[eddiedunn]

Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.

At most, you could argue that the producer loses an opportunity for a sale, but I think you would have a difficult time proving that. It is far more likely that the potential consumer would just refrain from procuring the item if it were not available for free (as a copy).

[unclebucknasty]

>Calling it stealing is wrong. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item when someone _copies_ it, compared to e.g. stealing somebody's car.

That really is a horrible rationalization. The producer of an item doesn't lose the original item? No, she simply loses all value that would have otherwise accrued to her, if not for people deciding that her right to be compensated for her creation was trumped by their right to enjoy her creation at no cost or inconvenience to themselves.

So she loses the right to capture value from the thing she owns/created, while others derive value from it (whether for personal use or resale). Please tell me again. How is that not stealing? And, from where does the consumer derive that entitlement?

[unprepare]

It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have.

you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property.

the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase.

I fail to see a material loss. Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew]

by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?

[anigbrowl]

by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer - do you agree with this or do you have some way to reconcile this?

No it isn't. I'm selling a used item, and after I sell it will be gone. If I decide that I shouldn't have sold it later all (which has happened me a couple of times with musical instruments) then I'll have to go buy another one.

This is important because economic value is a function of scarcity. That's why you pay nothing for the air you breathe but if you go scuba diving you will buy or rent the oxygen tanks - breathable air is dangerously scarce under water.Now, do the economic interests of creators and publishers depend upon an artificial scarcity? Of course they do. But that artificial scarcity is supported by law because it is the flip side of the (usually) significant amount of time and money that goes into creating the original work. If you can't exercise any control over the distribution then it's very hard to make your money back and eventually producers exit the market, leading to a reduction in consumer choice.

[CamperBob2]

leading to a reduction in consumer choice.

I keep waiting for this "reduction in consumer choice" to happen, but it never seems to materialize. I have more entertainment choices than ever. Maybe that's part of your problem?

The other thing that never seems to materialize is declining revenues for the industries that are supposedly being victimized. You've mentioned several times how difficult things are for those working on lower-budget productions, and intimated that piracy and consumer "entitlement" is to blame, but when's the last time you took a look at the film industry's financials? Some people are making more money in the poor, victimized film industry than ever before. Just not you.

[unclebucknasty]

Irrespective of your rationalizations, the fact remains that for any producer to make money, a considerable number of consumers have to play by the rules and pull out their wallets.

That's the salient point. Everything else is just noise and strawmen.

So, your "more entertainment options than ever" are being subsidized by others, if you are not pulling out your wallet.

[unprepare]

You've still denied the original producer a potential sale. the person you sold your phone to might have bought one directly from apple instead.

So by the other commenters line of reasoning, you have stolen "value"

The fact that the phone is physical has nothing to do with the line of reasoning being presented.

I am not arguing that piracy should be totally fine and theres nothing being done wrong, I'm simply disagreeing that copyright infringement is the equivalent of theft

[CamperBob2]

I love these "theft" arguments. Can you imagine the shitstorm that we'd see if the concept of the public library was only just now being proposed? Librarians would be branded as rapists, or something equally ridiculous.

[unclebucknasty]

>It is not stealing because theres is nothing that the original owner had and now does not have

This completely ignores my point about depriving the owner of the value of the thing. If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own? Owning it becomes worthless to the creator, yet millions of others who did not create or pay for it are now obtaining value from it.

The argument that the creator still owns it is pedantic and facile. It's just a rationalization that ignores the real question of value. You knowingly deprive the producer of all value of owning a thing, then say "But, it's OK. We left you with the thing".

>you could try to say that the person who downloaded something represents a potential sale lost, but i think its a bigger assumption than you are recognizing that the person would have ever paid for the property.

It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it. And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know?

>the producer has in no way lost all the value of the property, they have simply lost 1 single potential purchase

And if no one pays and the producer thus loses all of the value of "all" of the potential purchases, then will you say the producer has been harmed? Because you really must conclude that if you carry this line of reasoning forward. So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's right to make that determination? Also, are you saying that as long as some people are willing to pay, then others have the right not to pay? Because that's another conclusion to which your logic leads. So, those who are willing to pay should subsidize those who are not?

These arguments for piracy really run out of logic oxygen quickly and collapse on themselves.

>Would you file an insurance claim if I broke into your house and made a copy of a dvd you owned? [if you think this is a bad example because of ip rights, change it to a picture you drew]

Or, "here's a really bad example that does nothing to refute your argument. Please help me by coming up with a better example to refute your own argument".

No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think?

>by your logic, reselling an item you own is also theft, since that represents a potential lost sale to the original producer

That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume?

Look for clues in your own question. You used the word "own". Think about that.

[unprepare]

>If you create something and offer it for sale, yet every single person simply pirated it vs. buying it from you, then haven't they removed the value of this thing that you still own?

I think this is where the misunderstanding occurs. You feel that the creator owns all potential value immediately when the thing is created. I dont believe that this is true, the owner owns only that value which they are able to realize, if they are unable to realize the value they expected then that is not theft.

It is however copyright infringement to make and distribute copies. I am not trying to defend piracy as a whole, i am simply saying a person downloading a piece of media is not committing theft; they are only taking part in copyright infringement, you are trying to make the argument that it is the same thing as theft.

>It's not an assumption that there is demand for the product if people are willing to download it.

Correct.

>And, economics (as well as common sense) tells us that there is some price above zero that people are willing to pay for that which they demand. Isn't that all we really need to know?

where did this come from? demand of an infinitely reproducible product does not necessitate "some price above zero" it can be exactly zero dollars that people are willing to pay. There are any number of things at any given moment that I would like to have but would not pay for, if i were able to get those things for free, i would.

People will take free things they dont even want simply because they are free (free tshirts at sporting events), does that mean each of those tshirts represents a lost sale because all of those people clearly demanded a t shirt and would pay "some price above zero" for it?

> So, now, at what point along the continuum of one pirated copy to all pirated copies has the producer experienced an actual theft, and how is it the consumer's choice to make that determination?

Theft is never experienced, that is my point. There is a crime committed when the content is unlawfully distributed, that is copyright infringement.

>No thanks. That's a pretty lazy "argument-style", don't you think?

You missed the point i was making. Is it theft if i break into your house and copy a picture that you have drawn? Is it theft if i distribute it?

The answer is no, it is copyright infringement and clearly not that same thing as if i had STOLEN the drawing.

>That's not my logic. What's so difficult to understand about compensating the producer of something you wish to consume?

Again you totally missed the point. By your logic, which is that the producer of a good should be compensated for every procurement of the good by an end customer.

By selling something used, lets say an iPhone, you are stealing (by your definition) from Apple. Not only are you stealing from them but you are directly profiting from that theft. You have removed Apple from the sale of the good that they produced, denying them a potential sale.

Even if you GAVE your old iPhone to a friend, by your definition, this is theft since Apple was denied a potential sale.

I think it is clear that neither of those things is actually theft, nothing was stolen.

[unclebucknasty]

>You feel that the creator owns all potential value immediately when the thing is created.

That is a bit simplified, but yes, it's essentially what I believe. In your estimation, who else should own that value?

>I dont believe that this is true, the owner owns only that value which they are able to realize, if they are unable to realize the value they expected then that is not theft.

That logic seems so completely and obviously circular that I'm thinking that my interpretation can't be what you actually meant. Here's what I read. Please correct where I've misunderstood you:

The owner provides a means for realizing the value of a creation (i.e. attaches a means of distribution and a price). People side-step that distribution and opt for a means not authorized by the owner, which does not compensate the owner. Then, the conclusion is, "well, the owner wasn't able to capture the value, so it's not theft".

Seems to me that the theft is the reason the owner was not able to realize the value.

>where did this come from? demand of an infinitely reproducible product does not necessitate "some price above zero" it can be exactly zero dollars that people are willing to pay.

Basic economics. Generally, the reproducibility of a product does not dictate the demand for it, only the supply. Accordingly, reproducibility may affect the price, but not the demand. People don't want something more because there are more of them, although oversupply may lower the price to one that more people are willing to pay.

The bigger point is that you are confusing demand with price elasticity. When consumers want a product (demand), there is some price that some number of those consumers will pay for it. If you couldn't download a movie for free, but could get it for $0.01 vs. $100.00, you may well choose $0.01. But, you'd pay something that represents how much you value it. You are an exception to this only if you never buy anything. Other than that, this applies to you as well, no matter how much you seem to suggest that you never pay for things you want, but stock up on free stuff you don't want.

I don't know. I can't determine why such a simple concept becomes so tedious, with all of the circular logic and red-herrings about breaking-and-entering to copy drawings, re-selling used iPhones and such.

Through all of the posts here, no one has clearly elucidated why people have a right to the value created by someone else's labor, other than by paying the price that person has set.

[eddiedunn]

Seriously. Copyright infringement _is not stealing_. It has even been decided in court:

http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopol...

Stop abusing the word.