[karyon]

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

[mikeash]

That is why the analogy is wrong. If you're in a situation where you're definitely not going to buy it (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example) then there's no difference to them if you watch it or not.

Imagine I really want your car, so I take it. Or imagine I really want your car, so I use a magic wand to make an exact duplicate of it. Are those two scenarios at all comparable?

[sosborn]

> (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example)

This argument fall apart in many of the examples cited in this thread because most of the time, those movies are available digitally for a price. The fact is that most people just don't want to pay that price so they use other means to watch the movie.

[mikeash]

The argument works equally well if you simply wouldn't buy it.

The issue, of course, is whether or not you're correctly estimating whether you would end up buying it if you didn't pirate it. But if you take it as given that you wouldn't buy it, then there's no loss.

[zanny]

Because you go into a store and take something that store on longer has against its will. Copyright infringement is just someone else willingly duplicating data that you want, while the entity that holds a state granted monopoly to duplication (not necessarily creator) has not authorized the transfer.

One is robbery of scarce resources, one is a legal framework around imposing scarcity on something that is not naturally scarce.

You can steal a movie - in the traditional sense of the word - by breaking into MGM / Disney / Universal's internal network and copying the movie out from their own internal servers. This does happen, where scene releases of unreleased movies happen, often done by employees with access to get access to these films prematurely. That is the only situation remotely comparable to the shoplifting scenario, because in the normal piracy scenario nobody is not voluntarily participating (the original buyer of the movie who then shared it did a voluntary transaction, then violated the distribution terms given them when distributing it to others voluntarily).

Violating a contract and violence are on entirely different planes of ethics.

[emerod]

If transfer of ownership does not actually occur when a digital product is "purchased", then how can one argue that ownership is lost when a digital product is "stolen"? In both cases, what is happening involves licensed use, not ownership. What is lost when a digital product is pirated is not ownership, AKA property rights; what is lost is potential demand for licensing rights. What is lost when a physical item is stolen is actual possession, which would enable one to use or sell the actual item. Losing actual possession of the item will also cause loss of demand, though, since someone else having possession enables them to use or sell the actual item in competition with the legitimate owner, who is concerned with maintaining market demand for the physical items.

[ekianjo]

They dont have less money than before because its either you cant watch it in this case or you watch it illegally. Nobody loses money, its lost opportunity at best.

[ArkyBeagle]

The thing taken in shoplifting is rival in the economics sense. It makes impossible a sale to someone else. With piracy, it's just another copy.