3 ms·
If you wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content there is no loss.
by macguy 10y ago
If you wouldn't have otherwise purchased the content there is no loss.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoSo to go back to derekp7's analogy, if I wouldn't have otherwise purchased the haircut, then there's no loss to the barber?
- hueving 10y agoNo, because the barber had to expend effort and resources on you.
- dkonofalski 10y agoThis is a poor analogy anyways because time is money for most intents and purposes. Making a copy of a file doesn't cost anyone time or money as the work in question has already been created and the time has already been spent.
- grzm 10y agoGranted, you're not the parent I was referring to, but let me ask again: Do you believe there is anything wrong with the behavior?
- mercer 10y agoI'm not the parent you were referring to either, but my view is that 1) yes, shamelessly 'pirating' is at the very least a moral gray area, and in my opinion on darker side of this area, and 2) calling it stealing is a gross oversimplification. Concerning 2): many people I know who pirate, say, a particular show, would simply not watch if piracy was not available. On the other hand, once this show becomes easily available and accessible on something like Netflix, these same people happily pay for the content. It seems inaccurate and dishonest to call them 'thieves' by the conventional definition. tl;dr: I wouldn't defend piracy in most cases (you could just not watch the show), but I think calling someone doing this a 'thief' is a morally worse because of what that words means to most of us.