Why are people under the assumption that downloading is theft? You're not stealing anything, you're duplicating.
>You're stealing potential profit
This argument is ridiculous. So let's say I live in a house and someone decides to ring my doorbell, are they stealing money from me? After all, I have to pay for the electricity. Or what if someone's talking to me? Are they stealing life from me? When ears process noise the muscles use blood and oxygen, which comes from my heart and lungs. These organs deteriorate slowly every time they are used.
>>75863692
The very notion that "thought" is considered (((someone's))) property is quintessentially absurd.
>>75863692
>These organs deteriorate slowly every time they are used.
Feels bad, man
>>75863692
Do you charge for your electircity?
no.
Does the artist charge for his final product?
yes.
You're a thief.
You've ended up with the creative output in your possession and you didn't pay them.
I torrent stuff all the time. And I don't seed because we're all thieves so fuck everyone.
Your analogy sucks. Youre for sure stealing. I do it too.
>>75863692
Nice argument Wong
>>75865506
So if I smack a price label on something that constitutes ownership? I could patent air. Does that mean you're stealing from me every time you breathe without my consent?
White people don't pirate, they buy the movies and games they want to play, Ahmed.
>>75865761
you're comparing a vaccuum cleaner to a fucking game, they just rehash old shit and expect you to pay 70e for 5 hours of gameplay and then they sell you DLCs
>>75865730
It doesn't suck actually, because the argument is loss of potential profit, which I get if someone rings my doorbell.
Duplication is not theft.
>>75865506
>Man 1 makes lemonade
>Charges for it
>Man 2 makes lemonade
>Doesn't charge for it
>THIEF! Says man 1
>>75865761
Except I don't make any money from my duplication. See the difference? Besides, I'm not even taking any potential profit because I wouldn't have bought the music if I couldn't download it.
More like narrowing the field of scope for future products, rather than theft. This is even noticeable with insanely synergized products such as films. Alice 2? Really, Disney? And yet they play it even safer and safer with the brand name recognition now that any yahoo with an internet connection can download their crap for free, should they so wish.
No, piracy is not entirely to blame for the over the top glut of specious remakes, reboots and reimaginings, but it's a factor. And yes, as one door closes on an technologically outdated business model, others open for those willing to use the new gizmos.
Sites that sell digital assets (or rather licence their use in renders) are almost entirely market driven. Aggressive piracy there simply restricts consumer choice the very next quarter. The content providers cannot take risks of branching out into new untested content if they want to meet bills. It's also why the software are all going the route of encrypted DRM systems now, seamless for legit purchasers, very fiddly indeed for pirates. Not impossible, just very frustrating and deliberately slow.
>>75865779
Patenting air obviously won't go through.
You wouldn't download a car!
>>75866266
>Patenting air obviously won't go through.
Irrelevant. One could technically do it.
>>75865869
>>75866018
You now have something someone else labored to produce and you didn't pay for.
....but its not theft because they wanted too much money and you're aren't going to resell it.
Fuck, just admit you're a cheap bastard or poor
>>75865761
Let's say you created and sell some kind of widget and I'm a wizard. I buy one widget from you and use my mystical wizard magic to make an infinite number of copies of it and just leave them in a pile for people to take. Are those people stealing from you? Did I? Or did you just get fucked by a market were scarcity doesn't exist anymore?
>>75865779
Go back and read the post again. Did you create air? no. If you're going to be deliberately stupid then at least say so so we can just call you a cuck instead.
>>75865938
Where in your retarded scenario was man #1's lemonade taken from him?
This thread is irrelevant. Cracking scene is dying, anyone actually decent is either in prison or works for the good side. Denuvo has yet to be cracked and 2K already announced a better, cheaper anti-tampering solution for Civ6. Music/movie piracy might be harder to fight but I'm pretty sure they'll come up with some way to stop it in next 20 years. Pirates, weird oldfags and privacy are all a dying breed.
>>75866474
If you travel to another country, do you pay for using their roads? No? So you're ripping off the country? Driving on their roads will make them deteriorate faster (consequently increasing the need for repair). Why don't you pay the government? Are you a cheap bastard?
>>75865761
>implying intellectual "property" even exists
Basically the chinks saw Dyson was ripping people off and undercut them, it doesn't matter if Dyson did the research or not, they sucked at business and had to resort to legal action to even stay in business, fuck that shit, they should have lowered their costs.
This only serves to fuck the consumer over, now they're forced to pay for Dyson's overpriced shit if they want anything like the product instead of being able to buy a cheaper alternative.
>>75866588
>Go back and read the post again. Did you create air? no
I see how it is. So let's say Sweden invented the house 1 day before Britain did, is that to be considered theft by Britain? Fucking idiot.
>>75866646
you keep making up analogies that aren't the same thing. If you ripped up 4 miles of concrete and took it home... yeah, you'd be a fucking thief.
>>75866850
>If you ripped up 4 miles of concrete and took it home... yeah, you'd be a fucking thief.
Yeah, but if I duplicate them without removing the concrete, then no, I wouldn't be a thief. That's what downloading is; duplication.
>>75866751
>invented the house
>patenting air
and I'm the idiot?
I'm the idiot who keeps bumping this retarded bait thread so you're partly right there.
>>75866850
Heck, when you see a picture you make a copy of it in your brain where it's stored as a memory. You fucking thief.
>>75866588
>Where in your retarded scenario was man #1's lemonade taken from him?
It wasn't, just as singing auld lang syne at new year was not "stolen" from whoever the fuck came up with that.
Copyright infringement is a civil offence (it's advantageous to have inventors/artists/authors etc make money off of their work), it is however not theft which is a criminal offence.
It is not theft when nothing tangible was stolen.
>>75866977
>and I'm the idiot?
What's the problem? Nothing wrong with the house example. Someone invented the house. That was your argument. If you invent something, you have the rights to it, and if someone copies it, they are thiefs.
>>75866935
>if
and there's the key word. One is possible and is thievery. One is something you've made up and is retarded.
You are a retarded thief so somehow skipped a step. Kudos.
This thread is chock-full of the worst analogies of all time.
Windows 10 is aloud to download all your personal data. Really makes you think.
>>75866598
>Pirates, weird oldfags and privacy are all a dying breed.
Sure thing buddy, they said that years ago.
>>75867145
They're not bad analogies just because you can't understand them.
>>75867143
What the fuck are you even talking about? I can duplicate music files, that's what downloading is. I am not taking the original files you spastic fuck. I am making a copy of them or other copies.
>You are a retarded thief so somehow skipped a step. Kudos.
Sorry, but no. Duplication is not theft. Then >>75867012 would be too. Then we're all fucking thiefs. Good job, chav.
>>75867133
Never used the word invent once. I said create.
If a guy builds (creates) a house and you just swan in there when he's at Ikea and claim it's yours, that's fine in your world?
>>75867060
copyright iinfringement implies he's made a version of the existing product, or enough elements of it. I doubt you'd be able to argue that a pirated video game on your computer is a copyright infringment over theft but I'm no lawyer. Google, unhelpfully, says it can be both civil and criminal depending on the case.
>>75863692
>You're stealing potential profit
No I'm not. If I couldn't get the thing for free, I wouldn't get it at all.
>>75865938
If you figured out how to make the same exact lemonade, you probably stole his formula, thus you're a thief.
Though I'm not gonna sit back and defend movie companies either. Some of their movies are priced waaaay too high. Once it hits bluray, a movie should be no more than $10-20. I think that would be fair. On a universal platform like Steam. Problem is, movies are too damn expensive, too much copywrite protection, shitty menus, and you'll be rebuying the movies again 5 years down the road when it rereleases with more features or higher resolution.
>>75867260
>I see how it is. So let's say Sweden invented the house 1 day before Britain did, is that to be considered theft by Britain? Fucking idiot.
Gimme more masterpieces, Muham-mad
>>75867545
>If a guy builds (creates) a house and you just swan in there when he's at Ikea and claim it's yours, that's fine in your world?
Are you genuinely retarded? That's theft. If I however, saw his house and build an exact copy of it, then no THAT IS NOT THEFT. That's what downloading is. You are COPYING/DUPLICATING their song/movie/whatever.
>>75867555
>If you figured out how to make the same exact lemonade, you probably stole his formula, thus you're a thief.
Looking at his formula is not theft, stupid burger. Taking the piece of paper the formula is written on, that is.
>>75867545
>I doubt you'd be able to argue that a pirated video game on your computer is a copyright infringement over theft but I'm no lawyer.
It literally is defined as copyright infringement. As what you are doing is copying their work without their permission, not breaking into their house and taking anything. Everything they own is still in their possession.
All they have lost is some intangible "profit" that they may or may not have made had you not make a free copy of their IP.
Can anyone make an analogy explaining how file sharing is bad that doesn't involve physical things?
>>75867409
ok, Sven, whatever you say. Take your HDD down to Sony music HQ and tell them it's pull of duplicated music files you never paid a penny for. Then tell us what happens. You can justify being a freeloading gypsy all you want but you just sound like a twat. The rest of us don't need to justify being thieving bastards on a Cambodian tree frog rearing forum - we just do it and don't care.
Jesus tits
This is not a complicated issue.
If inventors or artists aren't compensated for their investment of time and money....well then there won't be many new inventions, songs, games, books, or movies.
In fact we would not be having this conversion right now if not for intellectual property protection.
If you think its all bullshit and they shouldn't be compensated, then shut off your device right now because it wouldn't be there.
>>75867847
Content producers being unable to make money off of producing content means they are less likely to do it, and what they do make is the safest cookie-cutter garbage you can imagine.
>>75868088
>In fact we would not be having this conversion right now if not for intellectual property protection.
Moot "stole" this shit from a jap m8. Pretty sure he didn't pay a penny.
>>75867940
>ok, Sven, whatever you say. Take your HDD down to Sony music HQ and tell them it's pull of duplicated music files you never paid a penny for. Then tell us what happens.
If downloading music is illegal in my country, I'll go to prison or pay a fine. Does that mean it's theft? No.
>You can justify being a freeloading gypsy all you want but you just sound like a twat.
It's still not theft. Also, I'm guessing you're an atheist so you really shouldn't talk about morality considering it's subjective in the absence of God.
>>75868105
So basically nothing changes.
>>75868088
Still not theft.
>>75868267
Or possibly rampant piracy has lead to the current situation.
/r/ing the picture of the person magically duplicating a bike.
>>75865881
This!
Fuck me, it's a bloody rip off, they got back what they invested anyway
>>75868286
(You)
>>75863692
>i don't want to pay for things
OP confirmed for Sanders voter.
File sharing will never be theft. Period
As the original copy can still be sold. The person receiving a copy of the original would have never purchased the original in the first place.
If not buying the orignal copy equals theft because of loss of a potential sale then if i decided to not buy the latest lambo then its theft too because Lambo missed out on a potential sale. By not putting my best effort forward and becoming massively wealthy im stealing from every company in the world that sells products to the rich. You know, because of lost potential sales.
TL;DR if the original can still be sold its not theft.
I love the salt that piracy generates. Stay salty, white knights. Who knows, Hollywood might send you a free movie!
>>75863692
>digital copyright laws
>not stealing just copying
>therefore not illegal
Weew
>>75868902
Just admit you're a thief and steal to your heart's content.
I don't get all this "It's not theft because I say so" while downloading terabytes of data that you'd otherwise have to pay for.
You're acting like you can't sleep at night because you have 2 terabytes of stolen, downloaded porn on your HD unless you trick yourself into believing "it's not theft".
>>75868792
See? He didn't steal shit.
>>75869124
>I don't get all this "It's not theft because I say so" while downloading terabytes of data that you'd otherwise have to pay for.
According to your stupid logic it's consider thievery if the government put a price on oxygen and you fail to pay.
>>75869124
>Someone sets up a toll road
>Beside it is a free road
>People use the free road over the toll road
>This is theft
It's economics in action baby.
>>75869124
Have you gone into another state and drank from their water fountains? You dont pay their state taxes, therefore you are stealing their water. What about state roads in another state (not federally funded highways)? Do you block ADs?
>>75869361
>According to your stupid logic it's consider thievery if the government put a price on oxygen and you fail to pay.
So are you saying that you shouldn't have to pay for movies, tv, books, magazines, and music?
Because that's a completely different topic.
>>75869384
>>75869553
That's not my point in the least.
You are claiming that what you're doing isn't theft and therefore that makes it okay.
But even if you accepted the fact that it was theft, you'd still do it.
So just admit it's theft and continue to do it. The issue is then resolved.
"Yeah, I'm a thief and I DL shit. So what?"
See? It's not that hard.
>>75869553
Also...
"IF YOU DRINK FROM A PUBLIC WATER FOUNTAIN FROM ANOTHER STATE THAT IS THEFT!"
Jesus fucking Christ how fucking stupid are you?
>>75863692
b8.
But I'll nibble for just this one moment.
What incentive to companies/devs have to create games that require large budgets if everyone just took the final product for free?
Don't you see that despite the product having the potential for infinite reproduction once it's finalized doesn't mean it didn't take a large amount of resources and effort to create it in the first place, you delusional, arrogant cunt?
If they aren't worth anything then they aren't worth making, then you're SOL on future products.
You're technically paying for the next installment so they can continue making games.
>>75869619
>So are you saying that you shouldn't have to pay for movies, tv, books, magazines, and music?
I'm saying it's not theft if you download movies, books, magazines or music. It's duplication. You're not taking away something.
>>75869619
My position is that it isn't theft, but that doesn't necessarily make copyright infringement ok, as while nothing is physically stolen (only copied), it does have an intangible effect.
>>75869619
No my point is, if you don't consider using state roads in another state that you don't pay taxes in theft, then neither is making a copy of an original item.
here's another example:
Say the Mona Lisa goes on sale and someone else buys it for 100 mill. I can't afford that and miss out on the purchase.
If i then used a computer to create an exact duplicate of the Mona Lisa to hang on my wall without actually buying the original is that theft? Nope. The person that purchased the Mona Lisa still has his/her original.
Theft means the taken of the original item in question.
>>75869697
Um state and local taxes pay for the water not the federal taxes. Thus if you drink water without paying the state taxes for the use of said water, then its theft.
>>75865761
Make a better product dumb ass and stop whining!
Just stop with the idiotic analogies that would make a 3 year old cringe
Pirating digital media is theft
t. poor NEET who bought his last music/movie in 2005
>>75867785
>derrr you can't steal intellectual property
Yes you can. You start stealing ideas, people are less likely to come up with original ones. You stop rewarding people for original ideas, again they stop coming up with them. Every action has a reaction down the road like your country's refugee problem. This is why you have a baby 3 tones darker than you and your wife.
>>75870339
>Pirating digital media is theft
Sorry, no.
>>75863692
It's the theft of the opportunity to sell you something you clearly don't want to pay for.
>>75869935
>>75869997
>>75870027
Then one could argue that you're taking a product that you'd otherwise have to pay for. That can be argued to be theft as most (if not all) media companies offer digital versions of all their products.
Again though, my point is that you're claiming that it's somehow acceptable to download everything you want because "its not really theft."
But if it was theft in your eyes, would you stop doing it? No, you wouldn't. So just end the issue, admit it's theft and do it to your heart's content.
>>75870160
>Thus if you drink water without paying the state taxes for the use of said water, then its theft.
You're full of shit.
And an idiot.
The state is offering that water for free to anyone who wants to drink it.
That water is not available for "state taxpayers only".
Otherwise, there would be policemen on every single public fountains. And they'd be kicking out the homeless, unemployed and tourists from other countries from drinking the water.
You're a moron.
Shut up.
You're not helping your position in the least.
Idiot.
>>75870437
If that's what you believe, fine with me
It is still theft
>HUR U MAEK COPY NOT TAKE ORIGINAL
>>75870375
>You start stealing ideas, people are less likely to come up with original ones. You stop rewarding people for original ideas, again they stop coming up with them.
It's not theft just because the "inventors/creators" get butthurt about people getting their products for free.
>derrr you can't steal intellectual property
You can't. If that was the case you're stealing fire from cavemen every time you make one. You need to go back in time and acquire their permission, fuckwad.
Lets hear from an expert on the subject
>>75870339
>You're all retards
>It's theft because I say so!
Bring an argument.
>>75870569
If you read this message you have stolen it since your brain made a memory of it and put it in your subconscious©
See how fucking stupid your reasoning is?
>>75865761
Yeah that argument only holds up if the content is physical. The torrenting demographic, the "Thieves" actually spend more money on digital content as a whole.
https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-spend-much-more-money-on-music-study-shows-160226/
https://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-are-well-educated-and-earn-more-money-130615/
Fuck KU btw senpai
>>75870552
I will not admit that it's theft because it's not. If you have some magic machine that make an exact copy of your neighbour's car and leaves the original exactly as it was, you have in no way stolen it, even though your neighbour is now no longer as able to sell his car to you.
>>75870552
>Doesn't realize how utilities are taken care of at state and local levels.
>Doesn't know how the funding for state and local water is handled
>Calls me stupid
I think your lunch break is over, get back to salting those fries, Paco
>>75870722
For what it is worth they deserve their shit "copied"
Copyright laws are ancient and restrict free flow of information
But i steal my films and so do you
>>75871129
>But i steal my films and so do you
Nope.
PARENTS FAULT
Not theft - its sexism
>>75870943
>I will not admit that it's theft because it's not.
If someone was somehow able to convince you that it was theft would you still do it?
>If you have some magic machine that make an exact copy of your neighbour's car and leaves the original exactly as it was, you have in no way stolen it, even though your neighbour is now no longer as able to sell his car to you.
So what if you (and everyone else for that matter) copied a car from a car dealership and rode off in the car and didn't give the car store so much as a penny?
What then?
>>75870955
>thinks that you can only drink water from the state you reside in
>thinks that if you drink water from another state, it's theft.
Yes, you're fucking stupid.
Do you load up on gallons of water from your home state before taking a trip to another state?
>>75871351
>If someone was somehow able to convince you that it was theft would you still do it?
No, I wouldn't. You would have a job ahead of you doing so though.
>So what if you (and everyone else for that matter) copied a car from a car dealership and rode off in the car and didn't give the car store so much as a penny?
Still not theft. Just as a competing dealership offering the same product for less money is not left, neither is offering it for free.
>>75871351
Do you drink from water fountains instead of buying bottled water? You are still getting the water without paying for it.
You are stealing from Nestle
>>75871537
>not left
Theft even.
Have any of you fuckers actually produced anything digital? I'm sure as hell most of you are jobless pieces of shit who don't deserve existing. Please, try (spoiler: you will fail because you have no will and are a faggot) to make a fucking tic-tac-toe game in C or C++ and speak again.
>>75863692
>This argument is ridiculous. So let's say I live in a house and someone decides to ring my doorbell, are they stealing money from me? After all, I have to pay for the electricity. Or what if someone's talking to me? Are they stealing life from me? When ears process noise the muscles use blood and oxygen, which comes from my heart and lungs. These organs deteriorate slowly every time they are used.
It's theft because there's such a thing as copyrights. The people you're downloading the material from are making money in place of the people who actually made the intellectual property in the first place.
It's very simple: If musicians can't make a profit from writing and producing music, nobody will be a musician. Because society values talented musicians, we say that they own the intellectual property that they produce so that they can make a profit. Hence we say that passing this material around without the makers consent is illegal.
>>75871595
>Do you drink from water fountains instead of buying bottled water?
Public water fountains are a free public service offered by the government, using them when you are not a direct taxpayer is not theft as the government did not make being a taxpayer a requirement for their use.
Your argument is shit.
You are shit.
>You are still getting the water without paying for it.
The product is offered for free from the government that is providing it. It is not theft.
Do you charge your friends (I know you don't have any but hear me out) when they drink a glass of water from your home? No? They're stealing from you then.
You are such a fucking idiot it's not even funny.
>>75866742
>reading this and the entire thread
>about to take the patent bar in a month
Man you guys are just too lel
>>75871854
Dude i'm a chem engineer and have an income greater than the sum of all of those that work in your 3rd world village. I probably pay more for music and movies then you make in a year, and i still pirate.
https://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-are-well-educated-and-earn-more-money-130615/
>>75871537
>No, I wouldn't.
So you have some morals.
>You would have a job ahead of you doing so though.
Of course not. You don't want to believe what you've been doing is wrong so you refuse to accept any argument that proves you're in the wrong.
It wouldn't matter if there was undeniable evidence proving that downloading whatever you do was theft. You wouldn't accept it because you want to keep downloading things.
>Still not theft.
Anything to justify your theft, right?
>Just as a competing dealership offering the same product for less money is not left,
I don't see how that means what you're doing isn't theft.
>neither is offering it for free.
But if they were offering their product for free, it wouldn't be theft to take it. But they're not offering their product for free, are they?
But you sure are receiving it for free, aren't you?
Just admit you're a thief and go from there. At the very least you'll stop being dishonest with yourself.
Conventional concepts of economy, the market and theft don't apply well to the internet and digitial media well because it's the first time humanity has encountered a true lack of scarcity. Anyone can buy a song or movie or game and turn around and make an infinite number of copies of it to just give away for free. Once a product hits the market, supply almost instantly becomes infinite, driving the market price down infinitely low.
This is why now we see legal maneuvering where you don't buy the product, you buy the right to use it. That doesn't work well though because the user still possesses the product and can still copy and distribute it.
What we see is actually pure unfettered capitalism in action. What company can compete with unlimited free access to a product? In a completely free market, they simply can't. So now we make rules to restrict free duplication in order to protect the market and prevent collapse and are hitting the eternal debate between freedom and protectionism.
I won't pretend to have the answer but I believe piracy is an economic concern rather than a moral one.
>>75871966
>It's theft because there's such a thing as copyrights. The people you're downloading the material from are making money in place of the people who actually made the intellectual property in the first place.
Oh okay. If you read this message you have stolen it since your brain made a memory of it and put it in your subconscious©
Good job, thief.
>>75872433
You are completely correct; DMCA laws are just a reaction to the evolving market, and we're still trying to figure out. Most likely it'll be an issue for decades. Additionally, it's well established in the courts that the reason for these laws is to provide incentive to creators for exclusivity and thus profit for their efforts.
Make something new that people want; get rewarded. The whole issue boils down to that.
>>75872401
See and stop being a retard. Intellectual property is not a thing.
>>75870598
>>75870598
>>75870598
>>75870598
>>75870598
>>75872769
>See and stop being a retard
Said the faggot that thinks people owe him money for seeing his posts on a public website that he doesn't own.
>Intellectual property is not a thing.
You say that to justify your theft...
I'm sorry you're too retarded to understand the notion of intellectual property, but that doesn't make it not exist.
It's not the fucking electricity which is being sold, but the information conferred by its conformation.
>>75872170
Wtf does it have to do with my income and address? Are you saying that because you live in a rich country makes your opinion more important?
>>75872401
>So you have some morals.
I like to think so.
>Of course not. You don't want to believe what you've been doing is wrong so you refuse to accept any argument that proves you're in the wrong.
I will accept any legitimate argument. My reasoning is perfectly sound and you can attack it however you like, so long as your own reasoning is just as sound (or you are attacking what you believe to be unsound reasoning on my part).
>It wouldn't matter if there was undeniable evidence proving that downloading whatever you do was theft. You wouldn't accept it because you want to keep downloading things.
>Anything to justify your theft, right?
Yawn. Not arguments.
>Just as a competing dealership offering the same product for less money is not left,
I don't see how that means what you're doing isn't theft.
The only thing that piracy in any way "steals" is intangible as-yet-unmade profit. A competing car dealership offering the same cars for less money is doing exactly the same thing by making people buy his cars over the guy offering them for more money.
>But if they were offering their product for free, it wouldn't be theft to take it. But they're not offering their product for free, are they?
They're not, a competitor is. A competitor offering the same product for less money (even no money) is not theft. It is at best copyright infringement, which is something else - a mechanism whereby inventors etc are given special protection from market forces.
>Just admit you're a thief and go from there. At the very least you'll stop being dishonest with yourself.
As I said before, bring a legit argument that defeats my own and I will concede.
>>75873024
>Said the faggot that thinks people owe him money for seeing his posts on a public website that he doesn't own.
I own the message that your brain made a memory of. That's the same intellectaul property as a song or a movie, so yeah, fuck you "thief".
>You say that to justify your theft...
If it is, then you're stealing this message right here since it's my intellectual property and your brain is making a memory of it ©
>>75873110
You just stole this message ©
>>75872755
On the other side of the coin "I payed for this, why can't I freely share it with other if I so choose?"
Again, freedom vs. protectionism.
A balance has to be struck, but not everyone will be happy with the balance and many will disagree on where that balance is simply because some people prioritize one side more than the other.
>>75863692
Socialist swedecuck doesn't understand property rights. Color me surprised.
The high cost of video games is a reminder to you swedes that you're poor and your country is doomed.
>>75863692
Because you're illegally gaining possession of a product that is supposed to be traded under a license agreement.
>>75873544
This message is my property, you just stole it ©
>>75873644
> Your country is doomed
> Says amerifag
kek
>>75873688
Ok. So if the government makes it illegal for you to breathe without paying, then it's theft as well.
Holy shit you're fucking retarded.
>>75863692
Here is the crux of it for me. I stream movies all the time. I was able to justify at first by saying that it wasn't a movie I would ever pay to see anyway, so they aren't losing profits. Only now, my standards have changed. I now will pirate movies that I might have payed for in the past, but now aren't considered worth my money because I can get them for free.
I will still pay for really, really good movies though.
>>75873688
The thing about licence agreements is that you need to agree to them.
Don't, and you are not bound by it.
>>75873711
gives it away for free
then claims rape
>>75873976
>gives it away for free
Didn't give it away for free just because I put it on this website. If that was the case, then artists are giving it away for free when they allow their songs to be played on radio, and it's therefore not theft if I copy it. See how how fucking stupid your argument is? Your brain copied and stored my message (i.e. intellectual property) without paying me, it's therefore theft according to your dumb reasoning.
>>75873506
Well that's the balance right there. In general property law, the concept of "property rights" is described as a bundle of sticks. Through purchase, you gain these sticks, although the bundle may contain different rights, not all. It's similar to land in that respect; you can do most things to your yard, but in the public interest, you can't adversely harm your neighbor's property by opening a mine and ruining their location.
IP is slightly different, where the missing stick from the bundle, as far as digital media goes, is the right of reproduction. You still have the right of enjoyment, but the right of reproduction is not granted in the name of public interest to encourage invention. This grants freedom to the inventor, not the purchaser, of which the former is regarded as more significant.
>>75865761
> the extra cost was solely due to registering patent
Wew lad.
Also, all you fucking morons who say that laws make it theft, are fucking stupid. What if a country doesn't have these laws? Is it not theft then? Something is either theft or it isn't. Moral relativism is illogical because two contradictory statements can't both the true.
>>75863692
Guilt sells.
>>75874574
both be true*
>>75874574
Dude chill. It's not theft in the sense of taking without replacement, it's infringement of an inherent right of a creator (which is a separate theory of a "taking"). Read some international copyright case law if you want an actual understanding of the issue, instead of stamping your foot down and saying "nuh uh." Otherwise you're going to continually fight your own strawman instead of what these laws actually represent. You are only calling it moral relativism because you don't have an understanding of the issue.
>>75875437
>You are only calling it moral relativism because you don't have an understanding of the issue.
No, it obviously is moral relativism since not all countries have these supposedly "international copyright case laws".
>it's infringement of an inherent right of a creator
A right which not all countries acknowledge. Is it a right just because you said so? This reeks of moral relativism, which is fundamentally illogical. It's either theft, or it isn't. If it is theft to copy/duplicate "intellectual property" then it's theft for you to read this message (like I've said before) because I've made it my intellectual property ©
Dublication is not theft, and never will be. You're retarded for thinking it is. Literally nigger-tier intelligence.
>>75875826
You're obviously far too ingrained in your own conclusion to consider anyone else's reasoning, but I'll bite;
The lack of acknowledgement from countries does not negate the existence of a right, and by that measure, no rights inherently exist, so you in fact are arguing from the perspective of moral relativism, while simultaneously arguing that actions such as theft must absolutely exist or not. These doctrines are not cohesive.
Like I said, intellectual property (which we're talking about legal theory here, so denying its existence by your points negates your reasoning for arguing this at all) recognizes that certain rights are carried through ownership, not all. However, you are not able to separate the idea of rights to property so you are embedded in your own sophomoric view of what IP is.
>>75875826
>duplicate friends coursework
>hand it in
>"anon you have stolen this"
>NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT I FUCKING DUPLICATED IT AND THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL
Intellectual "property" is one of the most ridiculous claims to ever exist.
Pirate everything you can and don't give a fuck.
>>75876472
Simply downloading something in Sweden is not illegal. Downloading and redistributing is (or making a profit). Your example falls under the latter. But yeah, it's still not theft.
>>75873192
You made the claim that people that pirate are poor losers with no job even though data states otherwise.
So people from 3rd world shitholes that have never mattered in this world should never even speak on the issue of people outside of your shithole of a country being poor when thats all your country contributes to the planet, that being increasing the global poverty numbers.
>>75876472
>duplicate friends coursework
>hand it in
>"anon you have duplicated this"
>I SURE DID BITCH
Fixed that for you.
>>75876741
Still stuck on "theft" versus "infringing the creator's exclusive right to duplicate."
TWO THINGS
W
O
T
H
I
N
G
S
>>75876324
>The lack of acknowledgement from countries does not negate the existence of a right
Just because some countries acknowledge something as a right it doesn't mean it actually is a right. Moral relativism. Some countries think it's a right, other's dont. Who is right? Need an absolute moral authority to decide. I believe in God, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that duplication is theft. These "copyright case laws" are man-made, not made by God. Duplication is not theft. You think it is? Well that's too bad, heathen, because that's just your fucking opinion. Moral relativism is illogical.
>>75872584
>Oh okay. If you read this message you have stolen it since your brain made a memory of it and put it in your subconscious©
However, society has no interest in this message, and nobody would pay for it.
Is called File Sharing not File Theft
It's not stealing because i say so for the same reason why others claim it is- Because they say so.
And the Olympic gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to...Sven!
SWEDEN YES!
>>75864746
>>75877409
>However, society has no interest in this message, and nobody would pay for it.
Irrelevant. It's still my intellectual property which you made an illegal copy of. Thief.
>>75863692
it is legally stealing. I think it should be (considered stealing) but it's not worth the time to enforce. That said, if I buy Windows 8 and want to go to Windows 7, I'm going to pirate it because I already paid for 8. And if I can't afford a game, I'll probably pirate it - since that person is not losing a sale, they're just not gaining it
It's all propaganda and programming.
Really, ZOG should be paying us to watch it.
>>75877817
>it is legally stealing.
No it isn't.
>>75877520
The only ones I see using the "Because I say it is" argument are those calling it theft m8.
>>75877817
Legally it is copyright infringement.
>>75865761
Dyson is a greedy bastard who moved production of his shitty overpriced appliances off-shore to make more shekels.
I use a broom.
Eat shit Dyson!
>>75863692
It's theft.
>you don't have X
>X is for sale
>you acquire X without paying for it
Theft. Your illicit acquisition of the item is what makes it theft, not the deprivation of that item from the seller, hence the irrelevance of the "you are duplicating a file" argument.
If I steal a car from a sales lot then return it a few days later, what I did is still theft and I will still go to jail for it when caught. That the sales lot still has possession of the car is immaterial to the legality of what I did.
it was never 'theft' in the first place you fucking idiot. it was an infringement of copyright, that is the right to copy (ie. duplicate). breaching copyright law is not the same as stealing something from a store. ultimately, blame the enlightenment, and the creation of the notion that any idea we have belongs to us, only us, and that the enforcement of this 'right' should be done by the state.
>>75878100
>It's theft.
It's not.
>You don't have X
>X is for sale
>You acquire X without paying for it but the owner still keeps X
Not theft.
>Your illicit acquisition of the item is what makes it theft
No, theft implies taking something from someone. I didn't take something this he still has it. I duplicated it. Big difference.
>If I steal a car from a sales lot then return it a few days later, what I did is still theft
Except when you download something, you're not removing it from the owner. Are you really this stupid?
>>75878100
>You don't have an apple
>Someone is selling apples in town
>The farmer gives you one for free
>This means you have stolen the shop's apple because you didn't pay the shop for it.
>>75878390
I didn't take something because he still*
>>75863692
this isn't even close to an argument.
decides to ring my doorbell, are they stealing money from me? ringing a door bell is not intellectual property. When you download something for free, you are downloading the taxable intellectual property of an individual. You're stealing without paying for the rights to the IP. Same logic can be applied to the talking/stealing life portion. When having a conversation, the person talking to you is giving you rights to his words via the "conversation" it's implied and you are giving rights to your "life stealing" by being party in the conversation. You have the choice to walk away and NOT participate. When you steal music off the web, the artist NEVER gave you permission to do so. EVER. The artist has no right to "walk away" or remove his/her/their music off the web so you can't steal it. Your argument is flawed logic at best.
Also, to all you fucking idiots out there. If you take notes from a textbook, you're stealing it according to your fucking idiotic reasoning.
>>75863692
Because people do not understand property rights. I oftentimes link pic related into such discussions, but nobody seems to comprehend it. Also see the books of Stephan Kinsella
>>75878536
>My infinitely available product has value because reasons
>>75878536
>this isn't even close to an argument.
Back to youtube, Stefan.
>decides to ring my doorbell, are they stealing money from me? ringing a door bell is not intellectual property
No but the doorbell is my physical property, which you're abusing. Not only that, everytime you press it, it cost electricity for me. You're stealing potential profit. I didn't say you were allowed to ring my doorbell.
>You're stealing without paying for the rights to the IP.
Sorry but duplication is not theft. You're not taking something from someone. That's what theft is.
>You have the choice to walk away and NOT participate.
The people who create the music have a choice not to publish it. Same shit.
>When you steal music off the web, the artist NEVER gave you permission to do so. EVER.
I never gave people permission to ring my doorbell. If they do it, it's theft according to you.
>Your argument is flawed logic at best.
Your entire brain is flawed.
