[marysol5]

Just because people do buy the product the legitimate way, and provide the creators with revenue, doesn't negate that /you/ are committing a theft.

A loss of a sale, is still a loss of a sale. It's vastly different to /not/ selling something.

[account42]

There is nothing to negate because there was never a theft in the first place. Consult the laws of your country before making wild assertions and ask a lawyer if you cannot understand them yourself.

[threethirtytwo]

It’s like saying the death penalty isn’t murder because the law says it’s not.

I guess in your mind hitler isn’t a mass murderer because what he was doing was technically legal under his regime. To each their own if that’s how you want to logically frame your moral logic.

Personally imo, if I create something and that something is MY work of art and what I put my own blood sweat and tears into, and I want it to be inconvenient to watch because that’s my prerogative, that doesn’t give you the fucking right to watch it. I don’t want someone like you watching it.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Wow. Bringing up murder and hitler when talking about piracy. Some parts of the internet are truly eternal.

None of this is new. None of your ideas are unique. Stop attempting to draw moral equivalency to theft or anything else.

Back in the glory days of piracy, profits from entertainment kept going up? You know why? Those pirates were almost certainly not going to pay in the first place. No one lost money. It was university students, high schoolers, plain old poor people that were pirating.

Making it hard to watch your movie didn’t raise revenue, we all just did something else. Because we had no money.

[threethirtytwo]

Logic and human nature becomes more apparent when you look at the extremes.

Flaws in logic and the darknesses of both become readily apparent because the paradoxes are exposed at the extremes.

[futune]

Seems like the opposite to me. We don't like theft because the victim loses something. If stealing a car spawned a new car for you while the "victim" kept his, would it be a problem? So I don't really get the murder analogy. It's more like if the government had defined some act as murder even though nobody died.