Piracy is not theft

Taking pictures of the Mona Lisa is expressly allowed where as pirating software and media is stealing from a company's income.

If you want to compare pirating to something, compare it to sneaking into a cinema or The Louvre where the Mona Lisa is exhibited without paying an entrance fee.
Ok, so now it is about what is allowed? Just because something is allowed or disallowed, doesn't make it either right or wrong. Half the laws out there are BS from an ethical point of view. Comparisons aside, the point is the same.

Making a copy is not stealing. It's stupid to say that you're stealing from a company's income. You cannot steal what never existed. In order to steal from a company's income, the company must have had that income in the first place and they must have lost it.

This is the most basic definition of theft - someone taking your schit without your permission and leaving nothing in it's place.
Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.

Now we can debate the ethics around piracy, and whether it is right or wrong, but don't pretend that it's the same thing as theft...
 
Last edited:
That's your perception, but it's far from the truth. People buy that which has worth and value. Not just random sht spewed left and right. If the ebook was property marketed, advertised and has worth and value, it will be bought. Otherwise it won't. The same for flicks, software, games and the list goes on.
I find greater worth in a Spotify subscription than I did downloading albums 2 decades ago.
I'm calling bujlshit because I know from my own firsthand pirating experience that the books I downloaded were things I wanted but didn't want to pay for (because I knew I could pirate them). They were good books that might even have been bestsellers at some point. I don't think I'm the outlier here.
 
I'm calling bujlshit because I know from my own firsthand pirating experience that the books I downloaded were just this I didn't want to pay for. They were good books that might even have been bestsellers at some point. I don't think I'm the outlier here.
You can call what you want. The numbers do the talking. Your 100 ebook downloads may have had an alternate sale of 10000 or more during the same period when the books were relevant.
Just look how Audible changed the ebook game = worth and value.
 
You can call what you want. The numbers do the talking. Your 100 ebook downloads may have had an alternate sale of 10000 or more during the same period when the books were relevant.
Just look how Audible changed the ebook game = worth and value.
Sure. But the sales are irrelevant to the fact that I got something for free (that I should have paid for). I'm still failing to understand what book sales and the authors business skills have to do with the rightness or wrongess of me getting that book for nothing.
 
Sure. But the sales are irrelevant to the fact that I got something for free (that I should have paid for). I'm still failing to understand what book sales and the authors business skills have to do with the rightness or wrongess of me getting that book for nothing.
Right = you didn't sell what you downloaded.
Wrong = you sold it as your own and are a prick.
Right = nobody was hurt in the transmission of the download. It wasn't Corona.
Wrong = you distributed malware across the corporate network.
Right = your downloads and bandwidth usage paid someone's salary, or at least a part of it. (ISP).
Wrong = you didn't download enough. You could have given someone a higher salary...
 
Now we can debate the ethics around piracy, and whether it is right or wrong, but don't pretend that it's the same thing as theft...
I'm not pretending. Their expectation for income is very real.

There's no reason to discuss ethics, none of us really care or are going to stop.
 
How now brown cow?

I have a number of favourite games that I bought new a couple of years ago. They were designed for WinXP and Win7.

No matter many times I have tried installing them, they consistently fail to install - reason: Incompatible with Windows 10 due to copyright protection software. There is no work-around to getting them to play in Windows 10 and since previous versions of Windows have been discontinued. (The version of Win 10 that I have installed on my machine uses the same serial number that I had when I was on Win7 as I upgraded within the allotted time-frame.)

However, the same games have been hacked/cracked and are available to download from certain websites which finally enable me to play these games.

Now this government, in it's infinite wisdom, wants to declare me a criminal?? VOERTSEK ANC!!!!
 
Technically, piracy implies financial gain. Ergo, if I'm downloading a film for my own personal use, with no intention of selling it, it's not piracy.
Technically piracy implies personal gain. Once it's for financial gain criminal law applies.
 
It's exactly the same. All the pictures of the Mona Lisa cause that too few people travel to France to see the original. The French people are losing billions in tourist funding...
Poor example. Mona Lisa is public domain or copy left. There's no restriction at all and you can even create your own copyrighted derivatives for profit from it.
 
Reading some of the comments here one can clearly see why piracy is a problem and robs people and companies of income. Ignorance is bliss nê?
 
Nice to see experts that actually know what they are talking about.

The common law offence of theft must be interpreted so as not to exclude the theft of incorporeal property,” Section 12 of the Cybercrimes Act reads

A reasonable person who read this would think of a Chinese spy stealing trade secrets. Or like Denel got all their IP stolen.

That it is even necessary to state that stealing IP is stealing seems silly, because it is obvious. And a more competent government would have caught and tried a thief in order to set the legal precedent if they where ever unsure.

This is nothing like copying a movie which does not fit the definition of theft.
Theft A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent
 
Right = you didn't sell what you downloaded.
Wrong = you sold it as your own and are a prick.
Right = nobody was hurt in the transmission of the download. It wasn't Corona.
Wrong = you distributed malware across the corporate network.
Right = your downloads and bandwidth usage paid someone's salary, or at least a part of it. (ISP).
Wrong = you didn't download enough. You could have given someone a higher salary...
You spend 2 years writing a book. Upon release I create digital copies which I make freely available on a popular e-book site and loads of people get your book for free. You don't think there's anything wrong with that? You don't think it's wrong that something you created and intended to be bought is now being freely acquired on piracy sites?

I'm still failing to see how this is framed is being morally correct behavior. Whether you sell the pirated copy is irrelevant. The wrongness creeps in the moment you acquire for free a thing that was intended for you to pay for.
 
You spend 2 years writing a book. Upon release I create digital copies which I make freely available on a popular e-book site and loads of people get your book for free. You don't think there's anything wrong with that? You don't think it's wrong that something you created and intended to be bought is now being freely acquired on piracy sites?

I'm still failing to see how this is framed is being morally correct behavior. Whether you sell the pirated copy is irrelevant. The wrongness creeps in the moment you acquire for free a thing that was intended for you to pay for.

Here is the rebuttal to that:
You could be a professor, a journalist, or just a gifted writer. You have finished your book. It contains your best ideas, the most treasured possession you own. You look for a publisher and find one. You think your job is done. The contract you sign hurriedly because legalese is not your specialty. You sit back and wait for the royalties to roll in.

The book is published, but it is very expensive and doesn’t sell well. Your publisher stops answering your emails. The hoped-for royalties never arrive. It’s disappointing, but what are you going to do?

A few years later, you wonder if you picked the wrong publisher. Maybe you can reuse that material. For the first time, you get curious about that contract you signed. The copyrights to your book belong to the publisher. So too do the distribution rights. You can’t so much as quote your own words on a blog without gaining permission from the publisher. You can do so only at their discretion.

For how long is this true? So that you believe me, I will quote the copyright office itself:

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

That’s right. From your point of view, it never expires. And let us be clear: the right to publish your work is not something you personally possess. It belongs to a publishing house. Even if you were somehow clever enough to get yourself named as the copyright holder, it wouldn’t matter. The distribution rights are owned by the publisher.

Before digital publishing, there was a slight hope that the publisher would stop even carrying your book in the catalog. In that case, after some unspecified number of years, the rights reverted to you, the author.

This is no longer the case, because digital publishing allows publishers to keep you in print at zero cost. In practice, you never again gain access. You wrote the book that contains your ideas, but now you face a full lifetime of having no control over them again.

It’s in the contract. You signed it. There’s no going back.

After you die, your child could inherit your future rights, but it is very likely that he or she will be dead too. You have to rely on your grandchildren to bring your work into print. Just think about how many grandchildren are interested in the writings of granddad. Not likely. Great-grandchildren, less so.

Unless you are self-publishing, and set out to use a specialized contractual system like Creative Commons (of which there are many varieties), this is the situation in which all authors find themselves. It’s doesn’t matter whether it is commercial or academic publishing; the moment you agree to a publisher, your rights are gone for your lifetime plus another lifetime after that.
https://www.aier.org/article/what-authors-should-know-about-copyright/

Copyright isn't really something that is done very well.

Singing the song: Happy Birthday was considered copyright infringement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
The inadvertent utility of piracy is irrelevant. The ends don't justify the means etc. Downloading something you should have paid for is still wrong, even tho we all do it.
You can say the person should have paid for it, but the reality is they probably wouldn't.

You are wrong on two accounts. the most obvious counting a pirate copy as a potential sale which is not the case as either that person didn't have the money or the means to access the product in a way he can pay or he just didn't think it is worth paying for.

Secondly assuming that you retain ownership of an item after it was sold and people cannot share it amongst their friends is just ridiculous. You cannot sell a thing and want to retain ownership. You can at best ensure you have the exclusive rights to sell more of your book.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X