[ SECRET POST #2496 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2496 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #357.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

you're not stealing the work, you're stealing the money the person would get from the work

hth

[(Anonymous)]

This falls through if you are in a situation where the work is not being sold in a format you can access.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah I think that's reasonable enough, I just don't think the "piracy isn't stealing because you're only copying something" argument is really that good

[(Anonymous)]

No one is stealing the money the already own.

If without pirate copies they would get more money or not is debatable, since it depends on whether the people downloading a copy 1) already own it/bought it but have yet to receive it 2) plan to buy it later when they have money 3) plan to buy it later if they like it 4) they would only buy it if it wasn't available for free 5) they won't but it no matter what.

In all those cases, only in 4 the author really loses.

Hell, they could actually selling more thank to pirating and there are several studies that indicate that, as some anons said above.

It's also worth to point that buying something doesn't alway mean the creator(s) get money from that sale, but that's another can of worms.

[(Anonymous)]

only if you would/could have bought it anyway.

hth

[(Anonymous)]

You can't steal what someone does not yet have. At worst you're denying them a sale, which is a whole other ball game--you do that every time you decide to purchase something else or to save your money and not buy anything at all.

Scenario A: I have no money and can't buy the product, and I don't download it either. The seller makes zero profit from me.
Scenario B: I have money, but I spend it on clothes instead of media and do not download the product. The seller makes zero profit from me.
Scenario C: I have money, but I leave it in my bank account for a rainy day and do not download the product. The seller makes zero profit from me.
Scenario D: I have money, but I burn it in my fireplace and do not download the product. The seller makes zero proft from me.
Scenario E: Any of the above, except I do download the product. The seller makes zero profit from me.

If scenarios A-D are fine (or at least not considered a crime against the seller, currency defacement aside,) why is scenario E bad? What is it about getting something for nothing that we see as inherently evil, even if the practical outcome is precisely the same for the "victim" as with multiple other actions that are okay?

[(Anonymous)]

E: you're denying them a sale from something they presumably spent money on creating or buying the rights to expecting a profit in return. The other cases you're doing no such thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, in the other cases I am doing EXACTLY the same thing. Across the board, they were hoping for a sale, and they didn't get a sale. The reason WHY money didn't change hands has no measurable impact whatsoever on their bottom line (unlike actual theft, where the reason matters greatly because they lost not only the sale but also the means to ever make one.) Zero equals zero, whether I wind up with a copy of the thing or not.

Something hoped for or expected is not the same as something that is already in one's possession. If it were, no product or company would ever fail, and everyone who ever bought a lottery ticket would be a millionaire.

[(Anonymous)]

So you're saying that taking a physical copy of a game would be stealing because you're taking a finite resource where as taking a digital copy would not be because it's an infinite one?

[(Anonymous)]

That's one way of expressing it, and I believe that very concept has been proposed and chewed over more than once by much smarter people than me.

[(Anonymous)]

except in pre -internet days there was E looked more like "if I want it, I have to buy it".

Digital copying isn't the same as 'stealing' would be better if you use the borrowing arguments, as in you are borrowing a copy the same was as someone who got one from a library or borrowed from a friend.

Otherwise you are demanding a very narrow focus and definition to prove your point.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

"except in pre -internet days there was E looked more like "if I want it, I have to buy it"."

No, not necessarily. In pre-interet days there already were ways to copy movies, music or whatever. Maybe not as easily but it was there.