4 ms·

That's not a very different argument from saying people will steal merchandise and sell it on the corner because consumers prefer to pay less and not walk the a

by lupire 3y ago

That's not a very different argument from saying people will steal merchandise and sell it on the corner because consumers prefer to pay less and not walk the aisles.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
Its more like the store being a literal hedge maze, with an entrance fee, and once you get to the actual products, they are outrageously priced junk. And the store is price fixing with nearby stores. I think theres a difference between opportunistic crime, and reasonably upstanding people being utterly frustrated with a market status quo. If course there is a ton of piracy that is just straight up theft from perfectly convenient platforms, but the unacceptable, anticompetitive commercial platforms are the core that keeps the community going, I think.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I do think this hits on the fundamental problem - you can't really have real competition when selling intellectual property. With physical goods, if the store is utterly terrible, at the very worst someone can buy and resell the product at a nicer store. Intellectual property you are not allowed to do that. Everything is a vertically integrated monopoly.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
It is different though because theft removes the original item, while piracy is sharing a copy of it.
- johnny99k 3y ago
  Piracy is not stealing, it's counterfeiting. If you steal a car, the car company might lose money, but can make up the losses. With counterfeiting, it devalues the original, which has the possibility of destroying the entire product/business.
  - Marsymars 3y ago
    I don’t think a definition of counterfeiting that includes unlicensed stock photography is an especially salient one.
  - jobs_throwaway 3y ago
    > With counterfeiting, it devalues the original, which has the possibility of destroying the entire product/business. The evidence says that piracy actually increases the value of the original as pirates spend more money on the media than they would without the piracy option
  - randomdata 3y ago
    It is neither stealing or counterfeiting, it is copyright infringement.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  On the other, other hand, TV streaming is a luxury good. It's not really possible to be "morally justified" in stealing it.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > TV streaming is a luxury good I don't agree. For many people, it's the only way to access TV. Wide access to broadcast media is a basic right, not a luxury. Some would say (me, for example) that it's neccesary for the proper functioning of civic society. Meanwhile I note that free-to-air TV has been in decline for over a decade, at least in the UK. Cable and satellite services have been stealing the broadcasters' lunch. BBC News has an ever-shrinking circle of reporters (which they nowadays refer to as "editors"). I have no use for a streaming "package"; I don't watch sports and athletics, vintage sitcoms or new-release movies. I have a Sky dish and DVR, with the basic package. I gather Sky want to move me over to streaming, which would mean I'd have to upgrade my internet service.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      We'll have to agree to disagree. It's hard for me to see having access to the nightly news (which I do not personally have) is necessary for the proper functioning of civic society--especially given many people have access to this over the air.
      - jobs_throwaway 3y ago
        > I do not need this specific thing, so no one else does either
        ghaff 3y ago
        The parent made the comment that broadcast media is necessary for the proper functioning of civic society. Which seems like a very strong claim.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> That's not a very different argument from saying people will steal merchandise and sell it on the corner because consumers prefer to pay less and not walk the aisles. Do you not think that's true? Why do people steal merchandise and sell it on the corner? You see an almost identical argument all the time wrt cigarette taxes - even though cigarette buyers have inelastic demand, there's a limit to how high you can raise the taxes, because eventually everyone will be buying smuggled cigarettes.

by lupire 3y ago

That's not a very different argument from saying people will steal merchandise and sell it on the corner because consumers prefer to pay less and not walk the aisles.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Its more like the store being a literal hedge maze, with an entrance fee, and once you get to the actual products, they are outrageously priced junk. And the store is price fixing with nearby stores. I think theres a difference between opportunistic crime, and reasonably upstanding people being utterly frustrated with a market status quo. If course there is a ton of piracy that is just straight up theft from perfectly convenient platforms, but the unacceptable, anticompetitive commercial platforms are the core that keeps the community going, I think.

bawolff 3y ago
I do think this hits on the fundamental problem - you can't really have real competition when selling intellectual property. With physical goods, if the store is utterly terrible, at the very worst someone can buy and resell the product at a nicer store. Intellectual property you are not allowed to do that. Everything is a vertically integrated monopoly.

NegativeLatency 3y ago

It is different though because theft removes the original item, while piracy is sharing a copy of it.

johnny99k 3y ago
Piracy is not stealing, it's counterfeiting. If you steal a car, the car company might lose money, but can make up the losses. With counterfeiting, it devalues the original, which has the possibility of destroying the entire product/business.
- Marsymars 3y ago
  I don’t think a definition of counterfeiting that includes unlicensed stock photography is an especially salient one.
- jobs_throwaway 3y ago
  > With counterfeiting, it devalues the original, which has the possibility of destroying the entire product/business. The evidence says that piracy actually increases the value of the original as pirates spend more money on the media than they would without the piracy option
- randomdata 3y ago
  It is neither stealing or counterfeiting, it is copyright infringement.
HPsquared 3y ago
On the other, other hand, TV streaming is a luxury good. It's not really possible to be "morally justified" in stealing it.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > TV streaming is a luxury good I don't agree. For many people, it's the only way to access TV. Wide access to broadcast media is a basic right, not a luxury. Some would say (me, for example) that it's neccesary for the proper functioning of civic society. Meanwhile I note that free-to-air TV has been in decline for over a decade, at least in the UK. Cable and satellite services have been stealing the broadcasters' lunch. BBC News has an ever-shrinking circle of reporters (which they nowadays refer to as "editors"). I have no use for a streaming "package"; I don't watch sports and athletics, vintage sitcoms or new-release movies. I have a Sky dish and DVR, with the basic package. I gather Sky want to move me over to streaming, which would mean I'd have to upgrade my internet service.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree. It's hard for me to see having access to the nightly news (which I do not personally have) is necessary for the proper functioning of civic society--especially given many people have access to this over the air.
    - jobs_throwaway 3y ago
      > I do not need this specific thing, so no one else does either
      - ghaff 3y ago
        The parent made the comment that broadcast media is necessary for the proper functioning of civic society. Which seems like a very strong claim.
  - HPsquared 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> That's not a very different argument from saying people will steal merchandise and sell it on the corner because consumers prefer to pay less and not walk the aisles. Do you not think that's true? Why do people steal merchandise and sell it on the corner? You see an almost identical argument all the time wrt cigarette taxes - even though cigarette buyers have inelastic demand, there's a limit to how high you can raise the taxes, because eventually everyone will be buying smuggled cigarettes.