(Untitled)

[lafinjack]

Comments

[madscience]

To summarize:

1. You've equated piracy with theft.

2. The conventional definition of theft includes the removal or loss of property.

3. The only loss of property that can be attributed to piracy is people declining to purchase.

So by equating piracy with theft, you are either redefining "theft", or equating declining to purchase with theft. Which is it?

[madscience]

Right. Key word "taking".

There is no "taking" involved in media piracy. That overpriced DVD is still sitting on the shelf at Wal-Mart.

[madscience]

Wrong. Nothing is "taken" in the sense required to match the conventional definition of theft.

So stop squirming. Are you redefining theft, or are you equating declining to purchase with theft? Those are the only two options your own reasoning has left you.

[madscience]

That's true. But it does require that the object no longer be in the possession of its rightful owner.

Still squirming...

[red_pill]

have they? there is an additnal digital copy, reprodused at zero cost. becous of the nature of digital copys, they can multplie. they've possbly, but not certenly, lost money, tho not every case of piracy is a lost sale, as the pirate may never have inteded to by it regardless (cant aford too, etc).

copyright ingrigement is a thing. and there are a whole mess of issues. but its not theft.

[farchivist]

Except both the law and the courts disagree with you. And have ALWAYS disagreed with you, going back to the earliest concepts of copyright law.

You're in the publishing industry. You know this. Stop trying to redefine what's been in existence ever since copyright started up.

[madscience]

Now you've progressed from squirming to flailing. I'll leave "tangible" alone and focus on the fact that the original owner has lost absolutely nothing.

The only thing the original owner could possibly have lost is a sale of the product at its market value, which is not being offered, and therefore cannot be lost.

[farchivist]

Except that copyright infringement is still not theft. No stealing, sorry.

[squidb0i]

I have to agree with Jeffy here, with the caveat that pirated media can be legitimately used to try-before-buy. If you liked it, support the people that made it at great cost. If you fail to do so you are in fact stealing.

[farchivist]

Except that copyright infringement is still not theft.

[lafinjack]

To be clear, it's piracy when you're reselling copyrighted material, not just the act of copyright infringement in the first place.

[madscience]

I think if you want to be strict, "piracy" involves hijacking ships on the high seas. As it applies to copyright, the word might originally have only applied to the sale of unauthorized copies. But the Mafiaa is doing everything in their power to equate infringement for commercial gain with infringement for personal entertainment.