By that logic, creating a competitor and wooing over customers would also be theft.
Note they are not saying piracy is legal, or that it’s not a tort. They are saying it’s not theft, and it should be discussed separately, as we criminalize theft because someone loses their property, not because the thief gets free shit.
Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.
The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.
I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.
The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn’t their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.
In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:
Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.
Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.
Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.
Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.
There’s a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren’t depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.
It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you’re paying money for the product of their labor.
Everything else you’ve said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.
You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else’s work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it’s a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.
You don’t steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don’t prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can’t prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.
It’s all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it’s as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can “kill” an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That’s why words have meanings, and different things have different names.
Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the productandnot paying for that use.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?
You should pick your examples more carefully.
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?
That’s wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I’m making. It’s a total straw man.
You should pick your examples more carefully.
I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷♂️
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
Fair point.
I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.
That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.
If you weren’t gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn’t lose anything, how can it be stealing?
And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we’ve had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we’re having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we’ll probably keep having this conversation forever
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries.
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.
Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it’s gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn’t put food on the table.
Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.
Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of “I can’t refute your point, so I’m just going to downvote you!” Do they think creators should just give away their creations and hope money falls on them from out of the sky?
It’s stealing because you watched it. If you didn’t watch it and didn’t buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you’re consuming and ingesting the product they’re selling without paying for it.
Additionally, if you’re making the argument that you can’t count “potential” sales of something as theft then you can’t also make the argument that “potential” exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it’s theft.
And you’ve just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you’re stealing if you’re ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.
No, of course not. They’re explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can’t be piracy if they’re not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they’re selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.
That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.
I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.
Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.
It’s not factually untrue. You can’t make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.
Everything else you’ve said is pointless because you’re only arguing about a subset of content. I’m arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don’t pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren’t going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It’s literally as simple as that.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.
My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they’re popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.
Of course they deserve to be paid but I’m arguing that pirating doesn’t cut into their pay because they’ve already been paid before the anime even comes out.
If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.
Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.
These are distributors and they don’t have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That’s not an argument against my point.
If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.
Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I’m making. I think it’s false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term “Buy” for something you don’t actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I’m not arguing about Funimation’s actions. I’ve already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn’t make piracy not theft.
Not at all what I’m arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don’t own something that they position as “buying” is stealing too. I’m not arguing that and have not said what you’re claiming anywhere. You’re arguing a straw man.
That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.
Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.
Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.
I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.
It’s not just the legal definition. It’s the dictionary definition, as well.
Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:
noun. the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.
It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.
Don’t worry, you’re correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn’t pay something to someone prior.). If you didn’t pay, it’s theft, and it doesn’t matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.
Google’s example sentence is quite topical. Still: Until potential income is defined as property, its loss isn’t theft. Besides that, if someone wasn’t going to pay for a digital copy in the first place, it’s not exactly a loss of potential income.
I know. It’s painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I’ve already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I’m saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they’re depriving the creator of income, they’re ok with that, and they’ll continue to do it. That’s it.
Ok, so when I decide not to pirate and not to buy I’m also stealing? Or do you think if I didn’t pirate something I would definitely buy it?
I have pirated and later bought things I’ve enjoyed that I wouldn’t have bought otherwise, so I’d argue that’s better for the creators. But I guess I’m being dishonest 🤷🏻
If you didn’t pirate and didn’t buy it and also didn’t watch it, then no it’s not stealing.
If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.
It’s not that hard of a concept. You’re not entitled to the fruits of someone’s labor for free unless they’re explicitly granting you that entitlement.
So yeah… it’s being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn’t stealing.
Piracy is defined as a civil offense, meanwhile theft is defined as a crime. Theft is also defined as depriving someone of something - eg, if I take your bike, you no longer have a bike, but if I copy your bike and build my own then you still have your bike and haven’t lost anything.
“Potential lost income” is abstract, it doesn’t necessarily exist and the victim of copyright infringement isn’t really losing anything - they don’t even provide the bandwidth you download it with. Ultimately 1 pirated download =/= 1 lost sale, as people download more crap than they would be willing to buy.
I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m using the specific definitions, because we’re talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they’ve lost the money they used to buy it. They’ve also definitely lost a sale, because they can’t sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven’t lost a tangible object, they haven’t even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I’d agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m not. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It’s not theft of their product, it’s theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If I pirate something, no one loses anything.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way.
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they’re entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I’m making the argument that that’s theft and that you’re not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn’t pay for it. Obviously, this doesn’t apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today’s reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people’s private property (media in this case).
By this logic, everything you don’t buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you’re denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend’s house for free?
No, it’s not. If you are just walking past that item, you’re not consuming the value of that item. If you’re being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn’t be watching the movies that you’re not paying for. The entire issue is that you’re not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you’re eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you’re now able to gain the value of that magazine’s content without paying for it. That’s still stealing. You can either pretend it’s not or you can say “Yeah, it’s stealing but I’m ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways”.
Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they’ve already consumed it.
That’s not a better example. You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you’re reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It’s not bound by that scarcity.
It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing. We’re discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.
You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.
And you’re ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.
If it wasn’t for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn’t an option then there would be nothing holding them back.
Neither of those things are true. I’m not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven’t argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You’ve provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don’t find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don’t ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.
You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn’t lose out with used sales.
How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?
How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer. With used goods, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer.
Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products.
I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve “all teh moneys” without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
In any case, I didn’t even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn’t a thing they’d charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
At this stage, I think it’s abundantly clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There’s no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.
Edit: I’m withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.
thus should be priced far lower than physical goods
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid. I’m not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don’t think it’s worth that price, then they shouldn’t buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn’t consume/ingest it.
With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost…you claim is suffering a loss?
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that’s not the point that I’m arguing so it’s irrelevant to the argument.
Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.
You’re advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you’d be supportive of, then you’d just be advocating for exactly the situation you’re in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a “place”. It’s just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
Again, a different argument from the one I’m making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they’re the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
No, I’m not. I’m not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason… 🧐
It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing.
That is literally the situation I’m discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn’t have the rights to it, don’t pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there’s also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.
The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don’t think that’s morally consistent. You’ve been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that’s exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.
That’s not true. It is not “literally the situation you’re discussing”. You don’t “lose” money if you’re paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn’t you “losing” money just because you don’t walk out of the museum with something tangible.
You’re just arguing semantics about the word “creator” now. The other options you’ve provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can’t buy a “used” version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.
Now we’re arguing semantics and I’m not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can’t engage with the actual ideas behind what I’m saying, then what are you even doing?
I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you’ve been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.
In another thread, you said
At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you’ve made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.
You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.
The fact that you don’t see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don’t logically hold up against the point I’m making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can’t buy a used copy of an intangible item!
So… no. I don’t have to believe any of the other things you’ve mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn’t exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.
…If nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property"
This is a dishonest response. Movies and media are not ideas. They are representations of ideas that take time and effort to create and that are created so that the artist that made them can make a living and pay their bills. Stealing those representations without compensating the artist for their time and effort means they can’t pay their bills which means they have to stop creating in order to get a job where the fruits of their efforts aren’t stolen.
No. The substance of it is irrelevant to my argument. You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not to put too fine a point on it - ideas are like assholes; everyone has them and most of them stink but the idea of an asshole doesn’t actually make you wretch the way the stench of an actual asshole might.
You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not quite; what makes ideas incompatible with exclusive possession is the same thing that makes digital content incompatible with exclusive possession - their intangibility. A person can labor for years on an idea, and retain exclusive ownership over that idea having not realized it to others; “but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
The same applies to digitally represented media.
You’ve made a statement about the labor involved in producing an idea or digital media, and I’m making a statement about the nature of intangible goods. Embodied labor isn’t the same as some objective moral or ethical imperative, nor is embodied labor the same as value.
If you want to watch something enough to pirate it, it has value.
Everything else you said is a dishonest argument that you would not accept for your own time, work, and effort. The mere fact that an idea is materialized into something more than an idea invalidates the crux of your argument. An idea is just that. An idea materialized into reality, even an intangible reality, is still more than the idea itself.
I kind of respect you for arguing your point in this entire commet section, while so many people are piling on you. I still think your argument/opinion is wrong though.
It is. You’re stealing income from the person that created the thing you took and didn’t pay for.
By that logic, creating a competitor and wooing over customers would also be theft.
Note they are not saying piracy is legal, or that it’s not a tort. They are saying it’s not theft, and it should be discussed separately, as we criminalize theft because someone loses their property, not because the thief gets free shit.
Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.
The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.
I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.
No, it’s exactly the same logic.
The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn’t their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.
In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:
Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.
Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.
Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.
Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.
There’s a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren’t depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.
It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you’re paying money for the product of their labor.
Everything else you’ve said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.
You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else’s work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it’s a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.
You don’t steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don’t prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can’t prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.
It’s all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it’s as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can “kill” an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That’s why words have meanings, and different things have different names.
What if I don’t sell it? If someone opts to use FreeCAD instead of Fusion360, did FreeCAD steal income from Autodesk?
Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the product and not paying for that use.
What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?
You should pick your examples more carefully.
You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.
That’s wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I’m making. It’s a total straw man.
I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷♂️
How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
Not a straw man at all, but I’ll let it slide.
Fair point.
You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
You eating data?
Ingesting something doesn’t only mean eating it. It literally means “to bring into”.
I wish piracy was stealing income, I need some of that income.
It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.
The workers already got paid. It’s executives that are being “stolen from.” ( I’m too broke to buy it anyways)
That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.
If you weren’t gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn’t lose anything, how can it be stealing?
And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we’ve had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we’re having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we’ll probably keep having this conversation forever
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.
I’m talking about stores that sell paintings, not museums. Unless you pay to go to those where you live. I’ve never paid to enter a store before
Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it’s gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn’t put food on the table.
Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.
They’ll never admit this because it invalidates their entire point.
See above reply. Not talking about museums or whatever. Talking about the stores where artists sell their paintings
Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of “I can’t refute your point, so I’m just going to downvote you!” Do they think creators should just give away their creations and hope money falls on them from out of the sky?
It’s stealing because you watched it. If you didn’t watch it and didn’t buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you’re consuming and ingesting the product they’re selling without paying for it.
Additionally, if you’re making the argument that you can’t count “potential” sales of something as theft then you can’t also make the argument that “potential” exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it’s theft.
And you’ve just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you’re stealing if you’re ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.
Ok, what if the creator says it’s ok to pirate their stuff. Is that still stealing?
No, of course not. They’re explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can’t be piracy if they’re not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they’re selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.
That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.
I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.
Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/2/20677237/anime-industry-japan-artists-pay-labor-abuse-neon-genesis-evangelion-netflix
It’s not factually untrue. You can’t make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.
Everything else you’ve said is pointless because you’re only arguing about a subset of content. I’m arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don’t pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren’t going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It’s literally as simple as that.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.
The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.
My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they’re popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.
Of course they deserve to be paid but I’m arguing that pirating doesn’t cut into their pay because they’ve already been paid before the anime even comes out.
If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.
These are distributors and they don’t have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That’s not an argument against my point.
Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I’m making. I think it’s false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term “Buy” for something you don’t actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I’m not arguing about Funimation’s actions. I’ve already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn’t make piracy not theft.
The same disturbers that regularly drop content that people pay for and the same disturbers that claim you own something?
Not at all what I’m arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don’t own something that they position as “buying” is stealing too. I’m not arguing that and have not said what you’re claiming anywhere. You’re arguing a straw man.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
That’s not stealing lol. If I pirate something or if I don’t, the creator sees no difference.
Stealing income would be reducing the income for the author (piracy doesn’t alter it) and you getting it instead (you don’t).
That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.
Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.
Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.
You’re arguing a legal definition. I am not.
I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.
It’s not just the legal definition. It’s the dictionary definition, as well.
Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:
It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.
Don’t worry, you’re correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn’t pay something to someone prior.). If you didn’t pay, it’s theft, and it doesn’t matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.
Google’s example sentence is quite topical. Still: Until potential income is defined as property, its loss isn’t theft. Besides that, if someone wasn’t going to pay for a digital copy in the first place, it’s not exactly a loss of potential income.
I know. It’s painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I’ve already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I’m saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they’re depriving the creator of income, they’re ok with that, and they’ll continue to do it. That’s it.
Ok, so when I decide not to pirate and not to buy I’m also stealing? Or do you think if I didn’t pirate something I would definitely buy it?
I have pirated and later bought things I’ve enjoyed that I wouldn’t have bought otherwise, so I’d argue that’s better for the creators. But I guess I’m being dishonest 🤷🏻
Did you watch it still?
If you didn’t pirate and didn’t buy it and also didn’t watch it, then no it’s not stealing.
If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.
It’s not that hard of a concept. You’re not entitled to the fruits of someone’s labor for free unless they’re explicitly granting you that entitlement.
So yeah… it’s being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn’t stealing.
Piracy is defined as a civil offense, meanwhile theft is defined as a crime. Theft is also defined as depriving someone of something - eg, if I take your bike, you no longer have a bike, but if I copy your bike and build my own then you still have your bike and haven’t lost anything.
“Potential lost income” is abstract, it doesn’t necessarily exist and the victim of copyright infringement isn’t really losing anything - they don’t even provide the bandwidth you download it with. Ultimately 1 pirated download =/= 1 lost sale, as people download more crap than they would be willing to buy.
I’m not arguing the legal definition of this so everything you’ve said is irrelevant.
The legal definition is THE definition, it’s literally what the word means, and where the concepts of both originate.
What you’re saying isn’t irrelevant, it’s just completely ignorant and wrong.
I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
You’re trying to say that your definition is the only valid one, which conveniently is one that your argument is entirely reliant upon.
It isn’t valid, you’re wrong, your argument does not hold water.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m using the specific definitions, because we’re talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they’ve lost the money they used to buy it. They’ve also definitely lost a sale, because they can’t sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven’t lost a tangible object, they haven’t even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I’d agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I’m not. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It’s not theft of their product, it’s theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they’re entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I’m making the argument that that’s theft and that you’re not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn’t pay for it. Obviously, this doesn’t apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today’s reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people’s private property (media in this case).
Since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?
I answered that elsewhere. Those aren’t the only options.
Ok, then copy the answer here as I can not find it and you are such a fast typer that even if you don’t care you will still respond.
No thanks.
By this logic, everything you don’t buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you’re denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend’s house for free?
No, it’s not. If you are just walking past that item, you’re not consuming the value of that item. If you’re being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn’t be watching the movies that you’re not paying for. The entire issue is that you’re not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you’re eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you’re now able to gain the value of that magazine’s content without paying for it. That’s still stealing. You can either pretend it’s not or you can say “Yeah, it’s stealing but I’m ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways”.
Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they’ve already consumed it.
That’s not a better example. You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you’re reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It’s not bound by that scarcity.
It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing. We’re discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.
And you’re ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.
If it wasn’t for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn’t an option then there would be nothing holding them back.
Neither of those things are true. I’m not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven’t argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.
Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You’ve provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don’t find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don’t ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.
You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn’t lose out with used sales.
How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?
How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer. With used goods, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer.
Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?
I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve “all teh moneys” without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
In any case, I didn’t even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn’t a thing they’d charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
At this stage, I think it’s abundantly clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There’s no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.Edit: I’m withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid. I’m not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don’t think it’s worth that price, then they shouldn’t buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn’t consume/ingest it.
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that’s not the point that I’m arguing so it’s irrelevant to the argument.
You’re advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you’d be supportive of, then you’d just be advocating for exactly the situation you’re in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a “place”. It’s just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Again, a different argument from the one I’m making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they’re the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
No, I’m not. I’m not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason… 🧐
“If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.”
Good idea, I’ll pirate it instead.
Why should you be entitled to consume something that you haven’t paid for?
That is literally the situation I’m discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn’t have the rights to it, don’t pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there’s also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.
The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don’t think that’s morally consistent. You’ve been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that’s exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.
That’s not true. It is not “literally the situation you’re discussing”. You don’t “lose” money if you’re paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn’t you “losing” money just because you don’t walk out of the museum with something tangible.
You’re just arguing semantics about the word “creator” now. The other options you’ve provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can’t buy a “used” version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.
Now we’re arguing semantics and I’m not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can’t engage with the actual ideas behind what I’m saying, then what are you even doing?
I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you’ve been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.
In another thread, you said
If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you’ve made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.
You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.
The fact that you don’t see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don’t logically hold up against the point I’m making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can’t buy a used copy of an intangible item!
So… no. I don’t have to believe any of the other things you’ve mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn’t exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.
–Thomas Jefferson
This is a dishonest response. Movies and media are not ideas. They are representations of ideas that take time and effort to create and that are created so that the artist that made them can make a living and pay their bills. Stealing those representations without compensating the artist for their time and effort means they can’t pay their bills which means they have to stop creating in order to get a job where the fruits of their efforts aren’t stolen.
That statement makes no sense in this context, regardless of whether I reflect on its poor grammar or not.
Sure it does, you just don’t like the substance of it.
No. The substance of it is irrelevant to my argument. You’re still arguing ideas which content that is created is not. It may be intangible but it is not simply an idea. It is a manifestation of an idea and is, therefore, wholly different.
Not to put too fine a point on it - ideas are like assholes; everyone has them and most of them stink but the idea of an asshole doesn’t actually make you wretch the way the stench of an actual asshole might.
Not quite; what makes ideas incompatible with exclusive possession is the same thing that makes digital content incompatible with exclusive possession - their intangibility. A person can labor for years on an idea, and retain exclusive ownership over that idea having not realized it to others; “but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
The same applies to digitally represented media.
You’ve made a statement about the labor involved in producing an idea or digital media, and I’m making a statement about the nature of intangible goods. Embodied labor isn’t the same as some objective moral or ethical imperative, nor is embodied labor the same as value.
If you want to watch something enough to pirate it, it has value.
Everything else you said is a dishonest argument that you would not accept for your own time, work, and effort. The mere fact that an idea is materialized into something more than an idea invalidates the crux of your argument. An idea is just that. An idea materialized into reality, even an intangible reality, is still more than the idea itself.
I didn’t convince them to make that shit. I’m in no contract.
I kind of respect you for arguing your point in this entire commet section, while so many people are piling on you. I still think your argument/opinion is wrong though.