DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Cort Haus]

That's no solution.

[Asher]

Soviet Russia

[Cort Haus]

I think even the Soviet Union would have struggled to come up with an idea like taxing everyone and giving all the money to Justin Bieber.

[onodera]

I think even the Soviet Union would have struggled to come up with an idea like taxing everyone and giving all the money to Justin Bieber.

We've just started taxing all video, audio and computer equipment. But no free media so far

[rah]

If it's ok for musicians to not get properly paid for their work, it's ok for software developers to not get properly paid either. Creating extra instances of both has a marginal cost of practically zero, but if nobody actually pays for it, the content creator is working for nothing, while other people get a free lunch at their expense.

While there are plenty of examples of morally-justified examples of copying, as have been discussed above, including backups, multi-platform copies, and people who buy plenty of stuff but copy other stuff they wouldn't have bought anyway, there are also people who have a policy of not buying anything. Many of these people will happily utilise various arguments in favour of piracy, usually blaming the producer in some way, all to obfuscate the fact that they'd happily steal their food, clothes and car as well if they could get away with it.

Totally agree.
And anyone that claims that it's ok to pirate it because they never would have paid for it so no one is out any money, is just plain wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

And anyone that claims that it's ok to pirate it because they never would have paid for it so no one is out any money, is just plain wrong.

Which part of the chain is wrong?

1) That they never would have paid for it? 100% of people are lying about this?
2) The fact that, since they never would have paid for it, no one is out any money? Are you suggesting that even if they never would have paid for it, if they hadn't pirated it the authors would have received money... somehow?
3) The fact that given (2), it's okay? Why don't consequences justify actions in this instance?

[rah]

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.

Now if it's a person that copies stuff and if he likes it buys it later, that's a gray area I can live with. But there are people that will never ever pay for anything and they are just plain thieves.

[Asher]

rah, the difference is impact.

If you take the physical piece of art, you take from him his potential revenues.

If a student pirates a $2000 copy of 3d Studio Max, he was obviously never going to buy that to begin with, so there is no lost revenue. In fact, it could be argued that this is long-term beneficial to companies in this case as it provides a trained workforce in their software. Microsoft figured this out, which is why $1000-$2000 copies of Visual Studios are now simply free for students...

So it's "simply wrong" to state this:

And anyone that claims that it's ok to pirate it because they never would have paid for it so no one is out any money, is just plain wrong.

That said...I'm speaking very specifically of an edge case.

[Lorizael]

rah. You're young again and trying to woo a girl. You make her a mixed tape of songs you legally acquired. She takes the mixed tape, listens to it all the time, but does not have sex with you. Is she a thief?

[rah]

Asher
That's just an excuse as far as I'm concerned. If he wasn't planning on selling it, or couldn't sell it for enough money to cover the cost, since no one was willing to pony up, there was no potential. I guess it's a generational thing.
You guys grew up with it originally not being considered illegal, so when it was determined that it wasn't legal you guys thought something was being taken away from you.
Yes, my brother and I shared books when we were growing up but one of us always paid for the book. We would have never considered stealing one from the book store. (unsold books usually had their covers ripped off and were destroyed so potential revenue was not an issue.)

[Asher]

Asher
That's just an excuse as far as I'm concerned.

How is it an excuse?

I just don't see theft as theft unless someone loses something.

It's a pragmatic approach, rather than dogmatic.

If anything, your case of sharing textbooks causes far more harm than a student pirating $2000 software to learn his craft. Textbooks are "affordable" for students, or can be made so. By not buying your own book, you have cost the poor, poor textbook company some lost revenue.

[rah]

rah. You're young again and trying to woo a girl. You make her a mixed tape of songs you legally acquired. She takes the mixed tape, listens to it all the time, but does not have sex with you. Is she a thief?

No. (the sex part is immaterial to the discussion)
We did that all the time when we were kids (make tapes that is) and while similar I don't see it as the same. One it was considered legal to do that.
At least one person in a very small group actually paid for it instead of one in a thousand. Some might say that it's the principle and not the scale, but from the artists standpoint scale is the ISSUE.

Heck we could record a song played on the radio and as long as we didn't try to resell it, it was considered legal. The radio station legally was playing the record. Pirate sites aren't.

Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't make it not illegal.

IMO, it's wrong. It's obvious that many disagree

[Asher]

I would think mix tapes directly lead to lost revenue, and as such are also worse than cases where the person genuinely had no ability to reasonably pay for software they pirate.

[rah]

Are you claiming that pirating has never cost anybody a valid sale? If not then someone is losing something. If so, you're delusional.

[Asher]

Are you claiming that pirating has never cost anybody a valid sale? If not then someone is losing something. If so, you're delusional.

Huh?

I'm claiming in the edge case (ridiculously overpriced $2000 software...FOR EVERY VERSION...required for students to learn their craft) doesn't cost a valid sale, because students cannot pay for that to begin with. They will not be using it professionally to make money. THIS case is not a lost sale as that person would obviously never buy it themselves, for they cannot.

IN FACT, this likely leads to INCREASED future sales as the person would then use the software professionally post-graduation.

Again, MANY software companies have figured this out and provide students FREE versions of their very expensive software (like Microsoft). It should be quite clear that the companies that've looked at this have not only determined that students getting their software for free did NOT cost them sales, it also a LONG TERM BENEFIT to them.