A discussion about the theft of the money that people would make from digital property which you copied illegally...

Most studies on the affects of piracy on sales have concluded that piracy doesn't negatively affect sales, at the least, while possibly increasing sales in some instances.

only if you download using torrents
if you need torrents just get a cheap vpn

Copyright infringement isn't theft any more than embezzlement is murder. Crimes have specific legal definitions.

And that's the thing, it doesn't affect sales negatively because people aren't pirating stuff if they can buy it. Morals are at play here, but if we normalize piracy this would change. Pirates should be like fags - sure you can do it, but I don't want to hear about it, it makes you look like a faggot for doing it and I don't want you pushing it onto other people.

>it has a positive effect so I'll blindly believe in and adhere to it while knowing it's fake

Attached: download (9).jpg (252x200, 8K)

It's not "fake" you idiot. It is as "fake" as advanced math is "fake" or as an irregular number is "fake". Sure it doesn't have a physical manifestation, but are you so brain dead that you can't distinguish useful concepts and useless ones?

piracy is not theft nor is it a lost sale

Reminder: torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises-questions-transparency-170922/

Reminder: torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises-questions-transparency-170922/

Reminder: torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises-questions-transparency-170922/

Reminder: torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises-questions-transparency-170922/

Attached: look.png (1347x953, 386K)

but that's not always the case as pirates can end up buying the stuff they pirate, and even if you discount the sale entirely then piracy is still word of mouth advertising

>i-it's a useful fictitious concept so it's real!!!

You have absolutely zero evidence that morality is anything more than a delusion.

Attached: Best+gf+_5797ebce7a896abe7cbe4e000cc6a8b0.jpg (327x280, 21K)

You have no idea how game theory works, do you? The thing here is that morality let us have trust, and trust is a resource that is worth at least as much as money. Without trust everything becomes harder. Morality allows you to expect some things from other agents, and it puts social pressure on you to be more trustworthy. Here is the simplest thought experiment - you have 2 potential business partners, and everything about them is absolutely the same - starting capital, skillset, everything, exept one thing - one of them is a known immoral agent, and the other one is a known moral agent. Which one would you trust? I

Anyone remembers shareware?

It's still around

Attached: cocktail.png (1190x1244, 63K)

well memed redlittor

adblock is stealing you jews.

You can't buy a software, so it can't be theft, you can only pay for the permission to use it. Piracy is use something without the right to do it, not stole a file, you can't stole a permission.

Friendly reminder that when you walk down the street, if you see a homeless man asking for change and you don't give him money, you are quite literally stealing from him.

You have zero evidence you're not a virgin.

Let's do a logical experiment ya?
>theft is illegal because they made it against the law
>if theft were not against the law it would not be illegal
>piracy is illegal
>piracy is legally treated the same as theft
>what is the difference between piracy and theft in terms of the law?

Attached: 1291767817287.png (1920x1080, 140K)

It doesn't steal income because buying the product was never an alternative.

>theft is illegal because they made it against the law
>if theft were not against the law it would not be illegal
>murder is illegal
>murder is legally treated the same as theft
>what is the difference between murder and theft in terms of the law?

If I wasn’t going to buy it to begin with how is it theft of income?

It is never theft if the original remains untouched, that is why you include paid option in it

Murder is theft of life

morality does have a physical manifestation through behavior. however unlike math morality is not able to be used in describing reality, rather it prescribes a set of pseudo-arbitrary rules unnecessary for socialization. however it is stupid to put morality above one's own self interest. stirnerfag is closer to the truth.

i don't think you quite understand game theory. take the prisoner's dilemma even perfectly egoistic actors will converge to cooperation, it's in their best interest too. so no morality is not a requisite for trust. rather or physiology necessitates cooperation till we can replace the reliance on each other with technology. back to the dilemma tho, with a moral actor i'd make out like a bandit and fuck them over in the process. so trust is sometimes not even desirable, at least not more than the alternative.

the one thing i find strange about stirnerfags is they tend to be leftists. it makes no sense to be part of such a cock sucking ideology (ffs the shit is all about making sure the worst of us are on an equal something) and espouse egoism. stirner pointing out property as a spook doesn't make him a commie faggot.

i will say this much tho, perhaps with the normies seeing as they are so unsymbolically and emotionally driven morality is required. they may need these touchy feely right v wrong associated rules due to a lack of ability to form proper working models in their heads that outline the necessity for cooperation. and have to have their autopilot strictly programmed to function in its confines.

Theft is social constract

>I think I'll buy a bookcase
>but it costs too much
>someone uploaded measurements
>I can make my own

I do not recognize intellectual property as valid. You cannot own ideas. Any group or regime that supports such notions is inherently unjust and can be disregarded, with its enforcers treated as the common thugs they are.

But sweaty I don't earn anything from piracy

If you have the ability to make your own that's perfectly reasonable.

Kill yourself chink.

>and over 89 iq
90 IQ poster detected
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

pfft-TAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Piracy is theft and that's ok

ignoring your red herring, the difference between piracy and theft in uk (and to some extent us) law is that piracy isn't always a criminal offence and even when it is it may not be prosecuted as such, whereas theft is almost always considered and is prosecuted as a criminal offence

>downloading
quite literally no, only for uploading you retarded torrentfags and it's not just limited to torrents.

>piracy is legally treated the same as theft
things that are not true for 100

>it is it is own thing

>see software
>see price tag
>decide to not buy it
And that's a lost sale right there.

And corporations keep stealing our rights. Capitalism has gone too far and needs a balance adjustment. Yes we can still have plenty of it and I'm all for that but it needs some damn checks on it.

>show two different things
>try to say they're the same when they're visibly not

Capitalism is not the issue here.
It's the government sanctioned monopoly named copyright that is.

Intellectual "property" is actually "theft" in some sense, a gross violation of property, because it implies that the owner of the "intellectual property", with whom I have never entered into an explicit or even implicit contract, has a right to control over my computer, which is entirely my property.

government sanctioned, paid for and supported by corporations

Right, what you describe is crony capitalism and antithetical to capitalism in the proper sense

A government BOUGHT by corporations.

Of course.
All in the hands of a single mouse.

if you are against copyright you are against property too. If you can own land so you should own immaterial property.

I can touch physical property, like land or a car. You cannot touch your "intellectual property", so you cannot own it.

I wish this was true. I wish I could make software companies go bankrupt just by seeding their programs. I wish I could make Jews go bankrupt by seeding porn, TV, and movies. Imagine what a wonderful world this would be if I could destroy the kikes just by sharing with my fellow human beings.

Attached: billionaires-comic-1.png (625x605, 62K)

the end result of not buying something and pirating is the lack of income. if the end result is the same I would rather pirate than giving up on something I want

I don't give a single fuck whether it's stealing or not and there's nothing you can do about it.

>destroy the kike by spreading porn
yes, yes, good goy!

selling used goods is theft

a handy guide

theft removes the original

buying used goods steals income

piracy is justifiable when the legitimate services are inferior to piracy

if vidya publishers want me to buy their games they need to stop including drm and give me ownership of the game I'm buying on pc
on consoles they need to fuck off and not stop me from buying and updating my games legitimately just because I want to run homebrew which I'm running because they fail to give me a good way to play older games legitimately

if you want me to pay for your music just let me download the flac files directly like bandcamp fuck shitty steaming apps with small libraries and ass audio quality who don't pay artists anyway and fuck dealing with cds

if you want me to watch my films and shows legally give me an actually decent library with no regional licensing bullshit and no fucking ads

if you want me to pay for anime give me better subs than fucking fansubs, update your shows when the blu-rays come out instead of keeping the censored 720p simulcasts, and don't delay releases so you can work on the dub

I hope all these industries fucking bleed money from piracy until they make their shit consumer friendly

Copyright and IP are immoral.

According to companies like Nintendo, I'm not even allowed to make backup copies of my own games because it's "piracy" and "circumventing DRM" even though US law clearly states otherwise. So if major corporations don't want to follow the rules, why should I be expected to? Especially when they can lobby for more laws that only benefit them. Mickey Mouse going into public domain for example.

i have horrible taste in music, which is unavailable where i live

i only watch old movies and tv shows that or unavailable on tv, and on legal stream sites due to where i live.
>piracy does what legal alternatives nintendon't

Piracy is only justifiable if you don't believe in property rights and that people deserve to be paid for their work.
In a capitalist society, if someone demands way too much for their work, you just don't buy it. For the common example of videogame piracy, that usually means just waiting until it goes for sale, or as said, just don't buying the game.

Production of any physical item is composed actually of two parts: the R+D phase, and the production phase (where there's a fixed cost, and a per-item cost associated with producing the item).
Digital items are special in that they're mostly R+D, that their fixed production cost is mostly marketing (instead of buying special machinery), but their per-item cost is negligible.
Piracy is not theft if society accepts that the price of anything must be based on its cost, and not in its perceived value, so as digital items have no cost, therefore have no price!

With that said, most pirated items aren't even basic necessities. So I don't even know where this need of justifying it morally comes from. There's no moral justification really.

I wish piracy stole income. If I could redownload a game 1000 times to get 50,000 i wouldn't have to wageslave.

Piracy does not guarantee a loss in purchase. In fact it encourages purchases. Usually it means that the method of purchasing is too inconvenient, and you wouldn't have had a purchase in that case anyways. And if someone enjoys the product that they pirated, they often tend to purchase a legal version of it to reward the makers of it.

If movie studios gave a fuck about copyright, they would stop making movies that pander to Chinese mainlanders

>what is the difference between piracy and theft in terms of the law
The number of the law, the name of the law, the definition of the law and the punishment range.
Probably more but I'm not a lawcuck.

>Right, what you describe is crony capitalism and antithetical to capitalism in the proper sense
This is the capitalist version of "real communism has never been tried!"

>real capitalism have never been tried

It's more of a "it did worked but it stopped now".

>Piracy does not guarantee a loss in purchase. In fact it encourages purchases.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Government sanctioned monopoly (which was the original complaint) has been a problem from the very beginning. Better accept that world is flawed or be ready to get ridiculed.

Yes it was, but as the people just left, it got worse and worse and worse and worse.
The original intention of the thing that was to protect the small business is long gone, all to protect a literal rodent.

You're retarded. I used to pirate a bunch of things. And everything that i kept using for longer than a day, I bought. And if you think that a pirated download would have meant a guaranteed purchase if piracy didn't exist, you're even more retarded. Piracy occurs basically when people can't afford the product, the service isn't worth the asked price, people want to try it out, the method you can legally purchase it is shit (see DRM and early 2000s retarded purchasing platforms).

Attached: -v- discusses piracy.png (934x771, 468K)

Not to forget that more users will mean the product can be advertised more due to word of mouth, from all its users.

>everything that i kept using for longer than a day, I bought.
Post collection.
Oh wait, you can't.

>what is free advertisement

>thinks advertising the theft of content pays anything

If you buy something and don't own it, then you have basically payed to rent it.

Piracy starts when someone who bought a game for 60 dollars decides "i'd like to share this with my friends" so they torrent it. Hey, that's piracy according to copyright laws.

Well fuck me sideways, i guess the customer never owned their copy since they can't share it with whoever they want.

Capitalism, as in, a system where money can be earned by owning property rather than selling goods or services, has been a disaster since day one.

This is not to be confused with a free market system, where people are free to buy whatever goods or services they want, which is an overall good idea.

I do think there's some truth to the "it doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale" argument. I don't pirate much, but what few things I do, I would never pay for in the first place mostly because of outrageous prices. A good example being technical books. I'm not paying $59 for information/knowledge that can be obtained other ways for pennies on the dollar, if not, outright free, and I'm also not paying $29 to rent a copy either.

Stupid retard. I have spent over $10k on steam games. As well as different kinds of software. I don't have to prove you shit, you just can't comprehend how piracy actually works.

This is a nigger mentality.
B-b-b-but Your Honor, they was doin' something I didn't like, so I did what I did. I wouldn't have done it if:
- she didn't wore such a skimpy shirt
- he didn't call me a nigger
- she just let me butt-fuck her
- dat men didn't rubbin' his richierich to mah face
etc.

Just kys.

>Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

>If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbour."

>A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.
torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/

This is a nigger mentality.
B-b-b-but Your Honor, they was doin' something I didn't like, so I did what I did. I wouldn't have done it if:
- she didn't wore such a skimpy shirt
- he didn't call me a nigger
- she just let me butt-fuck her
- dat men didn't rubbin' his richierich to mah face
etc.

Just kys.
This.

If I purchase a disc of .wav files, why am I not allowed to send those files to another person?

It's also necessary in some instances when the rights holder does not easily make the content available, or at all. I know the only way I'm ever going to get some kinda out-there metal and punk albums is by 'piracy' because the producer has gone under and no one has seen fit to buy up the rights, so it just kinda hangs there in space, totally unsupported.

>Piracy steals income
Say a company makes really shitty coffee makers, but they're the only brand sold in stores so people buy them. If another company starts making better coffee makers that people buy instead, the shitty brand loses market share and revenue. So is it theft, if this new brand "takes away income" from a worse brand?
Is buying used cars morally wrong, because all subsequent purchases don't put money in the pockets of car manufacturers?
This idea of "someone getting less income makes something wrong" is completely made up. It's not a moral argument at all, it's based entirely on feelings and impulses and what "looks good".

>he thinks the advertisement and discussion generated from the extra viewership of pirates doesn't aid legitimate sales
you really need to try harder user

Because you didn't purchase the disc, you were "licensed" the disc, and the license says you do not own the disc and therefore cannot share or redistribute the contents of said disc.

Piracy is not stealing income. If anything, it lets the user try the full game. If I like the game, I actually end up buying it, believe it or not.

You own the physical disk, but you only purchased a license for the digital information on that physical object.
Sort of like how if you purchase a Pepsi, you own the physical can but not the logo on said can.

a lack of legal ways to purchase media is literally the primary cause of piracy but whatever, keep equating watching a copied dvd with rape if it makes you feel better
fucking retard