[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by carld

If people aren't saying that content piracy isn't bad (even though lots of people here do), then why keep bringing up the irrelevant argument that it isn't theft? It's just intentionally arguing over a definition in order to muddy the waters and derail the discussion.

It isn't irrelevant, and can be brought up for more than one reason. For instance, some people fiercely believe that we should adhere closely what words mean, as it can confuse the issue when you don't. For instance, if I call every communication device a phone, because they do the same basic job of allowing people to communicate with each other, it muddies that definition. If it catches on, and lots of people start doing the same thing, it makes what they say more or less a blanket statement and prevents you from getting the full understanding of what is trying to be conveyed. Did you mean your cell phone, your house phone, your computer, etc?

Now, this is especially important when dealing with legal issues, because such misunderstandings make it far more difficult for one to make sure if they are being legal. Specificity is important when it comes to legal matters.

Originally Posted by carld

And I've repeatedly said that piracy doesn't fit the legal or dictionary definition of theft. That doesn't mean that in the real world that you're not stealing from the content creator when you download his work without paying for it.

There are some flaws with that argument though. The primary argument is the content owner are not unable to sell the item to others when it is pirated. Many people feel that while both piracy and theft are bad, that is a key difference which they feel that theft should be weighted as a more serious crime. If there were no difference, both would be punished the same, despite additional people being on the losing end when the physical item is stolen (Another person in the store is not able to buy that item now so they're at a inconvenience, the store cannot make the sale, and are also out the cost of the item). Plus theft effects retailers more than piracy. The retailer is expected to still pay their distributor for the item, since they were responsible for it, so the content owner still gets paid. With piracy, no retailer is out the expense of the item, but the content owner does not get paid.

Another point often brought up is that there is no way to effectively prove that the person would have paid for the item if piracy was not an option. With our legal system, you have to prove something beyond a doubt. That is why no pirate has charged or convicted of theft.

Originally Posted by carld

I'll repeat it as long as it take for pro-piracy people to admit that what's going on is stealing, because it is.

Not everyone who is arguing against you is propiracy. Look at me, I am saying piracy is bad, and theft is bad. Both are bad. Both are similar, because you're getting something you shouldn't have without paying, but the differences between the two are big enough that they are separate.

Originally Posted by carld

The reality is that piracy is taking something away from someone else and acquiring something that you don't have any rights to. The fact that you're not physically stealing something is immaterial. It has the characteristics of theft, despite what the legal definition is.

If I pirate a movie, who am I taking something away from? Your wording means that someone no longer has what they did have. Plus, what am I taking away from them? In this example, the only thing I am getting is a file. That file, in the confines of this example, was not created by the content owner, or any of the companies authorized by them, but rather by someone else who did not have the authority to do so. Since I received a copy, the person who made the file is not deprived of it. The person who made the file did not deprive the content owner, or anyone else, of anything that they are legally entitled to.

The only thing that could be claimed is that I am depriving them of the money I would have to pay them if piracy was not an option. But even that has flaws, since no one but me is legally entitled to that. You'd then have to adjust the argument to be that I am depriving them of the chance to pay them, but that isn't accurate either, because I can still go out and buy a legal copy.

Now, again, I feel I have to restate that piracy is bad. The best way I think to view the two, is through economic terms. Theft reduces potential profits by increasing costs, where as piracy reduces potential profits by reducing the number of people who may buy (a glass ceiling, if you will). Still, even with that, specificity is important, because it should be noted that I said people who MAY buy, and NOT people who WOULD.