Streaming movies (mortal sin?)?

[exnihilo]

You are calling it stealing but it just isn’t. Again, no one has lost any property. That is essential to stealing.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Talk to me when you support your family with music or writing.

 

[exnihilo]

Actually I do support my family that way.

 

[Maximilian75]

I get where you’re coming from, but for the most part, no one is pirating indie music or movies- there’s no demand. I would say that culpability is certainly reduced by the fact that the persons losing money are massive corporations, as opposed to mom and pop artists and producers.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Massive corporations employ real, breathing human beings.

 

[Maximilian75]

Yes, but I would say that the reduction in profits due to pirating is so small, that culpability is reduced, IMO.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Sure, however, we are still to avoid venial sins.

 

[Maximilian75]

Absolutely. Never said otherwise.

 

[Arkansan]

Stealing requires that something belonging to one be taken illicitly. One who watches a copyrighted work (leaving questions of material cooperation aside) doesn’t take anything away from the copyright holder. That person is in the same position as he would have been had the viewer done nothing.

For the same reason, the operators of illicit streams are not guilty of theft, though they are guilty of unjust damage. This distinction is practically relevant to the question of restitution, since the money made from an illicit stream will not generally be equal to the damage caused (it may be more or less).