It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost. Both of those things are irrelevant to the point that I made and are distinctly different from the argument I made. The cost of something doesn’t determine whether piracy is justified and my argument isn’t whether piracy can or should be justified.
If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you’ve only lost the potential sale.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not. You’re on the cusp of recognising this.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different. You need to recognize that those are merely legal terms to differentiate how the legal system treats them. I am not arguing anything about the legality of the two nor am I arguing anything about copyright infringement. I am only talking about ingesting/consuming something without paying for it, regardless of how the law treats it (and that’s not even considering that laws are different depending on where they are defined).
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost.
No, you’ve argued that piracy and theft are the same thing. I’ve explained how they are not. They are distinctly different.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
That isn’t a loss related to piracy. That’s something that happened regardless of whether or not piracy had occurred.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different.
You haven’t though. You keep saying piracy is theft. Theft has a very clear definition - not just a legal definition, but a definition that has been around for far longer than you or I have been alive.
If, 500 years ago, a monk picked up a book and copied it, he would not be accused of theft. He’s not paying the author - regardless of how recently the book was written - but he is diluting the author’s work and their ability to sell it by producing his copy or copies. But that’s not theft.
Copyright has only existed for a little over 100 years. Since that time, rightsholders have tried to argue that infringing on their copyright was theft, and deserving of similar punishment - all so that they could (they hope) profit more. They put their effort in already, now they feel they deserve money with no further effort (I can’t help but draw back to your argument that people don’t “deserve to view art”, and note the irony). However the argument is just as false then as it is today. You are pushing a false narrative.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The two concepts are distinctly different.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating they’re different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
It is not. If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”. In the same way that a “potential” theft of a physical good isn’t the same as the realized theft, the only situation where there is no loss is one where the person didn’t pay for the good and didn’t make use of/get the benefit of the good.
You haven’t though.
Yes, I have. You said “copyright infringement” which is a legal term only. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Piracy and theft are. You can’t conflate copyright infringement and piracy because that only is meaningful in a legal sense.
Again, you’re just making a semantic distinction and yet my distinction and argument are far more foundational than that.
We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.
Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of anything. They still have the possession, they can still continue to sell it without any loss. Your argument is entirely centred around the potential lost sale and the cost the owner has in aquiring the possession. That cost occurs either way, and the sale probably would not have happened if no piracy occurred.
Your argument has 2 holes, the one you look at it through and the one in the bottom through which it falls out.
If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”.
Wrong. You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it. This is a false assumption.
You’re not poor because people didn’t pay for your work. You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.
We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.
Yes… and as I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly, we’re disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that it’s not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.
You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it.
No, I’m not. I’m not assuming anything. I’m flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.
You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.
If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.
I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income.
And, as I have said time and time again, the income you claim would most likely not have been yours if the pirate hadn’t committed copyright infringement. Just because they consumed your media does not mean you are owed money. If they couldn’t have pirated your media, they still would not have paid you. Thus, you are owed nothing. You have lost nothing. No one wanted to buy your thing to begin with.
They were happy to consume it when it was free, they would not have consumed it at the price you were asking.
Edit:
If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.
Sure, they weren’t entitled to it. Copyright infringement/piracy is wrong. They shouldn’t have done that.
But it’s not the same as you writing a physical manuscript and them taking it from you. You still have the game, you’re still selling it, you haven’t lost anything. It’s just that no one wants to buy it.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating their different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
We have, over and over. Software piracy is not theft in the legal, semantic, or moral sense. You have done nothing to prove it is fundamentally theft other then repeatably say it is. Hell you don’t even define what it is you are arguing, you talk about potential loss of creators but then just gloss over all the insane implications that train of logic has. You say its theft but not willing to argue over the legal, literal or moral meaning of the word.
Please provide some foundational argument, because I have not seen anything that would not make our world even more of a laughably absurd corporate hellscape then it already is.
It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost. Both of those things are irrelevant to the point that I made and are distinctly different from the argument I made. The cost of something doesn’t determine whether piracy is justified and my argument isn’t whether piracy can or should be justified.
This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.
I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different. You need to recognize that those are merely legal terms to differentiate how the legal system treats them. I am not arguing anything about the legality of the two nor am I arguing anything about copyright infringement. I am only talking about ingesting/consuming something without paying for it, regardless of how the law treats it (and that’s not even considering that laws are different depending on where they are defined).
No, you’ve argued that piracy and theft are the same thing. I’ve explained how they are not. They are distinctly different.
That isn’t a loss related to piracy. That’s something that happened regardless of whether or not piracy had occurred.
You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.
You haven’t though. You keep saying piracy is theft. Theft has a very clear definition - not just a legal definition, but a definition that has been around for far longer than you or I have been alive.
If, 500 years ago, a monk picked up a book and copied it, he would not be accused of theft. He’s not paying the author - regardless of how recently the book was written - but he is diluting the author’s work and their ability to sell it by producing his copy or copies. But that’s not theft.
Copyright has only existed for a little over 100 years. Since that time, rightsholders have tried to argue that infringing on their copyright was theft, and deserving of similar punishment - all so that they could (they hope) profit more. They put their effort in already, now they feel they deserve money with no further effort (I can’t help but draw back to your argument that people don’t “deserve to view art”, and note the irony). However the argument is just as false then as it is today. You are pushing a false narrative.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The two concepts are distinctly different.
You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating they’re different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.
It is not. If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”. In the same way that a “potential” theft of a physical good isn’t the same as the realized theft, the only situation where there is no loss is one where the person didn’t pay for the good and didn’t make use of/get the benefit of the good.
Yes, I have. You said “copyright infringement” which is a legal term only. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Piracy and theft are. You can’t conflate copyright infringement and piracy because that only is meaningful in a legal sense.
Again, you’re just making a semantic distinction and yet my distinction and argument are far more foundational than that.
Let’s go for some language definitions then:
We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.
Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of anything. They still have the possession, they can still continue to sell it without any loss. Your argument is entirely centred around the potential lost sale and the cost the owner has in aquiring the possession. That cost occurs either way, and the sale probably would not have happened if no piracy occurred.
Your argument has 2 holes, the one you look at it through and the one in the bottom through which it falls out.
Wrong. You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it. This is a false assumption.
You’re not poor because people didn’t pay for your work. You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.
Yes… and as I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly, we’re disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that it’s not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.
No, I’m not. I’m not assuming anything. I’m flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.
If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.
And, as I have said time and time again, the income you claim would most likely not have been yours if the pirate hadn’t committed copyright infringement. Just because they consumed your media does not mean you are owed money. If they couldn’t have pirated your media, they still would not have paid you. Thus, you are owed nothing. You have lost nothing. No one wanted to buy your thing to begin with.
They were happy to consume it when it was free, they would not have consumed it at the price you were asking.
Edit:
Sure, they weren’t entitled to it. Copyright infringement/piracy is wrong. They shouldn’t have done that.
But it’s not the same as you writing a physical manuscript and them taking it from you. You still have the game, you’re still selling it, you haven’t lost anything. It’s just that no one wants to buy it.
We have, over and over. Software piracy is not theft in the legal, semantic, or moral sense. You have done nothing to prove it is fundamentally theft other then repeatably say it is. Hell you don’t even define what it is you are arguing, you talk about potential loss of creators but then just gloss over all the insane implications that train of logic has. You say its theft but not willing to argue over the legal, literal or moral meaning of the word.
Please provide some foundational argument, because I have not seen anything that would not make our world even more of a laughably absurd corporate hellscape then it already is.