I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m using the specific definitions, because we’re talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they’ve lost the money they used to buy it. They’ve also definitely lost a sale, because they can’t sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven’t lost a tangible object, they haven’t even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I’d agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m not. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It’s not theft of their product, it’s theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If I pirate something, no one loses anything.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way.
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they’re entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I’m making the argument that that’s theft and that you’re not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn’t pay for it. Obviously, this doesn’t apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft
We covered this already, by that logic not consuming also deprives them and is, therefore, theft.
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
If not legal what is the distinction? The practical effects are not the same as stealing, as has been covered before. I can no more steal something simply by viewing it with my eyes then you can argue a definition that is not legal, semantic or moral.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
The creator does not in fact lose something, this is the core of the counter arguments against your position. There is no point in “drawing a line” if non of this is in fact stealing. If you can see a sports event though your window even when you have not paid for a ticket that is not “stealing”.
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either.
This is not at all how a market works. It is in fact the direct opposite in reality. The creation of “black” markets is directly related to the consumers ability/desire to pay the normal market price. If there is a cheaper/free/easier alternative then it would be stranger for this not to happen. Netflix beat (past tense) piracy not by anything other then convenience.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
I will agree you have not argued the justification, but that does not make piracy theft.
I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft.
You’ve explained this many times. Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.
Theft requires depriving the owner of something tangible. Not just a potential profit, but an actual loss.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.
The creator doesn’t lose something from copyright infringement. There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss. More often than not, that potential loss would have been zero compared to if copyright infringement hadn’t occurred - the pirate would not have bought the product either way.
Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.
Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.
It is not. The author is deprived of something tangible. They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.
We’re not talking about copyright infringement. That is a legal term that only applies to the legality of the action. I am not discussing the legality.
There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss.
This is not true and, since you continue to try and argue the legal matter, it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss, even though that’s not at all what my argument is about.
Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether someone who creates something should be paid by the people who consume the thing they created.
They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.
That cost occurs regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs. There is no further loss. Thus, you cannot assign a loss to copyright infringement.
We’re not talking about copyright infringement.
We are talking about copyright infringement. That’s what “piracy” is.
I hope you see now that the definition of words really does matter.
it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss
You’ve said that, but you’re wrong. This is a clear misassociation.
Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant.
It very much is relevant. If an action causes a loss, then the effect has a cause. If the loss occurs regardless of the action, then you cannot assign cause and effect.
We’re digging down further into the princples of things. I feel like, before long, we’ll be talking about how magnets work.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today’s reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people’s private property (media in this case).
The legal definition is THE definition, it’s literally what the word means, and where the concepts of both originate.
What you’re saying isn’t irrelevant, it’s just completely ignorant and wrong.
I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.
Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.
Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though
Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.
Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.
Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.
I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.
Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.
The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
You’re trying to say that your definition is the only valid one, which conveniently is one that your argument is entirely reliant upon.
It isn’t valid, you’re wrong, your argument does not hold water.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
You don’t care what words you use, because you’re talking about something else, an idea that’s only in your head.
I’m using the specific definitions, because we’re talking about a specific and complicated problem.
Theft is distinctly different from copyright infringement - even when you set aside that one is a crime and the other is a civil rights infringement. That’s just how the law defines it, and the definition is pretty clear cut.
When you steal from someone, they no longer have the thing. If I steal a DVD, the store no longer has that DVD. Not only have they lost a potential sale, but they had to buy that DVD, so they’ve lost the money they used to buy it. They’ve also definitely lost a sale, because they can’t sell it to anyone else
If I pirate something, no one loses anything. They haven’t lost a tangible object, they haven’t even paid for the bandwidth to deliver it - that came from someone else. Maybe they lost a potential sale, but more likely I probably wasn’t going to buy it either way. They still have just as much ability to sell to others.
The two concepts are distinctly different. Theft is different from copying. You can argue that copying is wrong - and I’d agree with you - but it is different from theft.
The issue boils down to “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I suppose. However, I put it two you that while this statement is true, it’s also often the case that a 2nd wrong can at least, sometimes, make things better.
I’m not. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this other than I feel that creators deserve to get paid for the work they create and piracy deprives them of that and is, therefore, theft. It’s not theft of their product, it’s theft of the right to be paid for that product. Ingesting/consuming a product without paying the creator for it is theft, unless that creator has explicitly allowed for that (like in the case of physical media where creators understand that it can be borrowed).
And I’m not arguing any of the legalities of it. I don’t care about the distinction of theft and copyright infringement in a legal sense. I’m care about the practical effects of stealing something without paying for it.
This is not true. The creator loses something. You may want to talk about specific situations where a creator is hired on a “for work” basis to create something and we could argue that ad infinitum but then you’d need to make the distinction about where the line is drawn. Is it ok only when it’s work for hire? If so, why is not ok when it’s not? Where do you make the distinction?
That’s irrelevant. If you weren’t going to buy it then you’re not entitled to consume it either. The entire problem is that you (and many people here) are trying to make the argument that they’re entitled to ingest/consume whatever it is despite not paying for it. I’m making the argument that that’s theft and that you’re not entitled to it for precisely the reason that you didn’t pay for it. Obviously, this doesn’t apply if the creator is giving away that work for free.
I have never argued, here or otherwise, that piracy isn’t justified in some cases. I’m only arguing that, even when it’s justified, it’s still theft and that we should be honest about that.
We covered this already, by that logic not consuming also deprives them and is, therefore, theft.
If not legal what is the distinction? The practical effects are not the same as stealing, as has been covered before. I can no more steal something simply by viewing it with my eyes then you can argue a definition that is not legal, semantic or moral.
The creator does not in fact lose something, this is the core of the counter arguments against your position. There is no point in “drawing a line” if non of this is in fact stealing. If you can see a sports event though your window even when you have not paid for a ticket that is not “stealing”.
This is not at all how a market works. It is in fact the direct opposite in reality. The creation of “black” markets is directly related to the consumers ability/desire to pay the normal market price. If there is a cheaper/free/easier alternative then it would be stranger for this not to happen. Netflix beat (past tense) piracy not by anything other then convenience.
I will agree you have not argued the justification, but that does not make piracy theft.
You’ve explained this many times. Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.
Theft requires depriving the owner of something tangible. Not just a potential profit, but an actual loss.
Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.
The creator doesn’t lose something from copyright infringement. There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss. More often than not, that potential loss would have been zero compared to if copyright infringement hadn’t occurred - the pirate would not have bought the product either way.
Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.
It is not. The author is deprived of something tangible. They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.
We’re not talking about copyright infringement. That is a legal term that only applies to the legality of the action. I am not discussing the legality.
This is not true and, since you continue to try and argue the legal matter, it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss, even though that’s not at all what my argument is about.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether someone who creates something should be paid by the people who consume the thing they created.
That cost occurs regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs. There is no further loss. Thus, you cannot assign a loss to copyright infringement.
We are talking about copyright infringement. That’s what “piracy” is.
I hope you see now that the definition of words really does matter.
You’ve said that, but you’re wrong. This is a clear misassociation.
It very much is relevant. If an action causes a loss, then the effect has a cause. If the loss occurs regardless of the action, then you cannot assign cause and effect.
We’re digging down further into the princples of things. I feel like, before long, we’ll be talking about how magnets work.
Thank you, well put. I would argue about your stance that copying is wrong a bit though. I think the issue is the distribution compainies role in a digital market makes little or no market sense currently. In the past it was very costly to distribute media (tape, LPs, dvd etc.) and bootleg copies also incurred a cost to the bootlegger. Now there is very little cost in distribution (server space being cheap) and little to no cost to make copies.
This has already been to the US courts (assuming people want the US option) with the VHS tape recording panic, and the courts found it was perfectly legal to make copies if you did not sell them or make profit from their use. That also included lending a buddy a copy (remember mixed tapes?), but now we all have the ability to share almost any media with a few billion of our closest friends.
The issue I think is that the current model does not work under today’s reality and instead of adapting (like how most music artists only really make money touring or how popular online services became with most companies ) we have the current situation of crunchy roll (who does not make the product) having an outsized role in people’s private property (media in this case).
Since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?
I answered that elsewhere. Those aren’t the only options.
Ok, then copy the answer here as I can not find it and you are such a fast typer that even if you don’t care you will still respond.
No thanks.
Not even a hint? Maybe it is metaphysical? I have been though your comments here and have yet to find out what type of argument yours is.