Well, Sup Forums?

Well, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck
torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/
gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
youtu.be/GZadCj8O1-0
youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

WTF I HATE PIRACY NOW

I don't care.

A friend wants to buy a game. I tell him it sucks don't do it. He didn't buy it because he trusts me.

I'm a thief, right OP? Lawl.

the only people who claim otherwise are people who try to justify their piracy, usually teenagers, or literal autists/communists like Stallman.

I love piracy and I love theft
I don't have to justify anything

I'm going to keep pirating and there's nothing anyone can do.

youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

...

it's not stealing income because i would not buy it if i could not pirate it. it's either i pirate it (and recommend it to friends who may buy it) or i don't (and you get no free advertising at all)

so really they should be thanking me :^)

You're an accomplice in theft

It makes the assumption that the pirate was going to, at some point, definitely buy said goods [resulting in income]. Flawed premise.

Not justifying piracy, not a pirate. Just saying.

youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

>tfw to intelligent to fall for OP
this

This here so much, fuck off it's not even nearly same as stealing and nobody actually loses money

Funny how all the pro piracy are jews. Pirates will be hanged on day of the rope for killing white profits and listening to ZOGs.

What's this pic implying? The hook is so huge it cannot possibly catch that little fish.
So only intelligent people fall for OP's bait because the dumb ones just agree with him?

>all the pro piracy are jews
How do you mean?

ARRRR, I'M a PIRATE !!!

And I don't like copying videogames. But I like plundering coastal villages, and sailing with my ship under a black flag.

...

>implying people will buy it if they cant pirate it

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as "piracy." In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.) If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word "piracy" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "unauthorized copying" (or "prohibited copying" for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "sharing information with your neighbor." A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that "piracy" and "theft" are smear words.
torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/
gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

This sounds reasonable.

Thanks Stallman poster.

Jesus pirated bread and fish

I think that pirates did that primarily to steal stuff from the ships; take what they have no rights to. In that aspect "unauthorized copying" does resemble piracy.

Scientific research shows it doesn't steal income and might in fact increase income because pirates buy more shit than others and piracy increases exposure.

What pirates did was stealing. People who share content, create a copy.

I gues this this what they call "brainwashing".

>hurr durr ur stealing our monies
youtu.be/GZadCj8O1-0

if someone was not willing to pay how is it stealing income?

>he's not an outlaw
>he lets other men determine what he can do

I'm not saying those two are exactly the same. I pointed out a similarity, you pointed out a difference.

However, the fact that they're making a copy doesn't make it right. In every product, there is the cost of research factored in. In electronics it's often a very big portion of the product's price. Somewhere I've read that manufacturing an iPhone costs 20$, but that was probably bullshit (I mean, the screen costs much more, maybe it was the cost of assembling everything). Anyway, even if you sum up the cost of all parts and assembling those parts, you won't be even close to the total. You can't just ask Apple to give you the plans of the phone, or better, include the plans of assembly lines and make your own iPhones. I mean, you can ask but you know what the result would be. In computer software, however, there is near 0 cost for assembling as you just copy the finished machine code onto a DVD or even just distribute it through the Internet. The ease of "manufacturing" (I don't mean coding, I treat that as product research) software enables even the customers to do that. But there is still the cost of designing and coding a program and it's totally not okay to ignore that. It costs many hours of work to finish a program and that's what the price consists of. Pirating software is saying "fuck you" to all those people that worked on it. I think that people on Sup Forums should know what it takes to make software. ...Right?

tl;dr: software is intellectual property


Also, I'm not really opposing piracy absolutely. I think it's fine to pirate a game to evaluate it since the developers now want to get your money before they even finish the game, holy fuck. I don't do that personally though.

But then making a shit product is also theft

>pirate software
>developer makes zero dollars
>don't pirate it
>dev still makes zero dollars
Where is the theft?

This. If I can't pirate it, I won't buy it anyway. If I can pirate it, I may buy it if it's good.

Majority of pirates are not potential customers,you cannot measure loss of profit since they wouldn't buy the software even if there wasn't any torrents available.

lost income through potential sales. Refusing to pay and not using the software is fine, refusing to pay so you pirate it means you've deprived the developer of a sale and yet you still use his product, you have not funded his effort in creating the software.

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property” — a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”
The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.
To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property".
It was created by corporate shit heads. It only sounds meaningful to people who are happy to bend over for those corporate shit heads. None of whom have ever created a worthwhile damn thing in their lives.
Intellectual property = bullshit.

I will never understand how people can justify to themselves that its absolutely fine to refuse to pay for something because they can pirate it and use it anyway. If there is a price attache to it, that means the developer obviously wants to be compensated for their work. By pirating, you're essentially telling the developer that their software is good enough for you to use but you dont want to fund the developers efforts, which in turn means the developer may not want to maintain or upgrade said software, which fucks other paying customers over because you childish autists think there is a distinction between pirating and stealing. Pro tip: there isn't, and the only people who think there is are the cunts ripping off developers the world over by pirating

That's the thing though, there is no potential sale.

Intellectual Property = someone/some group/company/org has invested time and money,whether thats finding and recruiting others to do the coding while they fund them or handling setup + infrastructure costs etc, or if they fund and build everything from the ground up, to create something that they want to be able to sell and/or distribute without fear of said creation being imitated or stolen. IP doesnt only apply to big corperations filled with a legion of suits, its there to protect peoples original ideas from being stolen by freeloaders, e.g. the people on this board trying to justify piracy to themselves

>None of whom have ever created a worthwhile damn thing in their lives.
You are a fool if you genuinely believe this.

Morality doesn't matter nor has it ever mattered. There is only power.

People have the ability to screw IP owners over very easily so they'll use it as long as it's easier than paying for the service.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about laws that cannot be enforced.

Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=eginMQBWII4
It's the ultimative red pill about copyright.

Boo hoo, someone think of the corporations.
Indie artists already listen to fans and sell music on friendly platforms.

nice to see someone else watched it

DON'T DO IT JEB

Ok so theres no potential sale, I'll concede on that then, but someone is using someone elses work for free when the developer intends for it to be used once a copy has been paid for with money, presumably so said developer can afford to at least pay the utility costs needed to actually create the software. If you refuse to pay for software, then don't use the software. Just because you CAN pirate it doesn't mean your entitled to free use of it. Assuming you have a job, how would you reacct if you created something, or fixed something and your company decided that they didnt want to pay you for your work but they still wanted your creation, so they jus took it and used it?

Again, what if a developer decides to get outof software because nobody will pay for their work but finds it totally acceptable to steal a copy and use it anyway? Thats acceptable to you?

please watch: it's ebin

If thats the case, thats fine, can't argue with that. What im getting at is don't try to justify pirating software like you're doing somebody a favour. If you pirate because fuck it you can, then power to you. If you pirate because you think you're acting as some sort of ethical white knight, sticking it to the man for the silent masses, thats where I have an issue

Yeah, like im going to give any more of my time to some has been that autists put on a pedestal, If Stallmans words and opinions had any weight he wouldn't be regarded as some mentally disturbed meme

obligatory

Why even join a discussion when you're biased as fuck anyway?

...

So its ok for those who support piracy to act biased, then its considered a discussion. but when someone takes the other side of the argument, suddenly they shouldn't have joined the conversation? If you're going to throw that kind of accusation around then you need to accept that anyone arguing for piracy is just as biased, in which case there shouldn't be a discussion because why join one if you're biased as fuck anyway?

>thinking stallman is a meme

>thinking that people who consider stallman a meme are the exception and not the rule
>>>your safe space

Our Freedom > Company Profits

>why even join a discussion if you have an informed opinion anyway?

100% brain washing cancer.

The thing is not about theft, it's about copyright and patents. Completly different things.

>yarrrrrr camrades aboard aboard, seize those bilge rats!
>surrender all your belongings, let us quickly do a 1:1 copy for ourselves and me and me crew will let you free!
this is what gullible goyim believe

Copyright and patents mean I own it. It is my intellectual property. If you also use it, you are stealing from me. It is literally my property by law.

>intellectual property
Such thing doesn't exist senpai.

>by law
laws are ink on paper, your intellectual property can get cucked, cuck faggot

So when I buy a CD from you, you own it?

Save your snappy comebacks for court
No, I own what is on the CD.

Copyright means that you have the right to create copies. It doesn't mean you own it. Learn 2 law.

...

>No, I own what is on the CD.
lmao

>but if you don't pay for it then the developers will know you don't want to pay for it!! A-autist!
Fuck you. Also the only software I'll pay for is software that doesn't carry a threat against users.

convincing

Forbidding people to share puts people into a devilish dilemma: If you don't share something with your friend, you're a bad citizen, if you share it, you're a bad citizen too because of insane copyright laws that force you to be a bad citizen.

Be a good citizen.

Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Just because littering is wrong doesn't make it murder.

Words have actual meanings. Lying about them just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Based Stallamn once again btfo the MPAA and RIAA cunts

It is capitalism.

When there is several competing products, people choose the best.
"Piracy" has long meant less of a hassle when getting the product and when using the product.

The only field where piracy didn't make a positive impact has been in the software industry.
Pirated software might contain malware, and software companies put malware in their own products to avoid people pirating it.

But the movie industry and the music industry have only improved over the years.
Admittedly, they are minimum a decade behind technology.
Movies we get through neflix today is of worse or of equal quality to the movies available on torrent sites a decade ago.

Piracy is a distribution problem.

> If you also use it, you are stealing from me. It is literally my property by law.
The law also says that copyright infringement is not theft.

It is intellectual property. But how are you entitled to own something of the intellect, an idea?
That's not how the market is supposed to work. Did Newton stopped working on the theory of the gravity or inventing calculus because he did not own that idea and the profits that could be made from it? Did Ford stopped creating the production chain because others could copy him, as they did? In fact Ford found problems to put it in practice because someone had a monopoly over the production of cars. They 'owned' the idea of automobile. Why should we think it would be the same for say, music, game and software developers? They should just find other way to make money. Donations, advertising, cheaper games maybe? Do we stop making memes because we don't have property over them and everyone can copy and distribute them for free? Obviously it's not the same but those are some interesting questions.

Where is the original though?
original=cash
copy=free
copy!=cash
original!=free
copy!=original
(¬A) ⊕ A
Conclusion: all copies should be free.

>intellectual property
why do you keep using that term?
there is no such thing in law

Here's the difference:

1: if you steal a car, you deprive the owner of something that's objectively and provably worth many $1000s of dollars.

2: If you download a file, you deprive the uploader of something like $0.0001 worth of electrical energy. If they claim that it was really "worth" $50, that's just a fantasy -- it's basically an arbitrary number that they pulled out of their ass -- it's simply the amount they WISH people would pay them for it.

But the biggest problem is that if you take that kind of thinking to its logical conclusion, then you make the logical fallacy that things are worth only what their market price is. So for example, you'll end up claiming that the market price of a copy of a Linux OS (which is $0) necessarily means that Linux is actually worth nothing.

>when someone stole your car but it's still there

>it's law therefore it should be
It's law in Saudi Arabia to burn people for witchcraft, should it be?

It was used in the post I replied to. Call it patent if you prefer that term.

GNU/Linux*

So if I pirate the same game 10 times I can make a company I don't like loose money faster :thinking:

No, the count goes by person who would buy the game.

>the count goes by person who would buy the game.
So If I don't want to buy the game but pirate it because I can do it for free it doesn't count?

Great, I'm not a thief then.

>downloading the latest hollywood cuckbuster is stealing
>downloading child porn is supporting the industry

really gets the noggin joggin

stop viewing human beings as "potential customers" or anything else that dehumanizes them. Think of them as living, breathing, thinking beings.

There is no customer until a person presses the "buy now" button or hands over cash in a store.

Before there is a customer, there are no (0, Zero) sales to lose.

By that reasoning, opening a competing store next to another store is stealing from the other store, since you're depriving them of the income they would otherwise have were you not competing with them.

That's not stealing. The definition of stealing is removing the original, not removing income.

underrated

this

finally

/thread

I don't judge pirates cause tons of people including me do it but don't pretend piracy isn't theft.

The competing store example is even worse, since you're depriving your competitor of his income and taking it for yourself.

In piracy, you're not taking the copyright "owner"'s (alleged) income for yourself, you're (allegedly) just depriving him from it.

If you are to believe OP's argument, then competition is theft. In fact, it is the ultimate form of theft.

Piracy does support the industry a little bit. It's also a little harmful. This is why these "piracy is theft" arguments can't easily be squashed.

If I steal your business card and then show it off to a bunch of people I still stole your business card. You might get more business out of it, but it doesn't mean I didn't steal it.

It's similar with piracy. If you pirate something you are helping that product a bit, but you're also potentially narrowing their customers by excluding yourself from the customer base.

See Depriving someone of customers is not stealing.

Removing the original (as in taking someone's actual, concrete business card) is stealing.

Stealing has a very clear definition. Stop blurring it, you fucking film/music industry shill.

The positive in the competing store part is that we consider competition to be good as long as the products differ. This is why fair use is a thing.

I'm not arguing about whether it's stealing or not. That's just semantics. I'm arguing harm vs benefit. You know, the thing that actually matters here. Copyright laws exist for the benefit of society or at least they're supposed to.

>>intellectual property
>there is no such thing in law

Technically, it's true that IP law is actually specified in terms of separate "copyright", "patent", and "trademark" rights, and that the general term "intellectual property" is rarely (if ever) used within the text of the legal statues.

However, it is common practice in the field of law to use the term "intellectual property" as a generic term to refer to the three specific areas I mentioned above. When a term becomes widely used in the legal field, then it is generally acknowledged as being the "correct" way to refer to it, even if it turns out to be annoying jargon to the ears of non-lawyers.

Here's another example of this: Some lawyers will advertise their services as "family law". Well, it turns out that "family law" is really just a marketing euphemism for "divorce lawyer" -- about 95% of "family law" practice relates specifically to divorce cases, such as division of property and custody rights. Yet, despite the fact that the term "family law" is never used in the legal statutes, "family law" is in fact the de-facto standard way of describing that particular area of law by those who actually practice the profession.