3 ms·
Piracy is not theft. Theft requires the owner be deprived of the thieved property. Piracy does not do that. If a pirate duplicates a work, no lawful owner of a
by LocalH 3y ago
Piracy is not theft. Theft requires the owner be deprived of the thieved property. Piracy does not do that. If a pirate duplicates a work, no lawful owner of a physical copy, nor rights holder, is deprived of that work. The rightsholders still have it. They can still legally duplicate it and sell it.
Piracy is copyright infringement, which is a completely separate legal and moral concept.
My question to you is - if I could duplicate a physical object you own, with no harm or deprivation suffered by you, should that be a crime?
- lesuorac 3y agoWell this is splitting hairs imo. Assault isn't theft either but Piracy and Assault are still both crimes. Somebody who sells say photographs is _harmed_ by you just using your phone to take a picture print it out later without paying them anything. It's their livelihood. However, whether is the crime of piracy worth the current penalties? No. They're excessive and that's what the parent was saying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chung8123 3y agoPiracy is depriving the content owner the value of their creation. I don't understand how people justify piracy vs just not watching the content. It is clear there is value derived by watching (or you wouldn't consume the content), and you are not paying the owner, you are in fact taking from the owner.
- BariumBlue 3y agoThere can be harm, as piracy can theoretically reduce demand for the premium non-pirated products Reduced demand leads to reduced income/revenue. If someone did some action that directly definitively reduced your income, bringing you from say 130k to 110k, that would 100% qualify as "harm or deprivation".