No, you’re making the “what’s the harm?” argument, and as others have already mentioned to you there is actual, quantifiable harm incurred from pirating.
No. The act of downloading pirated software to one’s personal computer inflicts no damage on the copyright holder. They remain in the same position as if the act had not occurred.Arkansan:
No, you’re making the “what’s the harm?” argument, and as others have already mentioned to you there is actual, quantifiable harm incurred from pirating.
Only if you continue under this false dichotomy that the choice is between pirating and taking no action. As has already been pointed out to you this is rarely the case. If compelled to most people will cough up the money to have something rather than not have it. It’s rarely the case that people pirate things they do not value any more than people actively go out in pursuit of free brochures being given away.
He said that there is no harm in pirating and that pirating cannot in any reasonable way be considered theft, even if petty theft., because tangible property was not stolen.
I never made that claim, otherwise it too would be a false dichotomy! I made the more reasonable observation that most people, when pressed, cough up the money for things they want rather than go without them. It’s the same as what you just stated yourself:
You can see this is a faulty analysis by replacing “software” with “donuts”. You can say not buying donuts inflicts no damage on the baker, especially if the donuts were already baked. But using pirated software without paying is equivalent to eating the donuts anyway without paying for them. That is theft and it is harmful to the baker.AlbertDerGrosse:
No. The act of downloading pirated software to one’s personal computer inflicts no damage on the copyright holder. They remain in the same position as if the act had not occurred.Arkansan:
No, you’re making the “what’s the harm?” argument, and as others have already mentioned to you there is actual, quantifiable harm incurred from pirating.
It is unnecessary to make that claim to support the idea that using Windows without paying is theft. As I just pointed out in the previous posting, if you substitute donuts for software you can see that it is theft if you eat a donut without paying for it. This is true whether or not the stolen donut is a lost sale. Perhaps the thief is not so hungry for donuts that he would pay for one if he could not steal it. So perhaps his theft does not constitute a lost sale. But it is still harm to the baker if he takes it and eats it. Similarly, someone who uses a pirated copy of Windows, but would not have bought one in any case, that theft may not represent a lost sale. But it is still theft because he derives benefit without paying for it.
Yes, the theatre suffers harm because the fruits of their labor has be used without paying for it. If everyone did it the theatre would go out of business. That is certainly harm.
Theft is something that occurs in the external forum. The subjective intentions of the downloader cannot turn an act that is not theft into theft.Arkansan:
Only if you continue under this false dichotomy that the choice is between pirating and taking no action. As has already been pointed out to you this is rarely the case. If compelled to most people will cough up the money to have something rather than not have it. It’s rarely the case that people pirate things they do not value any more than people actively go out in pursuit of free brochures being given away.
You are enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labor without proper compensation for it. That is wrong.
In the first place, the question is not whether or not it is wrong. The question is whether or not it is equivalent to theft.
If you eat a donut, you are taking it away from its owner. That the donut’s owner would throw it away is irrelevant, because until he actually does throw it away it is his property and the act of taking it away deprives him of it. Illegal downloading does not take anything away from the copyright holder.Arkansan:
You can see this is a faulty analysis by replacing “software” with “donuts”. You can say not buying donuts inflicts no damage on the baker, especially if the donuts were already baked. But using pirated software without paying is equivalent to eating the donuts anyway without paying for them. That is theft and it is harmful to the baker.AlbertDerGrosse:
No. The act of downloading pirated software to one’s personal computer inflicts no damage on the copyright holder. They remain in the same position as if the act had not occurred.Arkansan:
No, you’re making the “what’s the harm?” argument, and as others have already mentioned to you there is actual, quantifiable harm incurred from pirating.
Now you are moving the goalpost. Previously you were hanging you hat on whether or not “harm” was done. Now that you see harm really is done when people use pirated software, now you are switching to “something physical taken away from the owner.” Yes, that applies to donuts, but not to software. So what? The fact that software is not a physical object does not mitigate the harm done when it used without paying for it. That is, it is a distinction that has no relevance in this discussion.LeafByNiggle:
If you eat a donut, you are taking it away from its owner. That the donut’s owner would throw it away is irrelevant, because until he actually does throw it away it is his property and the act of taking it away deprives him of it. Illegal downloading does not take anything away from the copyright holder.Arkansan:
You can see this is a faulty analysis by replacing “software” with “donuts”. You can say not buying donuts inflicts no damage on the baker, especially if the donuts were already baked. But using pirated software without paying is equivalent to eating the donuts anyway without paying for them. That is theft and it is harmful to the baker.AlbertDerGrosse:
No. The act of downloading pirated software to one’s personal computer inflicts no damage on the copyright holder. They remain in the same position as if the act had not occurred.Arkansan:
No, you’re making the “what’s the harm?” argument, and as others have already mentioned to you there is actual, quantifiable harm incurred from pirating.