Again, there is a big difference between physically taking something and making a copy of it.
Also, the initial uploader/distributor of the pirated copy HAS paid for it. I'm not taking anything I was supposed to pay for, I'm just taking a copy of something somebody else has already paid for.
Yes, there is also a difference between Theft, Larceny, Burglary, Lifting, Misappropriation, Pilfering, Pinching, Purloining, Robbing, Filching, Heisting - but like Piracy - it involves Stealing something that is not yours. It was offered for sale, and the seller expected to be paid - and if it's pirated then you did not pay for it... therefore it is not yours, and therefore it's stolen.
If I pirate a song I wasn't gonna buy anyway, I'm not hurting anyone economically.
If you knew you could pirate a song, why would you pay for it... if everybody felt that everything on the internet was free, well then of course they're going to say they wouldn't pay for it. If nobody could pirate songs, then I believe all those people who rationalize with "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway... " would suddenly find that they would pay for it.
Originally Posted by snberk103
I may not sell too many images if I put too many restrictions on the usage, but that is my legal right - and nobody should be able to steal my images because they disagree with the way I want to conduct my business.
Nobody is stealing from you if they're using copies of a legally bought copy.
Yes, they are. And the law backs me up on this. It's not a new law, either - this is a well established legal foundation that has been around for a very long time. You may not like it, but it is the law. And I can sue people for damages if they make copies of my photographs without my permission. If they are profiting from those copies my damages are (at a minimum) is their revenue from sales. If the copies are for personal use only, then my damages are for whatever I would have made had they bought those copies from me. Telling the judge that there is no revenue loss since they wouldn't have bought the copies anyway will get them nowhere. In fact, it'd probably help me also get my court costs covered.
It's hard to enforce because it doesn't make much sense.
The consumer is paying for either an object or file, and therefore should have the right to do whatever they want with it as long as they don't profit.
Just because you don't understand it, or agree with it, doesn't make you right. The best examples of copyrighted material are books, music, photographs. As a photographer, I have certain protections from people stealing my images. But I also must limit what I can do. I can't take a photograph of someone else's photograph and sell it as my own.
And sometimes it's a stupid restriction. For example, there have been iconic buildings in the USA (Rock and Roll Museum, iirc) that tried claiming that they had exclusive rights to the design of the building. If you were going to sell pictures of the outside of the building - you had to pay them a licensing fee. I don't agree with this application of the law. But, my choices are to either respect the law - or fight it in court. To take a picture, and sell it, would have been stealing. I don't know if that aspect of the law stood up to the court challenges... but for awhile that was the law. Whether I liked it or not.
...
So they shouldn't be able to lend that media to a friend?
....
Lending is Not Copying. Lending means that you give someone your physical copy, and until they return it you don't have it. In my world, lending is fine. If someone buys a photograph.... they can lend it someone, they can give it to someone, they can line their birdcage with it. I don't care. That copy is theirs. But they can not make copies of it.
If I can't afford them, I wouldn't be able to buy those objects anyway, so the producers lose absolutely nothing if I get them for free. Try to wrap your head around that simple concept.
Wrap your head around the idea that just because you can't afford something doesn't give you the right to have it. Lots of people do without lots of things because they can't afford them. What makes a pirate special?
Theft is when you deprive someone of an object. Piracy is not theft. End of the story.
You're right. Piracy is not Theft. Nor is it robbery, pilfering, or a stick up. But it's still stealing. You are taking revenue away from somebody. End of story.
If the owner had a magic device that could duplicate the Corvette and give me the duplicate for free I would gladly accept. Because that's how piracy works.
Yes. If the owner of the music had a magic device that scouted, developed, created, produced, marketed, distributed, etc music for free - the business model would be different. But the owner of the CD is not the owner of music. Only the copyright holder owns the music. Everyone else is paying for the privilege of playing that music.
