DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Kuciwalker]

Your neighbor creates a work of art from misc items he's found which took him 10 hours to make, and displays it in his backyard and you're his neighbor and you like the piece of art but would never pay for something like that. If you went into his yard and just took it, it would be wrong. I see no difference between that and pirated software. You're stealing something that cost something (in time) to create. The fact that the software was sold to someone else so it's ok to pirate it is just an excuse and has no bearing on the issue. It's theft.

You didn't answer the question. Which of the steps in #246 did you object to? It looks like you object to step 3, and claim that consequences don't justifications in this case, but don't explain why. You make an appeal to the notion of theft wrt rival goods, but since IP is by definition nonrival, it is a false comparison. (IOW you have to address why the fact that piracy does not derive someone of the original does not affect the morality of piracy, given that it crucially alters the consequences of piracy.)

[Lorizael]

If I paid for the original and was making a copy to give to her, NO. If it was no longer protected by copywrite protection, then NO. If it was still protected and I didn't pay for the original or it's rights, then YES.

*its

So what, exactly, makes buying a painting, producing a replica of it, and giving it away for free different from buying a CD, ripping it, and giving away the songs for free? Remember that even when it concerns piracy and torrenting, someone originally has to buy the CD, unless the master copy from the studio has been stolen.

[rah]

This goes back to my issue of scale. If all I did was give a copy to my brother, then the loss of revenue is negligible and if that's all that every happened, no one would even care about piracy and wouldn't be fighting it. But If I give it away to 100,000 people it makes a big difference and considerable loss of revenue occurs. IMO, that what makes it different. You can think however you want. You're entitled to your opinion.
One other difference is that I sought out my brother to give it to him. I consider that much different then thousands of strangers coming to me and asking for it.

[Kuciwalker]

Followup to #286: rah, why does it suddenly become moral to "steal" exactly 72 years after the death of the author?

[rah]

You didn't answer the question. Which of the steps in #246 did you object to? It looks like you object to step 3, and claim that consequences don't justifications in this case, but don't explain why. You make an appeal to the notion of theft wrt rival goods, but since IP is by definition nonrival, it is a false comparison. (IOW you have to address why the fact that piracy does not derive someone of the original does not affect the morality of piracy, given that it crucially alters the consequences of piracy.)

What part of IMO don't you understand? I don't consider it false comparison. I consider IP the same as a tangible product. Both require effort to produce. I give value to that effort. The fact that one also requires something tangible doesn't matter to me. You're taking advantage of that effort without paying for it.

[Lorizael]

This goes back to my issue of scale. If all I did was give a copy to my brother, then the loss of revenue is negligible and if that's all that every happened, no one would even care about piracy and wouldn't be fighting it. But If I give it away to 100,000 people it makes a big difference and considerable loss of revenue occurs. IMO, that what makes it different. You can think however you want. You're entitled to your opinion.
One other difference is that I sought out my brother to give it to him. I consider that much different then thousands of strangers coming to me and asking for it.

So it's okay to break the law so long as you only do it a little bit. Okay. As long as the loss of revenue is negligible, it doesn't matter.

You and the unbangable chick are at 7-11 now and she's really hungry for a Snickers. You forgot your wallet at home because this chick has you so flustered, so you stash the Snickers bar in your pocket and leave without paying for it. She takes the snickers, eats it, and once again refuses to have sex with you. Are either of you thieves, considering that the lost revenue from the snickers bar was negligible?

[rah]

Followup to #286: rah, why does it suddenly become moral to "steal" exactly 72 years after the death of the author?

What is the definition of morality? Everyone has there own definition. Who's is right. Lacking GOD on earth to judge, we have to use the Law. Or we have to disregard the rule of law on everything. To pick an choose reduces the law to meaningless. Are all laws right or moral. Of course not, but then you should be working to change the law. I break the law on a few things because I don't agree with the law, but I'm honest enough with myself to know that I'm doing something illegal that others may determine are immoral.

[rah]

So it's okay to break the law so long as you only do it a little bit. Okay. As long as the loss of revenue is negligible, it doesn't matter.

You and the unbangable chick are at 7-11 now and she's really hungry for a Snickers. You forgot your wallet at home because this chick has you so flustered, so you stash the Snickers bar in your pocket and leave without paying for it. She takes the snickers, eats it, and once again refuses to have sex with you. Are either of you thieves, considering that the lost revenue from the snickers bar was negligible?

Good god. I'm saying piracy wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't done on a large scale. Artists wouldn't care if I gave a copy to my brother, but they do care when I give away 100,000 Geeze.
And yes if I steal a candy bar, I'm a thief because the store owner would consider me one. He doesn't care if I steal 1 or 100,000.

[Dauphin]

Good god. I'm saying piracy wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't done on a large scale. Artists wouldn't care if I gave a copy to my brother, but they do care when I give away 100,000 Geeze.

Or if 100,000 people each gave away one.

[Disclaimer - Haven't read the context of your statement]

[rah]

Actually if 100,000 buy it and each gave away one, I doubt they'd care about that. I don't think those 100,000 would be giving it away to strangers.

[Lorizael]

And yes if I steal a candy bar, I'm a thief because the store owner would consider me one.

I consider you to be a thief because you quoted my post without my permission. Therefore, because I consider you to be a thief, you are one.

[rah]

God, you're dense.
Of course the store owner would consider me a thief since I stole something from his store.

[Lorizael]

It's not that I'm dense, rah, but that you're inconsistent. You don't have a well thought opinion on this subject, which is why it's very easy to create scenarios in which your ethical system appears contradictory.

[C0ckney]

lori is dead right. rah, you haven't thought this through. i have some sympathy with your argument about scale, but it only works if you first admit that intellectual property is different from tangible property.

[DaShi]

“Shoplifting's a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark.”