9 ms·

Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car. At mos

Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car. At most, you could argue that the producer loses an opportunity for a sale, but I think you would have a difficult time proving that. It is far more likely that the potential consumer would just refrain from procuring the item if it were not available for free (as a copy).

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car. That really is a horrible rationalization. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item? No, she simply loses all value that would have otherwise accrued to her, if not for people deciding that her right to be compensated for her creation was trumped by their right to enjoy her creation at no cost or inconvenience to themselves. So she loses the right to capture value from the thing she owns/created, while others derive value from it (whether for personal use or resale). Please tell me again. How is that not stealing? And, from where does the consumer derive that entitlement?
- unprepare 12y ago
  It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have. you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property. the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase. I fail to see a material loss. Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew] by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have This completely ignores my point about depriving the owner of the value of the thing. If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own? Owning it becomes worthless to the creator, yet millions of others who did not create or pay for it are now obtaining value from it. The argument that the creator still owns it is pedantic and facile. It's just a rationalization that ignores the real question of value. You knowingly deprive the producer of all value of owning a thing, then say "But, it's OK. We left you with the thing". >you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property. It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it. And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know? >the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase And if no one pays and the producer thus loses all of the value of "all" of the potential purchases, then will you say the producer has been harmed? Because you really must conclude that if you carry this line of reasoning forward. So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's right to make that determination? Also, are you saying that as long as some people are willing to pay, then others have the right not to pay? Because that's another conclusion to which your logic leads. So, those who are willing to pay should subsidize those who are not? These arguments for piracy really run out of logic oxygen quickly and collapse on themselves. >Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew] Or, "here's a really bad example that does nothing to refute your argument. Please help me by coming up with a better example to refute your own argument". No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think? >by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume? Look for clues in your own question. You used the word "own". Think about that.
- eddiedunn 12y ago
  Seriously. Copyright infringement _is not stealing_. It has even been decided in court: http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopoly-infringement-isnt-stealing-says-the-us-supreme-court/ http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopol... Stop abusing the word.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car. That really is a horrible rationalization. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item? No, she simply loses all value that would have otherwise accrued to her, if not for people deciding that her right to be compensated for her creation was trumped by their right to enjoy her creation at no cost or inconvenience to themselves. So she loses the right to capture value from the thing she owns/created, while others derive value from it (whether for personal use or resale). Please tell me again. How is that not stealing? And, from where does the consumer derive that entitlement?

unprepare 12y ago
It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have. you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property. the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase. I fail to see a material loss. Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew] by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have This completely ignores my point about depriving the owner of the value of the thing. If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own? Owning it becomes worthless to the creator, yet millions of others who did not create or pay for it are now obtaining value from it. The argument that the creator still owns it is pedantic and facile. It's just a rationalization that ignores the real question of value. You knowingly deprive the producer of all value of owning a thing, then say "But, it's OK. We left you with the thing". >you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property. It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it. And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know? >the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase And if no one pays and the producer thus loses all of the value of "all" of the potential purchases, then will you say the producer has been harmed? Because you really must conclude that if you carry this line of reasoning forward. So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's right to make that determination? Also, are you saying that as long as some people are willing to pay, then others have the right not to pay? Because that's another conclusion to which your logic leads. So, those who are willing to pay should subsidize those who are not? These arguments for piracy really run out of logic oxygen quickly and collapse on themselves. >Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew] Or, "here's a really bad example that does nothing to refute your argument. Please help me by coming up with a better example to refute your own argument". No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think? >by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume? Look for clues in your own question. You used the word "own". Think about that.
eddiedunn 12y ago
Seriously. Copyright infringement _is not stealing_. It has even been decided in court: http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopoly-infringement-isnt-stealing-says-the-us-supreme-court/ http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopol... Stop abusing the word.