5 ms·

You are using the age old argument of “I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, so they won’t get anything from me either way” This is just a roundabout way of excusi

You are using the age old argument of “I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, so they won’t get anything from me either way” This is just a roundabout way of excusing stealing. If the creator of something says “if you want to view my work, you must pay me a dollar”, then yes it is stealing (immoral) if you view it without paying. The context around it as to whether you would’ve watched it anyway is irrelevant. Apply the same logic to literally any other item and your argument falls apart (I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway so they’re not really losing money from me)

al_borland 3y ago
I would be curious to know what percentage of pirated movies are actually watched. I think a lot of people download things because they are available and might look interesting, but then never watch it. Does the steeling happen when the content is acquired or consumed? If someone isn’t going to watch it, even when it was free, did they steal anything? With a chocolate bar there is a physical good that could have been sold to someone else, but instead a new one needs to be produced to sell to someone else. This isn’t the case with digital files.
- ESTheComposer 3y ago
  It doesn't matter how many times you can sell the same item. If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. In terms of "when" it's stolen re downloading vs watching, I would say when you download it personally as you now have access to the content without paying.
  - RiverCrochet 3y ago
    > If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. Not quite. It's not stealing unless they are deprived of the original item (this is not to be confused with the money they think it is worth if they sell it or "sell" it). What is happening is copying, not stealing.
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      You are depriving them of revenue, it is stealing.
      - RiverCrochet 3y ago
        I have $1000. Currently, I am not giving it to you, and am therefore actively depriving you of this money. Is this stealing?
        ESTheComposer 3y ago
        You're using a false analogy. You're trying to make a parallel between not paying for an item/produced good and simply not giving someone money in an attempt to downplay not paying for created material.
        RiverCrochet 3y ago
        Both of these have a common element: A: "Not giving someone money for an item/produced good" B: "Not giving someone money" B can apply to a near infinite number of cases. A is one case that is "within" B. So... the root meaning is the same. If you call A stealing, you have to call B stealing, but that's ridiculous because, for example, each day, I literally don't give money to the entire world. According to your logic I would owe the whole world population the value of every item/produced good.
      - angoragoats 3y ago
        It’s not though: * It’s definitely not stealing in the legal sense of the term, which requires a party to be deprived of physical property that they own. * It’s also not in the colloquial sense of the term, because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web, taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber, or countless other activities that could be considered “depriving someone of revenue.” In the US, we do in fact have a legal term for the crime at play here — but the term is copyright infringement, not “stealing” or “IP theft” or whatever other stupid label the content cartels want to apply to it.
  - adamomada 3y ago
    You are stealing... what, exactly? (It’s not stealing any thing at all)
angoragoats 3y ago
If you want to read this comment, which I created, you owe me $100. Okay, now pay up. If you don’t, you’re stealing from me.
- ESTheComposer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - angoragoats 3y ago
    What fallacy did I commit? Please, name the fallacy and explain why it's an example of that fallacy, so I can learn from my mistakes. I simply took your argument, verbatim: > If the creator of something says “if you want to view my work, you must pay me a dollar”, then yes it is stealing (immoral) if you view it without paying. And showed how it is a ridiculous argument with a simple example. I created a comment, and said you must pay me $100 to read it. You didn't, so you stole from me, by your own argument.
    - ESTheComposer 3y ago
      It's called a false equivalence fallacy[1] and more specifically it's called the fallacy of composition[2]. I don't know why I'm taking the time to do this but I'm going to assume you're genuine with wanting to learn so: Essentially the original argument I made is 1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment. 2. Stealing is wrong 3. Pirating is stealing So, 4. Pirating is wrong You took my comment and attempted to do this: 1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment. 2. Stealing is wrong 3. Reading my comment for free is stealing So, 4. Reading my comment for free is wrong Except step 3 is an invalid assertion since we are on a public forum with accounts created for the express purpose of reading and writing on said public forum for free. Your argument makes the assumption that because an action (using something for free) is wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20false%20equivalence%20or%20false,%22comparing%20apples%20and%20oranges.%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
defrost 3y ago
> I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway > Please take a logic class before you commit a really basic fallacy. Agreed. Work on the chocolate bar analogy some more, especially the part about how it's still there after digital video pirates steal it.
- ESTheComposer 3y ago
  Thanks for actually contributing instead of being obtusely sarcastic...ah wait. It's interesting that people devalue a good just because it's digital on a tech focused website named HackerNews lol.
danparsonson 3y ago
> Apply the same logic to literally any other item and your argument falls apart (I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway so they’re not really losing money from me) The rest of your argument notwithstanding, that's because stealing chocolate bars is zero sum, whereas copying films is not.

al_borland 3y ago

I would be curious to know what percentage of pirated movies are actually watched. I think a lot of people download things because they are available and might look interesting, but then never watch it. Does the steeling happen when the content is acquired or consumed? If someone isn’t going to watch it, even when it was free, did they steal anything? With a chocolate bar there is a physical good that could have been sold to someone else, but instead a new one needs to be produced to sell to someone else. This isn’t the case with digital files.

ESTheComposer 3y ago
It doesn't matter how many times you can sell the same item. If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. In terms of "when" it's stolen re downloading vs watching, I would say when you download it personally as you now have access to the content without paying.
- RiverCrochet 3y ago
  > If someone spent time and money producing something, no matter how small, and they dictate they want $x for you to own/consume it, then you are stealing if you don't give them $x for it. Not quite. It's not stealing unless they are deprived of the original item (this is not to be confused with the money they think it is worth if they sell it or "sell" it). What is happening is copying, not stealing.
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    You are depriving them of revenue, it is stealing.
    - RiverCrochet 3y ago
      I have $1000. Currently, I am not giving it to you, and am therefore actively depriving you of this money. Is this stealing?
      - ESTheComposer 3y ago
        You're using a false analogy. You're trying to make a parallel between not paying for an item/produced good and simply not giving someone money in an attempt to downplay not paying for created material.
        RiverCrochet 3y ago
        Both of these have a common element: A: "Not giving someone money for an item/produced good" B: "Not giving someone money" B can apply to a near infinite number of cases. A is one case that is "within" B. So... the root meaning is the same. If you call A stealing, you have to call B stealing, but that's ridiculous because, for example, each day, I literally don't give money to the entire world. According to your logic I would owe the whole world population the value of every item/produced good.
    - angoragoats 3y ago
      It’s not though: * It’s definitely not stealing in the legal sense of the term, which requires a party to be deprived of physical property that they own. * It’s also not in the colloquial sense of the term, because if you call this stealing you’d also have apply the stealing label to blocking ads/trackers on the web, taking advantage of free trials for services without any intent of becoming a subscriber, or countless other activities that could be considered “depriving someone of revenue.” In the US, we do in fact have a legal term for the crime at play here — but the term is copyright infringement, not “stealing” or “IP theft” or whatever other stupid label the content cartels want to apply to it.
- adamomada 3y ago
  You are stealing... what, exactly? (It’s not stealing any thing at all)

angoragoats 3y ago

If you want to read this comment, which I created, you owe me $100. Okay, now pay up. If you don’t, you’re stealing from me.

ESTheComposer 3y ago
[flagged]
- angoragoats 3y ago
  What fallacy did I commit? Please, name the fallacy and explain why it's an example of that fallacy, so I can learn from my mistakes. I simply took your argument, verbatim: > If the creator of something says “if you want to view my work, you must pay me a dollar”, then yes it is stealing (immoral) if you view it without paying. And showed how it is a ridiculous argument with a simple example. I created a comment, and said you must pay me $100 to read it. You didn't, so you stole from me, by your own argument.
  - ESTheComposer 3y ago
    It's called a false equivalence fallacy[1] and more specifically it's called the fallacy of composition[2]. I don't know why I'm taking the time to do this but I'm going to assume you're genuine with wanting to learn so: Essentially the original argument I made is 1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment. 2. Stealing is wrong 3. Pirating is stealing So, 4. Pirating is wrong You took my comment and attempted to do this: 1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment. 2. Stealing is wrong 3. Reading my comment for free is stealing So, 4. Reading my comment for free is wrong Except step 3 is an invalid assertion since we are on a public forum with accounts created for the express purpose of reading and writing on said public forum for free. Your argument makes the assumption that because an action (using something for free) is wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20false%20equivalence%20or%20false,%22comparing%20apples%20and%20oranges.%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

defrost 3y ago

> I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway > Please take a logic class before you commit a really basic fallacy. Agreed. Work on the chocolate bar analogy some more, especially the part about how it's still there after digital video pirates steal it.

ESTheComposer 3y ago
Thanks for actually contributing instead of being obtusely sarcastic...ah wait. It's interesting that people devalue a good just because it's digital on a tech focused website named HackerNews lol.

danparsonson 3y ago

> Apply the same logic to literally any other item and your argument falls apart (I wouldn’t have bought that chocolate bar anyway so they’re not really losing money from me) The rest of your argument notwithstanding, that's because stealing chocolate bars is zero sum, whereas copying films is not.