4 ms·

The comparison is flawed. The theft is not of the physical product, but of the proceeds or profits.

by sritch 14y ago

Falling3 14y ago
And if you download something that you: are incapable of attaining due to geographical or other limiting factors, will buy after reviewing, or have 0 chance of buying or viewing/listening otherwise... where is the loss of profits?
tomp 14y ago
> The theft is not of the physical product, but of the proceeds or profits. Only assuming that I would otherwise (if I hadn't copied it) pay. Which is often a false premise. Especially for people like me, who simply cannot pay, even if we want to (I don't live in the US, so much of the online content isn't available to me). I agree that not paying sometimes is stealing. E.g. when you don't pay a masseuse/prostituta after they have delivered their service. But, that is a completely different situation (you agreed to a exchange time<-->money, then you essentially broke the contract). Car stealing/copying is the best comparison I could think of. Maybe a better one would be, stealing a car from the company that makes it, vs. building an exact copy at home. The second one might be objectionable (infringing of patents & copyright), but they are most certainly not the same. I hope this clarifies my earlier argument a bit.
sritch 14y ago
@Falling3 - If you mean to tell me that the majority of people who download copyrighted items, then go forward to buy the music, sure your argument is fair. @Tomp - Well it's hard to compare digital products to physical products since you don't have to create the item more than once for a digital good. Just because you didn't plan to pay anyway, doesn't make it any less "stealing" You can't use the argument "I was never going to buy it anyway" as a valid reason for stealing something.
- Falling3 14y ago
  Most of the people I know that still regularly download music are huge audiophiles and buy a lot of physical music, attend concerts, and purchase other music merchandise. And that still leaves two other arguments. Personally, I downloaded a lot of music and movies when I was a poor HS/college student and there was literally 0 chance of me purchasing them as an alternative. The lost profits argument just doesn't apply.
  - sritch 14y ago
    Yes it does...you deprived the artist of making money as opposed to depriving yourself of music and movies. How does that not apply? You took for free what others paid for.. Your income doesn't matter. Poor people aren't entitled to free goods because they were never going to drive business anyway.
    - njs12345 14y ago
      You can't deprive someone of something that was never there. Consider the following sets of situations: 1: An album is available for $10. It is worth $5 to me. I don't buy it. 2: An album is available for $10. It's worth $5 to me. I pirate it and obtain it for $0. The second set of circumstances is better for everyone: I have gained total welfare of $5 and no one has lost out. I don't see how this is worse than the first option, or morally wrong..
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        I'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. It isn't your right to choose the price you'd pay for something and then copy it if you feel so inclined. You either pay the asking price for a good / service, or you don't pay and don't enjoy the benefits of the service / good. This is why copyright infringement which subverts this system is illegal.
        delian66 14y ago
        >>I'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. I'm sure that the artist getting a new fan, and becoming more popular for free is a very dangerous process indeed :-) ...
- tomp 14y ago
  A study by the Swiss government showed that people have a fixed budged reserved for entertainment - if they can download music for free, they will spend it going to the concerts instead.
  - sritch 14y ago
    What does that matter?
    - shinratdr 14y ago
      Artists are still getting the money.
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        Except of course the artists who didn't get the money they otherwise would have if a free mp3 rip of their music wasn't already posted online somewhere.
        tomp 14y ago
        more likely, noone would know about them... I think most people underestimate the effect that file-sharing has had on our society. Music is so popular, not because of MTV, but because of napster&ThePirateBay&YouTube. If it weren't for these services, most people would probably listen to at most 10% of the music they listen to now, more likely 1%.
- Falling3 14y ago
  If the argument is "piracy is bad because it results in a loss of profits", then the counterargument "that's ok I absolutely would not have bought it anyway" is completely valid.
  - sritch 14y ago
    Why should you be entitled to something free because you never planned to buy it? Please explain
    - Falling3 14y ago
      No one is talking about entitlement. Read what I said. If the above argument is presented as reasoning against, then the counterargument is valid.
Symmetry 14y ago
If someone is selling hot dogs at their stand for $2.00, and someone opens a stand next door selling hot dots for only $1.00, the first seller might complain that the second has "stolen" their customers and their profits, but that doesn't mean that it's theft in a moral or legal sense. Or in other words, theft of potential "proceeds or profits" is never theft per se.

The comparison is flawed. The theft is not of the physical product, but of the proceeds or profits.

by sritch 14y ago

The comparison is flawed. The theft is not of the physical product, but of the proceeds or profits.

And if you download something that you: are incapable of attaining due to geographical or other limiting factors, will buy after reviewing, or have 0 chance of buying or viewing/listening otherwise... where is the loss of profits?

tomp 14y ago

> The theft is not of the physical product, but of the proceeds or profits. Only assuming that I would otherwise (if I hadn't copied it) pay. Which is often a false premise. Especially for people like me, who simply cannot pay, even if we want to (I don't live in the US, so much of the online content isn't available to me). I agree that not paying sometimes is stealing. E.g. when you don't pay a masseuse/prostituta after they have delivered their service. But, that is a completely different situation (you agreed to a exchange time<-->money, then you essentially broke the contract). Car stealing/copying is the best comparison I could think of. Maybe a better one would be, stealing a car from the company that makes it, vs. building an exact copy at home. The second one might be objectionable (infringing of patents & copyright), but they are most certainly not the same. I hope this clarifies my earlier argument a bit.

sritch 14y ago

@Falling3 - If you mean to tell me that the majority of people who download copyrighted items, then go forward to buy the music, sure your argument is fair. @Tomp - Well it's hard to compare digital products to physical products since you don't have to create the item more than once for a digital good. Just because you didn't plan to pay anyway, doesn't make it any less "stealing" You can't use the argument "I was never going to buy it anyway" as a valid reason for stealing something.

Falling3 14y ago
Most of the people I know that still regularly download music are huge audiophiles and buy a lot of physical music, attend concerts, and purchase other music merchandise. And that still leaves two other arguments. Personally, I downloaded a lot of music and movies when I was a poor HS/college student and there was literally 0 chance of me purchasing them as an alternative. The lost profits argument just doesn't apply.
- sritch 14y ago
  Yes it does...you deprived the artist of making money as opposed to depriving yourself of music and movies. How does that not apply? You took for free what others paid for.. Your income doesn't matter. Poor people aren't entitled to free goods because they were never going to drive business anyway.
  - njs12345 14y ago
    You can't deprive someone of something that was never there. Consider the following sets of situations: 1: An album is available for $10. It is worth $5 to me. I don't buy it. 2: An album is available for $10. It's worth $5 to me. I pirate it and obtain it for $0. The second set of circumstances is better for everyone: I have gained total welfare of $5 and no one has lost out. I don't see how this is worse than the first option, or morally wrong..
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      I'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. It isn't your right to choose the price you'd pay for something and then copy it if you feel so inclined. You either pay the asking price for a good / service, or you don't pay and don't enjoy the benefits of the service / good. This is why copyright infringement which subverts this system is illegal.
      - delian66 14y ago
        >>I'm sure the artist who just lost out on his 5 to 10 bucks would beg to disagree. I'm sure that the artist getting a new fan, and becoming more popular for free is a very dangerous process indeed :-) ...
tomp 14y ago
A study by the Swiss government showed that people have a fixed budged reserved for entertainment - if they can download music for free, they will spend it going to the concerts instead.
- sritch 14y ago
  What does that matter?
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    Artists are still getting the money.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      Except of course the artists who didn't get the money they otherwise would have if a free mp3 rip of their music wasn't already posted online somewhere.
      - tomp 14y ago
        more likely, noone would know about them... I think most people underestimate the effect that file-sharing has had on our society. Music is so popular, not because of MTV, but because of napster&ThePirateBay&YouTube. If it weren't for these services, most people would probably listen to at most 10% of the music they listen to now, more likely 1%.
Falling3 14y ago
If the argument is "piracy is bad because it results in a loss of profits", then the counterargument "that's ok I absolutely would not have bought it anyway" is completely valid.
- sritch 14y ago
  Why should you be entitled to something free because you never planned to buy it? Please explain
  - Falling3 14y ago
    No one is talking about entitlement. Read what I said. If the above argument is presented as reasoning against, then the counterargument is valid.

Symmetry 14y ago

If someone is selling hot dogs at their stand for $2.00, and someone opens a stand next door selling hot dots for only $1.00, the first seller might complain that the second has "stolen" their customers and their profits, but that doesn't mean that it's theft in a moral or legal sense. Or in other words, theft of potential "proceeds or profits" is never theft per se.