You're viewing part of a thread.
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":
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.
My bad, I forgot to post the definition of stealing.
How does that do anything other than prove my point?
"without permission or legal right"
the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
Piracy isn't taking property without the intention to return it. The pirated media itself is property, but it's being copied rather than stolen. The potential profits from selling said media to you is being taken, but that's not tangible property capable of being stolen.
On the other hand, piracy is appropriation. It's just doesn't meet the criteria of theft/stealing.
Now you're just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It's not theft, it's unethical appropriation of others' work.
Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create
I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.
Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.
Likewise, should the media become unavailable after "purchase" as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).
The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn't get screwed.
if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.
Ugh...but that isn't the point of my argument that you responded to. I don't care what you want to call it but arguing that it's appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. 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.
You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you're sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.
I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I've never argued against that.
I also agree with you about media becoming "unavailable". I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I've argued that using terms like "Buy" and "Sell" for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.
I didn't presume anything about you. I was using the term "you" in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you're arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP'ing in a reality where they're bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. "You" want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content "you" want to choose to insert here) that "you" want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.
I don't always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don't pretend that I'm not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I'm not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money. If one has the ability to pay for media and wishes to consume it, they should pay for it. Effort was put into its creation, and the creators deserve to be rewarded/compensated for that. If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It's not a first step, it's a last resort.
I didn't presume anything about you. I was using the term "you" in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you're arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
Thank you for the clarification; I interpreted it the other way. I generally try to use "one" to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it's harder to accidentally misinterpret.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP'ing in a reality where they're bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by.
I don't believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It's far more likely that they simply don't care.
I don't always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don't pretend that I'm not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
Absolutely.
If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
For a long time, leeches were a major and somewhat effective medical treatment. They still are in certain cases.
Leeching isn't an inherently bad thing. Children leech off their parents, until they grow up and make their own way.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder.
Absolutely. Furthermore, if it wasn't for piracy, many rightsholders would take the piss even more with their pricing and the quality of their products. As it stands, they are acutely aware that if they go too far people will turn to piracy.
This is why they lobby so hard to make piracy a criminal offense - and it's quite sad that they've been so successful in their efforts. I think the threshold is something like $1,000 in the US - if you have more than $1,000 worth of pirated material, you're a criminal, even though you caused no tangible harm to anyone.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I agree. I'm simply saying that I don't care whether you call it "stealing" or "leeching" or whatever other term you want to use. The fact that we're even using the term "pirating" instead of just "acquiring" or whatever other term may be better suited gives up the game that piracy is stealing. If it wasn't, we'd just call it that.
I'm not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money.
I'm not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn't normally because they're financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people. If educators/writers could sell to schools directly, they should. Otherwise, students attempting to learn shouldn't be limited in their education/enrichment because they can't afford it. That's not the same situation, at least to me, with someone pirating a popcorn flick because don't want to pay for it.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It's not a first step, it's a last resort.
I agree 100%. I am not advocating for the system as it is nor am I saying that the situation in the OP is fair. It's not, nor is it fair for rights holders to remove legal ways for people to consume media (like Nintendo going after people for pirating content that can't legally be purchased anymore). In those cases, I agree that piracy is justified and even necessary to preserve certain types of media. But that doesn't make it something other than stealing or theft. It's justified theft but it's still theft. Just look at the amount of "lost media" that's been preserved because of justified theft/bootlegging/whatever.
I generally try to use "one" to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it's harder to accidentally misinterpret.
That is much clearer and I will try to use that going forward. I can see how using "you" is confusing and it wasn't my intention to confuse or belabor that point.
I don't believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It's far more likely that they simply don't care.
They definitely don't care... because it benefits them not to. I'm just making the plea that we should be honest about what we're saying, not whether it's justifiable or not.