You're viewing a single thread.
Most of the back and forth is predicated on the idea that the digital world works the same as the digital one. It does not!
In the physical world you cannot produce and exact copy of something for zero dollars.
In the digital world you can make many copies at effectively zero cost.
Stealing, theft, is predicated on taking something from someone so they no longer have it.
Making a digital copy does not steal or remove access.
The whole argument, which I would posit is deeply flawed, is that pirating removes imaginary potential profits for reselling the thing copied (not stolen). If that's so then prove it. Prove that at some point in the future I, or any other given person, would have bought that digital thing. Unless you've invented time travel you just can't.
Copying digital content isn't theft and pirating isn't the right thing to call it.
We have to figure out how to better frame or address the digital world that just fundamentally doesn't operate the same as the physical one.
So just like you can't prove that none of the pirates would have bought it if pirating didn't exist? But which is more likely, that sales would stay the same or that more people would buy the products if piracy didn't exist?
You're not entitled to the fruit of someone's labor without compensation or their consent, even if you pinky swear that you'll compensate them at a future date.
At face level you would expect that, but a lot of the people I know that pirate do it to that way they can see how the game or movie is and then if they like it they buy it afterward. Game Demos are rarely a thing nowadays and otherwise they just wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Under this scenario they are actually gaining more profit than if they were to heavily combat, but corporations/non-indie studios are shortsighted and would rather chase a fictional lawsuit case then actually make a profit.
I bought one $60+ game that I absolutely hated after 20 minutes. I don't plan on making that mistake again, just anecdotally supporting this theory.
As soon as you release something to the world, you have given up some control over the thing- otherwise, people would have to come to you to see/hear your art, which would limit the profits considerably.
In this case the product is released and people are given access to it under certain conditions agreed to by the creator. We're not talking about fan fiction and the death of the author, stop mixing up debates.
I suppose we should just start throwing people "likely" to do crimes in prison preemptively!? That's not how anything else works. Why would it work like that here?
Likely?
The second you illegally download copyrighted content you're committing a crime. The fact that you intend to potentially buy it at a later date doesn't matter, just like you can't leave a store with a TV and tell them "Don't worry, I promise I'll be back in two years to pay for it!"
"Stealing, theft, is predicated on taking something from someone so they no longer have it."
So if I purchase a product and then its taken away due to service closure or 'updated' to be so different as to no longer be recognisable that would be theft surely.
Yes.
What you pay for through platforms is a limited usage license. Get a physical copy or just buy DRM free games if you want to own them
Physical copies are still just purchasing a limited usage license purchase.
Technically, even purchasing DRM free games are again just a limited usage license.
Sure, but at least a physical copy you can resell and no one can keep you from playing and same for that last part with the DRM free version and it seems to be the issue people are having right now and that led to this discussion.
The concept you bring up applied before the digital world took off as well.
For those of us who were around when the whole "YoU WoULdN't StEaL a CaR!" argument against piracy was being made, it was a false equivalency when it came to ownership back then too.
Copying a song off the radio onto a tape cassette was not the same as breaking into a car, hot-wiring it, and driving off in it. Someone copying a song from the radio onto a cassette was not preventing others from listening to it.
Yes. This is not about theft. It's about intellectual property rights and royalties via cloning a non-physical creation. They just masquerade it as theft because it helps their argument. It's disingenuous of them.
Then wage theft isn't theft because you never were in possession of the money so it wasn't stolen from you.