's not allowed.

Actually, it's "allowed" in the sense that only a tiny percentage of cases are investigated and prosecuted.

Basically, massive numbers of people have decided to "become thieves" (assuming you accept the dubious idea that downloading from unauthorized sources is "theft"). The government has decided not to allocate the billions of dollars necessary to effectively crack down on all that "theft". The result is that, as a practical matter, large amounts of unauthorized downloading are "allowed" -- even though the activity is not legally condoned.

>>59449607

Nobody gives a shit about fairness or equality.

You white people have money, so you can pay, period. People without money don't need to pay cuz they can't anyways.

>>59449658
>the government
You missed the part about copyright infringements being a civil matter, friend.

>>59449605
>thus forcing him to be even more creative and keep improving his products in order to have that edge and if others produce it better and improve it or make it cheaper, that looks like fair game to me

>>59449625
>Using qualifying words like "usually" and "seldom"
>written by someone working at the CS department and not the law department

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal/

>Illegal is a description for something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance. Illegal does not necessarily mean criminal. Something may be illegal under a statute that doesn't require criminal intent, and is therefore a civil vilation subject to civil penalites such as a fine. Illegal acts that are civil violations include driving too fast, failure to register a business, etc.

Sorry, but I think I'll go with the definition legal experts use rather than what a CS teacher wrote on his course website.

>>59449607
>As long as the movie industry keeps letting the chinks copy their shit

What are they going to do? Fly planeloads of lawyers over to China and start sending people threatening letters? Experience has shown them that's a slightly less productive activity than just smoking a joint and having a wank.

>>59449658
>rack down on all that "theft". The result is that, as a practical matter, large amounts of unauthorized downloading are "allowed" -
You really don't realize how hard it is to control the copying of files do you?
Or you're just stupid.

>>59449697
>You missed the part about copyright infringements being a civil matter, friend.

Copyright infringement can be either civil or criminal.

Do a google for "criminal copyright" violations, and you'll learn about it.

I'm not so sure myself if it should be equated to theft, but it's definitely something illegal. It's basically doing something with the intellectual property of the author against his will and wishes.
idk anymore, after writing this down, it really does sound like theft.

>>59449607
>As long as the movie industry keeps letting the chinks copy their shit
Do you even realize how easy it is to rip a bluray?!
Anyone can do it.

>>59449701
BUT THEY CAN COPY EVERY IMPROVEMENT HE MAKES

Holy fuck, I'm triggered.

>>59447011
raping a woman doesn't remove the original either, so I don't see any problem.

>>59449728
>I'm gonna insist on using the less accurate term because I'm either ignorant or I have an agenda
Okay.

>>59449761
Only if you have profit motives (http://pld.cs.luc.edu/courses/ethics/sum16/mnotes/copyright_laws.html#criminal), which is not the case for everyone here.

>>59449701
Except they'll just copy all the improvements he makes, and the drive him bankrupt thanks to economy of scale.

>>59449808
No one is saying rape is theft. The problem there is another.

>>59449795
Thus forcing the inventor to invent more and as a result making better products at a higher speed.
Can't you see how beautiful that would be?
The only winners of the copyright laws are the corporations.
The copyright laws reconstruct the market in such a way that they polarize into giants like you see today limiting market diversity.

>>59449758
>You really don't realize how hard it is to control the copying of files do you?

Just the contrary -- it's because I realize exactly how hard it is to control the copying that I understand why the government (and corporations) have such a hard time cracking down on it, and thus have, for all practical purposes, "given up" trying to crack down, and thus are forced to allow it.

>>59449832
Then provide legal sources that are written by legal experts rather than a CS website.

File: wp_ss_20170317_0001.png (738KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 720x1280px

>>59449761
It's only got a "criminal" label because of constant lobbying by the IP industry over decades.

Their is no objective moral way to support modern copyright. The original intent was good, we should go back to the first second implementation of CP law and stop letting entire industries thrive of creating nothing new.

7 years, then a 7 year extension then public domain. Think of the advancements in art, culture, tech and medicine if that were the case. It almost makes me tear up thinking of what could be.

>>59449808
>>59449840
>daily reminder that pro-piracy people support rape

>>59449856
>argumentum ad verecundiam
0/10

>>59449808
You would need to copy that woman and then rape her.
You copy a movie then watch it, you don't borrow the Bluray disc or CDs and return them..

>>59449844
Or he can just get another job and start actually making MONEY with his work instead of having to reinvent his production process every 6 months or go bankrupt.

>>59449878
so if I clone my crush and rape her in my basement furiously, then I'm ok?

File: 1483707324614.jpg (13KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x400px

>>59447011

>>59449844
No matter how much he invents, EVERYBODY gains exactly as much as him. Look at >>59449839, without patents it's only worse. Actually copyright laws protect the inventors from big companies simply copying the idea, but realizing it in bigger scale.

File: NUMBERS_NUMBERS_NUMBERS.png (84KB, 233x251px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 233x251px

>>59449892
>my crush
She's probably taking dick from Chad right now.

>>59449892
>copying people = copying software
>people = software
fuck off with your flawed argument.

>>59447038
he didn't play it, so no

that's pretty much like saying I didn't want to buy this steak, so I'm practically a thief

>>59449912
>tfw Chad stole your idea of cloning your crush and now he stuffs her with his dick in his basement
that was my fucking idea
i hate piracy now

>>59449877
Are you serious or are you just trolling? I can't tell.

You're citing a CS teacher when you're arguing law. In case you didn't know, appeal to authority is when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

>>59449937
aren't people just software written in dna?

When will they fuck off with these complaints? Piracy gets bigger every year but the game/movie industries still aren't dead. 3DS piracy is as esy as buying an SD card yet Pokemon still sold millions. They need to shut up. It's not killing anything.

piracy is for poorfags
there is no reason to pirate something unless you can't afford it

File: bill-gates-people-dont-realize-how-many-jobs-will-soon-be-replaced-by-software-bots.jpg (137KB, 1719x1289px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1719x1289px

>tfw haven't written one serious post itt

>>59449887
>having to reinvent his production process
Not reinventing but improving to keep up with the other developments in the market if he wants to stay on top.
It would be easy for him to improve cause he invented the damn thing.
>>59449892
clone= piracy, that's where the argument ends.
>>59449839
You assume it's bankruptcy but if he invented the product he is the most likely to be successful in developing in regardless of copyright laws.

>>59449965
the pc gaming industry is bigger than it has ever been but pc only counts for maybe 5% of sales when compared to consoles, and yes, this is because of pirating

no big developer wants to make a pc exclusive for this reason

>>59449974
You could do it out of principle or if you don't like the quality of netflix there are higher pirated encodes out there you can stream.

>>59449974
>poorfags
What's so bad about being a poorfag?
Honestly, only people I've seen who care about other people being poor or not are those raised in poor families. People I've known who were raised in wealthy conditions, even if they felt from the social ladder, didn't seem to be so bothered about it

>>59450005
except Netflix tends to be better than dvd quality
it's like you think streaming is still only low bitrate 480p

watching Netflix on my tv, I can't tell the difference between it and hd dvd

>>59450000
The should make them multiplayer only, it's harder to pirate and more interactive and fun

>>59450000
Serious question, are you making a post like that for attention or do you genuinely believe that? If you do believe it, why, and who told you that?

I'm seeing more and more posts like this and I'm starting to believe people are taking it seriously, some poe's law shit. I'm just curious why people are making posts like this, is it funny?

>>59450023
this is why there is drm

plus there are pirate servers

>>59450021
I was talking about 1080p bluray rips or REMUX

>>59450030
except its true
it just sound like you can't handle the truth, you filthy piratefag

>>59450034
>pirate servers
they suck

>>59448160
This

>>59450045
Where is the evidence?

>>59450037
sure, gotta take a chance getting a letter from your isp and waiting hours just to watch a movie meanwhile I can stream it instantly from Netflix for almost the same quality

>>59449985
>You assume it's bankruptcy but if he invented the product he is the most likely to be successful in developing in regardless of copyright laws.
Not when a big company can easily have hundred people working on the same thing. And even if he can, so what? Sooner or later it simply won't be enough or he'll run out of money. It's a huge financial risk to start developing inventions like that, and without SOME form of patent protection, there's very little incentive to do so.

And that's assuming he can make the said inventions on a shoe-string budget. Something like new drugs take years and millions of dollars to develop because of all the testing needed to make sure you won't end up killing the people you were trying to cure. That's hell of a lot of money to spend just to maybe get advantage for six months before another company copies your production process and starts producing the same drug(for cheaper, because they didn't have to invest money on the development process).

>>59449965
>the game/movie industries still aren't dead
They are doing better than ever.
Check the figures.

>>59449961
No. If you assume that, then suddenly god is real and evolution isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZcKEZh_6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw

>>59450111
I don't speak youtube.

>>59450064
I can stream it in the torrent client ans US has cancelled the copyright alert system cause it's a total failure.
>>59450069
>he'll run out of money
Yes he will if he's not successful on the market, if he is he'll have plenty of cash for reinvestment and he can associate with others to form conglomerates and so on.
Look why treat the patent like it's the lifeblood of the economy when most products get deprecated in a few years anyway?

>>59450138
Not my problem.

>>59450144
If you're trying to make a point, the it's actually yours.

>>59447011
How to rustle /g/'s jimmies. 101

>>59447011
I takes money from people that make far far far more than I do doing far far far easier work than I do...It's kinda like how liberals think Trump isn't paying his fair share even though he pays more in a single year than 10 people will make in a lifetime.

>>59450158
I don't care what other people think, I'm not a teenager anymore. I just spread information. If you care about it, make an effort. If you don't, not my problem.

>>59450141
>Yes he will if he's not successful on the market, if he is he'll have plenty of cash for reinvestment and he can associate with others to form conglomerates and so on.
What makes you think he has even a remote chance of being successful regardless of how good his invention is, if he only has months to work with until someone else can make the exact same product for cheaper? You can't just create a new successful company with a snap of your fingers no matter how good your ideas are.

>>59447992
Yeah i get that but why these laws are only applied to big companies? If some company steals patent or tweak somebodys patent so its basicly the same fucking thing but their lawyers can get it legaly accepted as new patent you cant do shit

Also why shoul i feel bad torrenting movie that paid itself in first weekend of screening? (especially if i went to cinema to watch it)

File: 220px-Mao_Zedong_portrait.jpg (40KB, 220x291px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 220x291px

private businesses shouldn't even exist

>>59450069
>Something like new drugs take years and millions of dollars to develop because of all the testing needed to make sure
Shamans made cures that actually work without millions of dollars. Most successful inventions were done by 1-2 guys that were on the right track, not whole departments piling statistics and paper work.

>>59450199
>You can't just create a new successful company with a snap of your fingers no matter how good your ideas are
Plenty of small businesses started from the garage or small diners, what do you know about that?

>>59450202
Because the legal system is broken as fuck. As the CEO of a company, you can make illegal deals, cause billions of dollars in damage to the economy through the said deals, then take golden parachute, sell all your stock and be subject to legal consequences of any kind, since even if you're caught red handed, it's only the company that will get punished.

>>59450198
>I don't care what other people think
How the hell are you going to explain your need for anonymous posting about it on some board?
>I just spread information. If you care about it, make an effort. If you don't, not my problem.
That's basically a book definition of propaganda

>>59450279
>How the hell are you going to explain your need for anonymous posting about it on some board?
That's how I learned, that's how I offer others the opportunity to learn.
>That's basically a book definition of propaganda
Propaganda by definition cares about what people think. Call it what you want though, Idgaf.

>>59447992
>protect peoples original ideas from being stolen
If you tell me a story and after I tell it to 10 people would that mean stealing? How stupid are you?

>>59450268
>company that will get punished.
Jeff Skilling

>>59450336
I haven't heard of Intel's CEO being imprisoned.

>>59450229
Look at china now.
Lots of small time workers are starting their own business.

>>59450304
>Propaganda by definition cares about what people think.
No. Propaganda only cares about selling something to someone. It doesn't care about what's right or wrong. It isn't interested in any discussion. It's closed to discussion by default.
>That's how I learned, that's how I offer others the opportunity to learn.
You should seriously look for another place to learn from

>>59450370
>Propaganda only cares about selling something to someone.
Propaganda is meant to mass influence people's thoughts. You might be confusing propaganda with advertising.
>It doesn't care about what's right or wrong.
Whoever implied that?
>It isn't interested in any discussion. It's closed to discussion by default.
I'm not closed to discussion. I'm closed to "I'm too lazy to listen to your video" horseshit.
>You should seriously look for another place to learn from
I'm constantly doing that, my friend.

>>59450418
>You might be confusing propaganda with advertising
hint: in the '30s, those two words were interchangeable. They often even wrote in the newspapers "propaganda" in the adverts.

>>59450488
Cool, we're in the 2010's though.

>>59450550
The meaning didn't change that much though. It's still advertisement, just the kind associated with ideas and politics.

>>59447011
I don't understand the point of that picture.
An example:
I start a company that sells computer parts. My company's marketing tactics are really good and I'm very competetive. Am I then stealing from every other computer part store by stealing their income?
Piracy is taking awat income idirectly at worst. Stealing is taking away an original product.

>>59449938
But then you are stealing income!!! You fucking thief apologist! Just look at OP's picture! Income stealing thieves BTFO

>>59450587
>>59450550
>>59450488
>>59450418
>>59450370
You're all semi-literate crap.
>Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause OR point of view"

File: 167a27398f43f1d37c471bbf08e135f8.jpg (106KB, 946x630px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 946x630px

>>59447011
When you bake cocaine are you abusing Bayer's intellectual property?

File: Piratefags BTFO.png (461KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 600x800px

>>59447011

>>59450966
>>Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause OR point of view"
How does that undermine anything I said about propaganda? It's perfectly in line with what I said in >>59450279, >>59450370 and >>59450488

>>59448747
Who the fuck uses formal syntax on the internet when using propositional logic?
But yeah (O -> M) & (C -> F) & ~(C -> M) & ~(O -> F) is always false.
That said a copy isn't inherently free, only if you download it without paying. This invalidates the reasoning

>>59451213
>That said a copy isn't inherently free, only if you download it without paying.
It is by definition.

Are there any VPN services worth using?
I usually torrent archives of stuff that's free anyway, but it's nice to be safe.

>>59451307
Can't find a single definition of the word copy that even mentions the word `free`.
As a rebuttal: when you're downloading something from steam you are simply making a copy. The whole digital distribution is based on copying files. Difference is you pay for them. As far as games industry goes there's effectively no `original` version of the game.

>>59447011
Piracy is a misnomer anyway.
Also making copies of software or music/songs without the owners permission isn't theft either legally or philosophically.

everything is propaganda now so who the fuck cares. steal away and BTFO of any and every system.

File: 1488196516596.jpg (68KB, 500x491px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x491px

>>59450229

>>59451379
>everything is propaganda
No.

>>59447011

"Piracy steal the income" is misleading.

Copyright steals the income (of the customers).

Checkmate, OP.
Thanks for playing, GG no re.

I don't care.

>>59447011
>competition steals income
>competition is theft
When is the FBI going to arrest AMD for stealing Intel's income?

>>59451351
I specified and isolated the definition in order for the argument to work.
It is a given definition.
(I can download steam files for free from torrent.)
>As far as games industry goes there's effectively no `original` version of the game.
Of course there is, every single copy of the game has a serial number and a registration number which makes it unique, that's why it's called original CD.

File: adolf-hitler225.jpg (32KB, 394x416px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 394x416px

>>59451401
so you're saying, communist aren't people? Interesting.

>>59451433
For me, the income is irrelevant. It's about the right of the author to decide how his or her works are being distributed.

>>59447011
>Is piracy illegal?
Yes
>Is piracy immoral?
Literally who gives a shit.

The problem with piracy is how it reflects on capitalism. By buying a product you are effectively voting for it as the `best` of it's kind (making a lot of assumptions here). When you're pirating you're doing no such thing. The effect of this is really simple: games that don't offer mass appeal are not profitable. Combine this with the fact that it's `culturally` acceptable to pirate and you end up with an industry that gets massively missrepresented. Because an outsider can come from literally anywhere else that doesn't have piracy as the norm and vote with his wallet. And what kind of games does this outsider vote for? Casual games that look pretty of course.

In the end PC as a platform ends up being the size of an ocean with oxygen concentration to only allow for small fish to live in it. Everyone but the bedroom developer end up betraying the platform and going multiplatform or straight up console. Thus you end up with companies like EA and Ubisoft creating inclusive shit games, games like CoD getting 20 rereleases, entire genres dying, tons of shovelware games etc.

You can pirate all you want, the law is not enforced and god knows if i could get away with murder i'd kill people.
But you can't turn around and whine that the industry is shit, because you me and millions of other pirates are very much part of WHY it's shit.

The "most people who pirate couldn't/wouldn't have bought the game" argument sounds very reasonable and would seem to resolve the issue entirely.

There's one problem with it, though, which is that it's complete and total bullshit. Look at the record breaking sales figures for Diablo 3, with its always-online inherently-secure DRM. Look at the remarkable sales of recent Denuvo protected titles like RotTR.

The truth is:
* Most people who play recent AAA video games are not broke ghetto kids, they're middle-class and either have decent jobs or are supported by their parents who do
* Most people with the equipment to play these games absolutely could afford to buy them
* If they /cannot/ pirate them, sales figures suggest that they do in fact purchase them
* Most people who pirate a game will never buy it, no matter how good it was, because this is a difficult to thing to financially justify and an easy thing to ethically handwave
* Even if they do buy it, it's very unlikely that they will pay full price for it. They will instead wait until later in its lifecycle and pick it up in a bargain bundle.
* Therefore a pirate download of a game does correlate strongly to permanently lost revenue.

I don't favour more aggressive network surveillance and copyright enforcement because this is incompatible with personal information privacy. Instead I favour software protection solutions (denuvo included) which dramatically extend the length of time post-release that a title in un-piratable. This is an unfortunate extra expense, especially for smaller developers and publishers, but it represents the most practical approach to protecting their products without infringing privacy.

>>59451572
>Literally who gives a shit.
It might be a shocker for you, but there are people among us who live of their IP

File: 1477847033566.jpg (36KB, 479x492px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 479x492px

>paying for shit you can get for free
>paying for shit that is anti consumer

I pirate absolutely anything that I can get and want. There is no reason for me to spend any amount of money if I can get exactly the same product for free. I only spend money of software or products if, the company that produces them is worth supporting. However, I'm the one deciding that and not some anti-piracy virgin online.

TL;DR Suck my dick

>>59449073
>Copyright laws exist for the benefit of society or at least they're supposed to.
Well they used to. Back when they lasted for like 15 years; before disney started bribing politicians to increase it to ~90+ yrs.

File: Pilecki.jpg (38KB, 640x412px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x412px

>>59451503
>Executed man who purposefully got himself captured then survived over 2 years of Auschwitz to give the Allies information on the camp's system, just because he wasn't a commie too
No, they aren't.

>>59451482
Oh, ok.
So your definition of `Original` is an instance that is unique.
and `Copy` is an instance that is intentionally not unique.
I guess with such definitions the logic checks out, but it's also a contrived example that's not representative of reality.

>>59447088
This video has me anxiously waiting for the day I can pirate a Tesla

>>59451629
You're not funny and your dad gives more head than the factory where they make those beauty school hair cutting practice dummies. Cash me outside you humorless ding dong.
UPDATE: ANYONE WHO DOWNVOTED ME ISN'T GETTING INTO HEAVEN

>>59451612
Nah, I wouldn't have bought the game if it wasn't available for piracy. I couldn't give any less shit about diablo 3 or the other shit game you tried to make an argument with.

>>59451643
Also, something else:
Copyrights and the like were originally to stop other businesses ripping off something you produced and selling that for profit. Many countries' laws on the matter still hold no criminal penalties for personal/noncommercial copyright infringement for this very reason, and being sued for it is excessively rare.

>>59447011
Piracy is actually not only theft but also murdering and damage of property realized on the high sea on boats.

>>59451674
Thank you for the anecdote. To be entirely honest with you, it doesn't matter at all what you personally would or wouldn't do or which games you do or don't like. Only the sales figures and other hard stats are useful in determining whether piracy reduces sales, and judging by the public data I have access to, it does. We can therefore conclude that investing in strong DRM is a sound business decision.

>>59451691
Regardless of the fact that the premise of this comic is completely false, it's still hilarious.

>>59451647
>No, they aren't.
Doesn't matter. That's still a nazi thing to say. Why are you so shy to admit the inner nazi in you?

>>59451616
I do too, it shouldn't be a moral issue whether or not i can live off of it.

>>59447011
nope you can't count it as a lost sale because you don't know if they would have bought it

>>59451719
http://z0r.de/59

>>59451735
First you'd have to proof that those games sell that well because of DRM. As for Blizzard, all their games are decent and online focused, why on earth would anything bother with those games for single player?

>>59451760
Not an argument.

>>59451766
Because my personal view is to never align myself with someone willing to kill others purely to support an ideology.
Both sides of right/left wing politics went off the rails in that regard during the war.

>>59451838
Since you inquired for an argument, I shall provide one in the form of a question.

What is the equivalence between the copy of software and the copy of hardware?

>>59451838
Not an argument.
'kay let us end this meme here ty

File: wew.jpg (45KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x600px

>>59447011
Check out this instead.

>>59451865
Literally not an argument.

>>59451899
I accept your concession.

>>59451691
>bikes regularily break and you can barely get your money back for the broken bike
>copy it
>try it out
>it breaks
>don´t buy
>try it out
>it doesn´t break
>buy

what´s so hard to understand?
the implication that everything that is pirated is of a quality worth paying for is retarded and since it is impossible of knowing the quality of a thing before using it the only choice you have is piracy
>or steam refunds desune

>>59451612
>* Most people who play recent AAA video games are not broke ghetto kids, they're middle-class and either have decent jobs or are supported by their parents who do
Most people pay for games
> Most people with the equipment to play these games absolutely could afford to buy them
buying 600$ used PC every 3 years turns out to 16$/month. One AAA game is 5 months of `value` by comparison. Claming that they can afford to isn't that simple
>* If they /cannot/ pirate them, sales figures suggest that they do in fact purchase them
Evidence inconclusive most Denuvo games do badly, ones that don't have a ton of marketing behind them.
> Most people who pirate a game will never buy it, no matter how good it was, because this is a difficult to thing to financially justify and an easy thing to ethically handwave
True
>* Even if they do buy it, it's very unlikely that they will pay full price for it. They will instead wait until later in its lifecycle and pick it up in a bargain bundle.
I've heard of contrary, but i don't believe that's a big group
>Therefore a pirate download of a game does correlate strongly to permanently lost revenue.
Here's the problem, no it doesn't. This argument is used not only because it sounds reasonable, but also because it's impossible to disprove. people in decent jobs often buy games those that are not often don't, is there overlap? probably. But you will never gather enough evidence to persuade anyone that it's a lost sale.

>>59451907
Why would you buy it if you already have one? Fucking idiot!

>>59451903
>STILL not having provided an argument
It's okay to find out that you are wrong sometimes.

>>59451691
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone acquires the materials and means to make an exact copy of a physical thing like a bike or a car for themselves -- as long as they're not trying to make a profit off that thing -- they're not actually breaking any laws.

File: 1456815954974.jpg (105KB, 492x661px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 492x661px

>>59447011
You are a cuck for caring about this.

>>59451846
>never align myself with someone willing to kill others
Why wouldn't you kill a commie if you don't think he's a human? It should be like brushing teeth for you.

>>59451945
Your increased agitation and disillusion over your defeat over my refutation of your argument is noted, but deemed irrelevant.

To put it in terms likely to be used by yourself: Not an argument.

QED

>>59451973
then you also should get hanged by the balls and then paraded around town for being a fascist nigger

>>59451907
>If a physical item that is prone to wear breaks it isn't worth paying for

>But what if it breaks early because of a defect?
That's why things have warranties.

>>59451940
because and now consider this
i like to incentivize the things i like and that only works if i actually buy the thing i like

if retards buy (insert generic shitty thing)
then that shitty thing will be produced more and more
if people don´t buy the good things then the good things will not be produced

>>59452000
Where did I say I'm a)facist b)nigger?
First you classify who is a human and who isn't based on your ideology, then you dismiss people who hurt others based on their ideology.
I'm just amused why can't you embrace who you really are.

>>59447011
I buy a book. I lend it to a friend. Stealing? No.
I buy a car. I give a lift to a friend. Stealing money from Uber? No
I have cable TV. I invite my friends around to watch. Stealing? No.

>>59451984
>You still haven't refuted my non-argument therefore I'm right and you're just mad

Ok

>>59452116
I will now elect to ignore you and your continuing tantrum.

I have a gun. I point it at the clerk and he gives something to me. Stealing? No.
I buy a netflix account and let anyone I know use it. Stealing money from Netflix? No.
I have a wife. I lend her to DeVonte. Stealing? No.

>>59452049
>it breaks after the free money back period
no warranties don´t help here
and not always do warranties imply a free replacement
and never a refund for something broken by design

for all it matters go look at how apple handled "Touch Disease"

for games go and consider steams refund system
2 hours or so playtime
if the game starts being shit after 2 hours
or if other big problems happen after these two hours
the refund is completely worthless

You wouldn't download a healthcare plan would you?

>>59452202
just like i could download a mmorpg
i would not profit of downloading a healthcare plan because the company wouldn´t acknowledge me senpai

>>59448179
taking the other side of the argument and then essentially telling the other person to shut up when it is suggested that you look into the counterpoints given is worse than you not joining the conversation at all, you're simply making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone's time, especially your own, by somehow being proud of the fact that you were too stupid to become the slightest bit knowledgeable about the topic before spewing your 101 tier viewpoint that everyone on both sides has already thought of

>>59452216
Why is corporate America a middle man between healthcare providers and Americans then? Don't they have better things to do like suing 13 year olds for sharing files online?

Piracy *is* theft, but piracy is not a lost sale.


These days piracy is mostly an access/price issue. \
Lots of companies refusing to change with the times and keep blaming the consumer (when its the companies fault for not keeping up with consumer habits)

I still buy things when they are worth buying.

File: ibus2uhs8.png (15KB, 528x434px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 528x434px

>>59452147
How will I ever recover?

>>59452350
because capitalism will solve all our problems. /s
Because the government thought it would be best for businesses and consumers to sort it out themselves, but what happened is there are all sorts of regulations when it comes to healthcare PLUS you deal with government programs like medicaid and medicare.
So while the government stays out of health it at the same time created a cluster fuck of paperwork mess that sucks LOTS of resources out of the system.

a single payer system would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year easily just from being more efficient.

>>59452350
>Why is corporate America a middle man between healthcare providers and Americans then?

>We are proud to announce that we have been able to reduce the unemployment rate once again :P

>>59452391
With a bunch of bureacracy? Why couldn't the government do the bureacracy bit instead that way they're actually accountable to tax payers not shareholders.

>>59452354
it´s mostly a comfort issue
it nearly always was a comfort issue

at least in first world countries
that is why netflix and spotify are so well liked because for a small price you get a comfortable and big library of movies and music you want to listen.

>>59452410
because they don´t actually have a need to be accountable to the tax payers
if they were accountable to them they would be forced to act in reasonable ways which of course is not the thing the government wants

>>59452436
If we lived in a true democracy bureaucrats would be accountable to recall by a vote by the people. This way they have to do what the people wants or get fired.

>>59452436
Why not? Shareholders don't care about the quality of health of Americans. If that were the case Americans would have the longest lifespans in the world.

>>59452485
yes, we don´t live in a true democracy though and thus we have to deal with this.
Or for all it matters bloody revolution to remove the system though i doubt it would work.

>>59452501
of course shareholders don´t care i never said they do why do you think i implied such a thing?

>>59452620
The Revolution is inevitable. Our current system runs on workplace theft. The worst of it has been exported to China and India but when those workers demand rights capitalism will have no more people to get cheap labor from and without cheap labor their can't be cheap goods making the standard of living go down drastically and starting the revolution. Either that or automation takes everyones jobs so they revolt.

File: 1489539717361.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>59449974

>>59449870
For (You). © - 4chan Hiromoot Shills™ 2017

But seriously, a (you) for you.

File: hahaha.png (97KB, 300x218px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 300x218px

>>59447011

I only pirate tings I wouldn't buy anyways

however if I end up enjoying something I'll reconsider and pay for it

>>59447011
Not if I'd never fucking buy it full price anyway lol. Get that capitalist bullshit outta here.