Explain how pirating movies is theft. Someone showed me this image but it makes no sense. In identity theft you actually steal money in someone's bank. The money is no longer there.
Using counterfeit money means you got something for free, you physically removed it.
Piracy gives you that exact copy of a film, tv show or music. The original guy still has his stuff. You got a copy for free. How is that theft?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>make a bunch of fake money
>everybody still has their money so it's ok
>make a bunch of fake paintings
>the original paintings are ok so it's ok to sell them
I dont know, its too tiresome to even try to explain this to brainlets I dont think I'll type anymore
You can't possibly be this fucking obtuse.
The first two are intermediaries to material goods, copying is not an intermediary but a real working copy. Even "originals" are copies, as every CD is a copy.
The image is a spook. Copying is a private matter.
It's called copyright infringement and it isn't a crime unless they can prove you caused financial harm.
The monetizing of information and ideas is ethically wrong anyway.
I don't sell the movies though. I am not profiting off it. That comparison doesn't work. I think it is a good idea for you to stop typing.
It isn't.
Unauthorized redistribution is unauthorized redistribution, not theft.
Even court ruled once that in such case "piracy", "pirate" and "theft" were literally swear words.
>In identity theft you actually steal money in someone's bank
Incorrect. All of the most damaging forms of identity theft involve doing illegal things under someone else's name, meaning the innocent person whose identity was stolen is blamed for everything. Law enforcement and financial institutions can be made aware that this confusion is a result of theft, but this is a long process and in the meantime the victim may be unable to do common things like take out loans or do important business deals.
It's actually a clear-cut example of how copying something qualifies as theft.
>People creating the movie go through budget costs etcetcetc
>They get money from people buying the movie
>Pirating movies on a website
>like user said, it becomes a working copy
>People watch movie on website instead of buying
>original sellers of the movie have less money
>Explaining this to a brainlet
Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for something
>seller has to pay
You should be asking this on Jow Forums
TL;DR: Even original CD/DVDs are digital copies. Pic doesn't account for that.
Piracy is absolutely theft, but it's free and robs awful publishers/production studios of their profits so it's cool
user, the legal framework for acquiring that copy (say, a DVD) is that you are buying a license, and any officially made DVD (yes a copy, but an official DVD nonetheless) not only qualifies as a copy, but as a license. You are buying it for the content of the disc, but that's not what you're buying, you're buying a license which is physically represented by the disc.
My presence is for sale - you can pay me to stick around.
Therefore if I'm around you and you aren't paying me, you're stealing from me.
I don't like copyright laws either, but I have never had problems undestanding why piracy is considered theft. I wonder if pirates are just playing dumb, or do they really have trouble understanding it. You take something without paying, you're essentially stealing.
Children who are used to verbal gymnastics to get what they want think that it will work with society at large.
I don't care if it's theft: the labels and artists are far richer than me so I steal from them. I actually pay for music when I know it'll make a difference when the artist is just starting out.
Technically, most movie/music torrents are transcoded and compressed, so not a literal "copy."
Also, they are typically of lesser quality than the original.
In this case it's not theft if they are creating formats/versions l, which were never offered for sale in the first place.
But they got rich because they committed their time, effort, and talent to that product, you did nothing. They should be richer than you just as a default position in society.
Because pirates don't take anything
what is scarcity
That's the classical argument perhaps. There is a lot of luck and vertical integration at play though for many of these massive copyright holding companies though. It's not necessarily all "hard work."
How much do people sell their identity/money for?
Claiming the copy is low quality is untrue, most copies on the internet are of a quality comparable to official releases.
Transcoding does not mean it isn't a copy, there's even transcoding for some media that can be transcoded back to original media 100% accurately, like flac. The accuracy is sufficient and that's why you're downloading it in the first place. If the accuracy was poor then you wouldn't want it, and this is why torrent sites began including up/downvote systems to alert other users to stay away.
There is a common trend among certain rights holders to add audible noises to "copies" for dubious rights enforcement. Inaudible markers are allegedly patent protected so they don't pay for it.
It always includes hard work. Time is, by necessity, lost which could have been used towards other things or simply allowed to be wasted in leisure. The fact that they did not do that is why you have the music in the first place.
Your argument is wrong, people who perform work are supposed to be rewarded in society, otherwise work wouldn't be done in the first place. You're trying to ignore that for personal gain.
By the way it doesn't matter "who you know". If there are 10,000 people who can perform a job and only one of them does it, even if all 10,000 want to, then only the one gets paid. Virtually all other considerations are beyond the scope of software/media piracy and most certainly don't have anything to do with any justification you might come up with for stealing.
>If there's something for sale, and someone takes it WITHOUT PAYING, it is called THEFT
That's exactly right. Software is purely metaphysical, but the people creating it needs an income to pay rent and buy food.
Unless society somehow creates a global income for people working in software, then pirating anything will remain immoral if that reduces income.
No, you massive retard, without regulations what happens is hard work accumulates into massive horizontal and vertical multinationals with too much power. Nobility and mega corps are the antithesis to lax regulatory competitive economics.
Literally no one is arguing about not paying people for hard or highly creative work. only that depriving Disney, Warner media or whatever mega rightsholder's margins, isnt all that big if a deal or evil.
>pirating anything will remain immoral if that reduces income.
This is not necessarily true, but it is true probably more than 99% of the time. What if I buy a license to some software, but then the software (and license) get changed without my permission, which can happen? Maybe the new license says Windows 7 can be patched with new telemetry data that I didn't agree to when I bought it?
I'd say there are outliers.
Copying isn't theft.
>the original paintings are ok so it's ok to sell them
People are selling miniature or replica versions of a fuck ton of paintings.
>Literally no one is arguing about not paying people for hard or highly creative work
You are actively arguing against that by justifying it with "but he's rich and I'm not", which isn't a justification.
Giant media corporations aren't your concern when considering whether stealing what amounts to your new toy, you're coming up with a giant "butwutaboutism" which does not actually justify anything. You could not buy the media or participate at all, but you're unwilling to do that. Being unwilling is not the same as being justified in being unwilling.
Doing that is illegal unless you pay the creator of the original work, dumbass.
The reason you can make your own Mona Lisa is because it's out of copyright date.
Everyone makes the same mistake when arguing that making a copy of a thing is theft of the thing.
Making a copy is not theft of the thing - it is theft of the rights of the owner of the thing to decide who gets to have a copy of their thing their copy-right, see? Unauthorized copying takes that right away from its owner without permission, they no longer have it, and that is theft.
It is justification though. Their margins are still satisfactory to clear the wages for employees and to pay out share holders (assuming they do this) a fee for basically rent seeking.
Go fuck yourself corporate apologist republicuck. I dont even pirate, but if I did I wouldn't shed a tear to get a mediocre amount of satisfaction "stealing" from Disney margins.
Use alternative monetization without government having to babysit people and remove freedom of speech and information.
Kickstarter, patreon, donations, paid services (monetize downloads, not software. Or sell cloud services), place ads in your products. There's plenty of ways to earn money without being a fascist.
>reason you can make your own Mona Lisa is because it's out of copyright date
Copyright laws should be abolished or at least at first limited to last only a year.
piracy is theft, but copying digital data isn't"piracy". and you should stop perpetuate corporate propaganda and call it piracy. they carefully choosed words to draw negative associations with copying
The "thing" and the rights to "thing" are not separable. Making a copy without permission is theft. Ownership is intangible and has to be linked with all copies of said thing in order to be reasonably owned in the first place.
>It is justification though
Nope, you haven't assembled an argument. "They're rich and I'm not" is an argument for anything vs rich people and means nothing, especially when talking about your toys.
You are wrooooong and that makes you mad.
>Why yes, I do pirate every single medium possible and buy them when I truly love it. Bless peer-to-peer filesharing
Repeat after me: not being able to pirate it does not mean they will buy it.
Except anyone with any understanding of modern economics would understand that it is a justification. Rich is begotten by an unfair system of inflationary growth and rent seeking created by lax regulation and an outdated monetary policy.
Whenwhile, the advent of Denuvo is directly linked to increased sales in PC games.
kek, humanity is not ready.
Imagine if industry grade printers suddenly were possible in every household and material sciences pumped out miracle structures that could mold into anything. I would download all of your cars and print all of them.
Anyone with an understanding modern economics would be able to form a real argument instead of defaulting to "but it's not faaaaaair I don't like iiiiiit I want my toys nooooooow".
You still don't get it, you have to form an argument based around how someone's work is invalidated just because they're rich, which you haven't done (because that's not a valid argument). Just because someone is rich doesn't mean you get to steal from them "because I want to".
Are you sure it isn't that PC gaming has increased in popularity?
If this happened, cars would have to be licensed from the designer and police would check for a license during routine traffic stops.
Look kid, the first mistake is assuming using rent seeking and coercive power is work worth protecting and holding up. Live nation and Disney are literally providing no value to the copyrights they release outside of their highly coercive horizontal pressure they apply to every step of music, and movie production.
>Making a copy without permission is theft
Yeah, but it's theft of the right to decide who gets a copy. The whole "copying but leaving the original still intact at the source" is what pirates use to try to negate the theft argument, since the owner still retains the original - it hasn't been taken from them, instead show that the owner no longer has their intact copyright, because copyright is also a tangible thing.
>Forgery is fraud
>Counterfeiting is fraud (but apparently okay when banks do it)
>Piracy is not fraud (unless you sell it as something other than a copy)
This image basically compares the digital equivalent of taking a picture of a painting to making an exact copy of that painting and selling it as an original, and then claims that they're actually the same thing.
Yes, there aren't any unaccounted for variables. Denuvo is released and games that feature it had greater sales than their peers, until we get to a point where most big games are using Denuvo.
Many people are completely willing to just buy the game if their only choice is between buying the game and not having the game at all.
>Look kid, the first mistake
The first mistake is that you're are taking arguments that don't justify stealing and then using them for stealing.
It literally doesn't matter what stupid argument you'd like to pretend matters, you do not get to steal toys because "some is rich", not if you want to be justified.
OP is a brainlet. The other 2 examples directly make money. Forgery of checks gets you free goods or services and can be turned into money, but are usually used to scam money. Printing money gives you more money. Piracy of digital goods does not get you free money unless you sell it, which doesn't happen in 99.9999999% of all "piracy" examples. Pirate bay isnt owned by millionaires. Fitgirl isnt rolling is dosh. These are different things.
>Denuvo is released and games that feature it had greater sales than their peers
Sure sounds like no unaccounted for variables to me.
Then you're wrong, it's a strong industry trend and we can see from things like hardware sales, Steam population numbers, etc that really all that is happening is people who already can buy games are more likely to buy games that feature Denuvo.
Secondary market, have you heard of something like that?
>I win you lose, I'm not going to discuss it anymore
I would run away like a child too if my only arguments relied on comparing downloading a song to taking a picture of a painting and calling it theft.
It's legal to sell a CD, user.
learn from the best:
en.wikipedia.org
only from a legal point of view no morality. Still piracy isn't theft.
digital watermarks are easily detected if you have 2 different copies.Just increases complexity and costs.
Idc if piracy is thieving or not. They should fix their prices and I never buy a fucking software or movies , which are virtual.
Futhermore piracy is the best thing that could happen.
Let's say 10 g tards, who doesn't watch animus download some animus.
9 g tards, continue watch illegal animus but the 1 decide that he like it and buy CDs. So +1 customer.
>You wouldn't download a car, would you, user?
Justification is a subjective concept you absolute brainlet
oh great v is here, as always
Piracy is indeed theft and if you have not come to this conclusion you are either being intellectually dihonest with yourself, or you are an idiot. Robbing someone of the opportunity to make money on a wide scale is really no different than just taking money directly out of someone's pockets, as you have to assume that at least some percentage of the people who copied the original good would have bought it had the option to pirate it not been there. Now, some people will make the argument "but I actually buy some of the things I pirate!", but this is, of course, complete bullshit. Do you really think you are in the majority of pirates when you say something like this? Do you buy a majority of things you pirate? I really doubt it. The truth of the matter is that when you pirate something; someone, somewhere loses. You may be able to justify this to yourself by saying that Hollywood is ridiculously rich and it's not a big deal (true), or that most movies and media are shitty and paying for things that you are unsure of is just pushing the risk onto the consumer (also true), or even that there will always be enough shmucks to purchase some overpriced HD4k ultra directors cut for 100 bucks, and that it is essentially those retards keeping the industry alive (also true). But note that all of those arguments are justifications, and while they may even be good justifications, they don't change the fact that at the end of the day, you have stolen something.
You're a fucking retard if this is your perception of money
copyright infringment is still infringment even without monetary harm
fuck off nsa shill, stop trying to trick people with your lies
forging a signature isnt theft, its forgery
counterfeiting money isnt theft, its fraud
piracy isnt theft, its piracy
your totally real friend proved you right
>piracy is ok guys just dont think about it too much lol I get everything 4 free ok hehe u make 4 me now >:(
50 iq
>piracy is obviously wrong and I'll fairly pay for content that I consume one way or another
100 iq
>there are absolutely no good tv or movies at all worth watching for free or otherwise
150 iq
/thread
irony is you have no arguments either
So your point is
>make a bunch of fake music
>the original music still exists so it's okay
Who's the real brainlet here
No, if a justification is ridiculous, such as "they're rich so that means I get to steal from them", then it's objectively wrong and not subjective at all.
A demographic that wouldn't have bought the digital item in the first place but would pirate it cannot be considered as lost sales fuckwit. It does more good than bad really, if the pirate considers the item and better than expected he would market it through word of mouth. A lot of media studios realize this because if it wasnt true, they would be forcing the government to crack down on this shit like it was the war on fucking drugs.
>A demographic that wouldn't have bought the digital item in the first place but would pirate it cannot be considered as lost sales fuckwit.
Yes it can, as evidenced by Denuvo.
People just say they wouldn't buy it, many of them actually would.
>Copyright laws should be abolished or at least at first limited to last only a year.
Because a filthy pirate wants free stuff?
How does DRM prove that,
Also, citation needed
Would you download a car?
>A lot of media studios realize this because if it wasnt true, they would be forcing the government to crack down on this shit like it was the war on fucking drugs.
My thoughts as well.
From a purely legal point of view, I am still of the opinion that piracy is undeniably a form of copyright violation, and thus a form of theft. Now, ethically, we may question current copyright laws, but that's another discussion.
That said, I also believe, however, that the potential economic damage caused by piracy is grossly exaggerated, as evinced by the fairly lax enforcement of anti-piracy laws, even in countries that are, at the moment, more hostile to piracy.
If it were really that big of a problem, I think it's fair to say we'd see more strict and aggressive enforcement, something that clearly can't be claimed today. Even in piracy-hostile countries, it's reasonably easy to do, even if you're not particularly tech-literate.
Besides, any non-retarded company nowadays designs their businesses model while taking piracy in consideration: whether they approve of it or not, some degree of piracy is inevitable, and not being prepared for this is a sign of horrible management.
I'm not saying piracy is good or bad, I'm merely saying that the potential damage it caused has been blown out of proportion.
Effective DRM proves that because with ineffective DRM you have 3 choices:
-Buy game
-Don't play game
-Pirate game
With Denuvo you only get the first two for the first few weeks the game is out, which is all the publisher really wants.
There are some companys products I refuse to pirate out of principal, most media corpos produce shit. I pirate it, play/watch it and burn out 1/3rd the way through. Imagine creating such terrible content that it isnt even worth pirating. That is most of media nowadays. Is it theft? Sure, you can make some good arguments that it is. Do i give a shit? No... No I dont
But what if I never would have watched the movie in the first place if I had to pay for it? The creators arent getting paid either way
>someone takes it without paying
But that's the thing, nobody has taken anything.
Copyright as it exists nowadays simply lasts too long. It encourages profiting off old shit that is sometimes very hard, if not impossible to obtain legally (see: old video games, which sre not even officially produced anymore).
Now, we may argue that they could re-release it at any time, but the proportion of games that actually received such treatment is less than 1%, and I'm being generous.
For the rest, you are effectively condemning people for obtaining something for free that you COULD, with a
Exactly, taking out loans, doing business deals. In the end it's someone else profiting and taking real money. That's not what piracy does.
Once a welfare whore, always a welfare whore. I have no pity for pirates.
til Jow Forums is full of buypigs
No, retard, someone's life is actually harmed and several businesses get nothing after giving the scammer whatever service or product he defrauded everyone about.
I realize you're a dumbass who has never done anything important in his entire life, but something like identity theft is actual theft in multiple forms.
forgery and counterfeiting aren't theft either
Did we need two of these
Wait a second. None of these are theft. Forgery is a means to committing fraud. Counterfeiting money has specific laws that make it a felony. Piracy is copyright infringement.
>people who already can buy games are more likely to buy games that feature Denuvo
That just sounds like people who buy games will buy the game anyway. I'd like to see the preorder numbers for all these denuvo protected games, because if they are high those people were going to buy the games regardless of what protection was on the anyway.
Look at Shadow of the Tomb Raider, that took months to get cracked and it's sales weren't exactly stellar. In fact, it got off to a really slow start sales wise, and things only picked up when it went on sale for half the price like a month after launch. I don't feel DRM increases sales any more than I feel that Piracy costs sales.
>that at the end of the day, you have stolen something
But nothing was stolen.
Exactly retard. It qualifies as theft because you start doing actual deals and taking actual money from actual people and putting actual debt on an actual victim.
Piracy does none of those things. It's just a copy.
No counterfeit money is tricking someone to give you stuff in return for papers with no value, it's a hoax not a theft
Piracy is breaking an agreement over the limited distribution of a good, it's a crime because they loopholed the laws to the moon and back but it's no theft, just a felony
Watching a movie for free is a felony now?
Laws con be interpreted and exploited, if you don't want to Hollywood will
Piracy is not technology.
Somebody copies your banking credentials. You still have them, and so does the bank.
No harm, no foul. Right?
Forgery and counterfeiting are not theft, they're frauds. Pirating software and media is fine as long as you're not resell them as the original copies.