There are really 2 types of piracy. Non-destructive and destructive. I believe the majority is non-destructive. People download things which they either do not have access to or do not value enough to pay for. If the option wasn't there to download it they wouldn't pay for it anyway.
Downloading content which you would otherwise pay for is destructive. It is like what the OP describes above. He was downloading things he would otherwise have paid for. Money wasn't going to game makers. He was effectively stealing and its damaging to people making the games.
Film / Music industry people think the majority of piracy is destructive. I think they are wrong. I have spent thousands of pounds on things I discovered through piracy. However, if you are downloading things you know you would otherwise buy then really it is difficult to deny you are not stealing or at least conning content owners out of money they are owed.
>People download things which they either do not have access to or do not value enough to pay for
Yes, THIS!
I think this is the crux of the entire argument that is completely ignored by nearly every content producer. People value things differently for a huge number of reasons. With things with a personal appeal like music, or maybe TV/Film but I imagine less so, some people will pay more for their favourite band, others won't. That means the band is undervaluing their product to their greatest fans (good for the fans) and over valuing for their lesser fans.
Normally, when I download things, it's because I don't value the product at the price it's being sold, but I do still value it!
Film is a great example of this. I'll happily pay $5 to rent a great film like Django unchained, or Avatar, etc. But am I going to pay the same amount for the (boringly bad) Bourne Legacy? No. But I would still pay something to see it.. perhaps $1, maybe $2. But I can't because there is no option to do this. So instead, I would consider downloading it.
So what have the film company lost when I chose to pirate instead of purchase? Not $5 because I wouldn't have paid this in the first place. So they've lost $2. And what have I lost? I've had to spend some of my time hunting down and waiting for the film to download (A minor inconvenience) but that's it. So seems like the only loser is the film company.
For evidence, look at the most highly downloaded film of 2012 'Project X'. IMDB gives it a 6.6 rating and it sounds a bit lame but fun. Exactly the sort of film that isn't worth full price rental.
"it is difficult to deny you are not stealing or at least conning content owners out of money they are owed."
I'll do my best... :)
Distribution used to be very valuable. So much so that we see CDs as products.
Before CDs, street performers were happy and paid if street patrons were happy and entertained. Simply put: creative businesses are charities; they always have been and they always will be because 1) their fruits are not material and can be "held"/understood by more than one person at a time, with impunity, and 2) they are non-essential, compared to food and water and shelter and clothes (and if they were essential, due to their non-exclusivity, it would be immoral to restrict them).
Somewhere along the line distribution got all wrapped up in cellophane and people working in publishing formats (cds, books, video game cartridges, etc, etc) started feeling entitled to creative monopolies. And authors', reasonably, wanted more of the distributor's pie. We went from truly prohibitive distribution (manual transcription), to commercial/industrial distribution, to today: instant and autonomous distribution -- if it is worth seeing, hearing, or knowing, the copying is implied. So, if you are charging for distribution today (including "selling copies"), you are in the wrong business.
But that hasn't destroyed/stolen anyone's value either, as you have proposed. We have simply come full circle.
The value of design is in its applications. The most useful ideas are the most valuable, as it should be. It's (obviously) not enough to simply produce a movie and sell the pattern for $5... One pattern is enough for the whole world. You can't recoup the production costs by pretending distribution is hard. It has to actually be worth $5. The reality of this return to the original model is that you will be rewarded according to your contribution, but you're not the one to set the price either because creativity isn't a product. We were just confused for about 100 years. Patronage is different (and scary to Western concepts of "mine"), but it's time-tested and perfectly sustainable (and being seen more and more, for example via Kickstarter). R&D, for example, is sponsored and would be worthwhile even (especially) without patents...
The requirement that creativity, design, and research, be worthwhile, is not a burden on society. Monopolies are. People can only reward you after they have benefited from an idea, namely from "the progress of Science and the useful arts."
Maybe not in a "he stole my bike" manner but certainly in a "we sell copies of this and he took one without paying" sense, which is really the point. I won't make assumptions about your position, but the argument you are making is a pedantic and irrelevant attempt to justify behavior that is clearly a violation of someone else's rights.
I'm not saying the current media cartels are right. Not at all. But people taking this approach only hurts more reasonable arguments that might actually be constructive.
>people taking this approach only hurts more reasonable arguments //
Theft is a crime. Copyright infringement is [usually] a tort.
Theft deprives an owner of their right to use their work. Copyright infringement is no detriment to an owner's ability to enjoy their work.
Theft forms part of what most people would consider to be an obvious moral obligation not to deprive others of their property. Copyright is a right that extends unnaturally from ownership, being a democratically granted monopoly, and I warrant is by no means central to the majority of the people's understanding of common law.
It is a very important distinction.
To equate theft and tortuous infringement is quite insidious, copyright infringement is by no means similar to common thievery.
The big players in media production have attempted to screw the populus out of their side of the copyright deal - the falling in to public ownership of works in good time. All legal changes in the last decade or two appear to have been to the benefit of the rich lobbyists representing media organisation and to the detriment of the public.
In view of this failure to keep with the spirit of the contract that copyright establishes it's not surprising that the public should act as if big media had nullified the contract.
Downloading content which you would otherwise pay for is destructive. It is like what the OP describes above. He was downloading things he would otherwise have paid for. Money wasn't going to game makers. He was effectively stealing and its damaging to people making the games.
Film / Music industry people think the majority of piracy is destructive. I think they are wrong. I have spent thousands of pounds on things I discovered through piracy. However, if you are downloading things you know you would otherwise buy then really it is difficult to deny you are not stealing or at least conning content owners out of money they are owed.