Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Eh.... Thats sorta iffy. After all, now they need to rebuy it so they can keep selling it.

[freeformschooler]

Eh.... Thats sorta iffy. After all, now they need to rebuy it so they can keep selling it.

Very good point.

But further question: if the point above is a fundamental part of theft (having to gain another physical copy of the product, in this case by way of paying money for it, to replace the product stolen through the theft) then does that make illegal downloading not be theft? After all, like I stated earlier, the vendors whose product you are illegally downloading do not need to replace it, because you downloaded a copy that (not the price, but the copy itself) was never "lost" by the vendors in question.

Or is the need to replace what was stolen to continue its use (in this case, selling) not a fundamental part of theft at all?

[Criptfeind]

That’s not a fundamental part.

I do not care about what terminology you use. It is stealing. Which I assumed was a synonym for theft. If you guys are really upset over what term I use, I will not say theft anymore.

[freeformschooler]

I think the confusing part is not the terminology you used. It's that the only thing being stolen is the money, not the product, whereas I believe earlier people got it in their minds that you meant that stealing something through downloading was a loss of the product.

And even then, the money being stolen is iffy. What if something was banned in my country, and I couldn't import it, so I downloaded it illegally. Unless I'm missing something, there would be no money lost in that exchange because I would have not been able to pay money for it in the first place.

[Bauglir]

To those arguing against Criptfeind: is stealing wrong solely because you are depriving somebody of what you steal? For clarity, let's say I'm referring to a physical object.

[freeformschooler]

To those arguing against Criptfeind: is stealing wrong solely because you are depriving somebody of what you steal? For clarity, let's say I'm referring to a physical object.

No. What he's arguing for (and what I agree with him in a lot of cases, except for ones like my post above) I believe is that stealing is wrong because you deprive them of a sale, not a product. And by sale, I mean the money they would have otherwise gained.

e: i just realized you could be talking about not-for-sale products like stealing from some wealthy man's house. if so then disregard this, although i believe that depriving them of the physical product is wrong too obviously if tha'ts part of the equation

[Phmcw]

To those arguing against Criptfeind: is stealing wrong solely because you are depriving somebody of what you steal? For clarity, let's say I'm referring to a physical object.

Of course : why not? If you could steal something and still the man you stole it from still have it it's a miracle, not a thief. Jesus was not crucified by the backers guild, still he's supposed to have duplicated bread.

[Darvi]

Jesus was not crucified by the backers guild, still he's supposed to have duplicated bread.

Now that's an epileptic tree that I like.

[Criptfeind]

And even then, the money being stolen is iffy. What if something was banned in my country, and I couldn't import it, so I downloaded it illegally. Unless I'm missing something, there would be no money lost in that exchange because I would have not been able to pay money for it in the first place.

True, and I would not fault you for that.

e: i just realized you could be talking about not-for-sale products like stealing from some wealthy man's house. if so then disregard this, although i believe that depriving them of the physical product is wrong too obviously if tha'ts part of the equation

Well, in that case you would not be stealing their income from selling it, but you would be stealing the replacement cost.

I think the confusing part is not the terminology you used. It's that the only thing being stolen is the money, not the product, whereas I believe earlier people got it in their minds that you meant that stealing something through downloading was a loss of the product.

I... Really hope not. I would think only some one very dumb would think that.

[Bauglir]

To those arguing against Criptfeind: is stealing wrong solely because you are depriving somebody of what you steal? For clarity, let's say I'm referring to a physical object.

Of course : why not? If you could steal something and still the man you stole it from still have it it's a miracle, not a thief. Jesus was not crucified by the backers guild, still he's supposed to have duplicated bread.

Okay, then. That may be a valid position, so, explain why counterfeiting money is bad in a way that is consistent (the example was brought up earlier in the thread, but seemed to be ignored). At this point, I should mention that I am not convinced of your opinion, but I'm willing to change my mind if I can't find an acceptable argument against it.

EDIT: Alternatively, convince me that counterfeiting money is acceptable, but this seems a harder task to accomplish.

[G-Flex]

It is stealing.

Not really, no.

Which I assumed was a synonym for theft. If you guys are really upset over what term I use, I will not say theft anymore.

I'm not "really upset over what term", I'm upset that you're conflating two extremely dissimilar crimes. Copyright infringement and theft are nowhere near the same offense no matter what you call them.

I think the confusing part is not the terminology you used. It's that the only thing being stolen is the money, not the product, whereas I believe earlier people got it in their minds that you meant that stealing something through downloading was a loss of the product.

I... Really hope not. I would think only some one very dumb would think that.

Except money isn't "being stolen". You do not directly deprive anyone of funds. You are engaging in an activity which is a potential alternative to giving them money. In the end, this still may mean the company winds up with less money as a result of your actions... or it may not, depending on the case, but you are not taking anything from anyone directly.

This is simply not a case of directly depriving anyone of anything, at all. It's a case of you performing actions which may have indirect and highly speculative financial harm to the company by virtue of making it more difficult for them to sell their product. At this point in the conversation, I am astonished that any of this needs to be explained.

[freeformschooler]

It is stealing.

Except money isn't "being stolen". You do not directly deprive anyone of funds. You are engaging in an activity which is a potential alternative to giving them money. In the end, this still may mean the company winds up with less money as a result of your actions... or it may not, depending on the case, but you are not taking anything from anyone directly.

Bad on me for being not so clear. When I said money is being lost I was implying the potential sale that was supposedly indirectly lost (at least I was pretty sure that was the "stealing" Criptfiend was referring to), and like I said, that's iffy for my example and the reasons you've already stated in your post.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I'm just trying to keep the distinctions clear. There are many, many ways in which you can cause a company indirect financial harm that aren't stealing; copyright infringement is one of them. That's why you have to actually sue for damages and (ostensibly) show what those damages are and back them up.

[Bauglir]

Echoing G-Flex: Copyright infringement isn't equivalent to theft. Hopefully still echoing: That doesn't automatically mean it's definitely never a problem.

There are issues to be discussed, but the theft comparison that always gets used to scare people into not doing it is misleading, and whenever people find holes in it (like this whole not depriving somebody of something thing), they assume that defeats the entire opposing side and therefore justifies the act. Essentially, comparing copyright violation to theft is setting up your own strawman.

[Phmcw]

Okay, then. That may be a valid position, so, explain why counterfeiting money is bad in a way that is consistent (the example was brought up earlier in the thread, but seemed to be ignored). At this point, I should mention that I am not convinced of your opinion, but I'm willing to change my mind if I can't find an acceptable argument against it.

EDIT: Alternatively, convince me that counterfeiting money is acceptable, but this seems a harder task to accomplish.

Money is a bit iffy.
Printing fifty buck is nothing, but "allow" poeple to print money and civilization collapse, literally. Therefore it's forbidden and severely enforced. On the morality of printing money... well if your false money is not perfect,your literally rob the person who use it to, if it is you endanger the nation, and eventually devalue the money, depriving them of the money they had (or rather of the buying power).

To me enforcement of monetary law are moral because they avoid the economic apocalypse that would happen otherwise.