5 ms·

I seriously don't understand why this point keeps getting repeated. It is just semantics! Yes, we all know copying a digital show isn't the same exact thing as

I seriously don't understand why this point keeps getting repeated. It is just semantics! Yes, we all know copying a digital show isn't the same exact thing as stealing your car. However, you are still taking something of value! Let's say you snuck into my band's concert venue and didn't buy a ticket. Yeah you didn't physically take anything from me, but you are having access to something you shouldn't without paying.

pie_flavor 5y ago
No, I am not taking anything of value. You still have all the things of value you had before. The difference between a rivalrous good and a non-rivalrous good is not semantics.
- roland35 5y ago
  Call it stealing it or not, non rivalrous or whatever, the point is that the movie owners have intellectual property rights to their movies and can decide how it is distributed. If you think that's a dumb deal then you don't have to take it. Pirating it is simply wrong.
- Stunting 5y ago
  piracy is receiving the service value of entertainment without providing the requested fee. Another word for it is stealing.
  - pie_flavor 5y ago
    Theft is not defined by the receiving, it is defined by the taking. The moral ill is not you being enriched, it is the person who had it rightfully, being deprived of it.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    For receiving the service value of entertainment of reading this comment, I request a fee of $1,000. Is my request reasonable? Do you feel inclined to pay me? Do I incur $1000 of damages if you choose not to?
- Lord_Baltimore 5y ago
  The mental gymnastics to justify piracy as anything other than theft is always interesting to watch.
  - pie_flavor 5y ago
    So is the substitution of moral smugness for complex thought.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"Let's say you snuck into my band's concert venue and didn't buy a ticket. Yeah you didn't physically take anything from me, but you are having access to something you shouldn't without paying." And this is again a physical situation, where one more person takes up limited space, reducing something. Copying does not reduce anything. It also does not contribute anything, true, so I am not saying it is always ethical to do so. But when a poor person in bangladesh or bolivia living under very different economic realities, where 10$ means a LOT and who could never afford to pay for western realities anyway, streams some hollywood movie from a warez site - than I see zero damage. And guess what, they all do. So do poor teenagers and students in the west and they usually start paying, once they can afford it. Judging them all as "thefts" from a position of being born into wealth, is maybe not very ethical either. So to repeat it again, stealing implies taking something away. Which is not the case here.

pie_flavor 5y ago

No, I am not taking anything of value. You still have all the things of value you had before. The difference between a rivalrous good and a non-rivalrous good is not semantics.

roland35 5y ago
Call it stealing it or not, non rivalrous or whatever, the point is that the movie owners have intellectual property rights to their movies and can decide how it is distributed. If you think that's a dumb deal then you don't have to take it. Pirating it is simply wrong.
Stunting 5y ago
piracy is receiving the service value of entertainment without providing the requested fee. Another word for it is stealing.
- pie_flavor 5y ago
  Theft is not defined by the receiving, it is defined by the taking. The moral ill is not you being enriched, it is the person who had it rightfully, being deprived of it.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  For receiving the service value of entertainment of reading this comment, I request a fee of $1,000. Is my request reasonable? Do you feel inclined to pay me? Do I incur $1000 of damages if you choose not to?
Lord_Baltimore 5y ago
The mental gymnastics to justify piracy as anything other than theft is always interesting to watch.
- pie_flavor 5y ago
  So is the substitution of moral smugness for complex thought.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"Let's say you snuck into my band's concert venue and didn't buy a ticket. Yeah you didn't physically take anything from me, but you are having access to something you shouldn't without paying." And this is again a physical situation, where one more person takes up limited space, reducing something. Copying does not reduce anything. It also does not contribute anything, true, so I am not saying it is always ethical to do so. But when a poor person in bangladesh or bolivia living under very different economic realities, where 10$ means a LOT and who could never afford to pay for western realities anyway, streams some hollywood movie from a warez site - than I see zero damage. And guess what, they all do. So do poor teenagers and students in the west and they usually start paying, once they can afford it. Judging them all as "thefts" from a position of being born into wealth, is maybe not very ethical either. So to repeat it again, stealing implies taking something away. Which is not the case here.