/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>689246

Stop stealing. It is stealing. You know it is, stop trying to justify it.

Not trying to sound harsh. I went through the same thing once. Stopped trying to convince myself otherwise. Piracy is theft.

I’ve had this discussion a few times on here, I’ve yet to see a truly convincing argument in favour of piracy. My argument goes as follows:

1. As Christians we are obligated to obey the law

2. Except when following the law would require us to sin

3. Digital piracy is illegal, meaning that it is sinful to do unless doing so is the only good option

4. Paying for movies, tv shows, video games is an option and not sinful unless the content itself is bad, in which case it shouldn’t be pirated either

5. Simply choosing to not consume entertainment products is an option and not sinful

5. If you want to give less or no money to the entertainment industry, then stop consuming its products

>>689253

I mostly pirate theological books and fiction that I can't afford to buy online or find in my country. Some books are expensive

>>689246

>But then she said I only think like that because the products come from giant, rich companies, but if an individual person wrote a digital program or wrote a digitial book and I pirated it, they would be losing income and I'd be gaining their work for free. Makes sense, but I still don't care.

Just think how people would look at it hundreds of years ago, if someone wrote a book, and you made a copy of the book they wrote, would it be considered an act of theft? the whole thing is ridiculous! The amount of the file in question increases, no one loses anything. You can say the creator lost potential profits but that is assuming a lot because, if it wasn't free would you have gotten it in the first place?

>>689262

Further, on his point, -copyright is some recent made-up bull crap. In antiquity, people wrote for fame- they didn't make money off the books (which were rare) but off speaking engagements due to their popularity (which was rarely book driven)

Most writing was done to make the world better, to leave their wisdom to their heirs.

Copyright infringement and piracy is not theft. It is copyright infringement and piracy. It has a name.

Legally, theft is the -taking- of the property of another without their consent. This is literally the legal definition. In copyright infringement and piracy, there is no "taking" to satisfy the law. Hence, they had to make new laws to cover the act.

You can saw what you want about piracy, but don't equate it with theft. It isn't theft to those who work in law. It wouldn't have been theft to the ancients. It's a government-forced monopoly to benefit the rich like everything else.

>>689246

It is not theft. It is unauthorised copying.

>>689269

>Legally, theft is the -taking- of the property of another without their consent.

this. theft isn't wrong because it gives a person a free thing, it's wrong because it unjustly takes a thing away from its rightful owner. piracy doesn't do that, it's sharing a series of 1's and 0's

>>689246

romans 13

>>689246

Piracy isn't a sin because you dont harm anyone with it.

When you download a book you are not taking out 10 bucks from the author's purse without her consent, you merely make a xopy of his work for youe own consumption.

It's pretty much the same thing as borrowing a book from your sister who already paid for it.

Someone buys a video game and decide to share it with you. Did he steal from the creators? No.

Someone buys a movie on dvd and decides to watch it with you. Did he steal? Did you steal? Should you also buy a copy so that you can watch it together? No. Once you buy it, it's yours to share as you wish.

>>689284

>write a book

>everyone "copies" it "digitally" for "free"

>get $0 income

>"it's not theft, they wouldn't have bought it if it cost money :^) "

neat.

>make an album

>everyone "copies" it "digitally" for "free"

>get $0 income

>"it's not theft, they wouldn't have bought it if it cost money :^) "

I see.

>invent the windshield wiper

>show it to Ford co.

>they say it sucks, and tell you its worthless

>they copy the idea anyway and stick in their cars

>it's not theft because you just had an idea, copying ideas isn't theft

OK

I want to feel good about piracy anon, trust me, but the arguments suck

>>689292

Faulty logic.

If you write a book and sell it, it's not yours anymore. If someone bought it, it's his property now to do with as he pleases. And it's utterly unreasonable to expect someone not to share a book with others.

>>689299

>10,000 anonymous people downloading a book or album via torrent

>it's like sharing a book with a friend :^) are you against sharing??

At last I see.

>>689299

>If you write a book and sell it, it's not yours anymore.

you own the rights to the intellectual property, just like if you came up with an invention or made a movie or music album

which means others can't reproduce it, or alter it for their gain, or copy it and put their name on it as the creator, etc…you can give it away, sure, but buying intellectual property doesn't mean you own the rights to it

>>689253

What about things that cannot be (or takes LOTS of effort to) found/purchased legally any more. Like good old songs that did not made it to digital stores.

Even Steven Anderson doesn't care.

At a public library they can buy one copy of a book and hundreds of people can read it over the years without purchasing a copy themselves.

Are public libraries stealing?

To Sell is to Transfer Full Ownership

These anti-piracy laws seems to oppose private ownership / private property.

If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it, lend it, etc., because I own it.

To charge the owner extra to use something he owns or to charge for how he uses it is a form of usury, which the Church has always condemned (cf. Pope Benedict XIV's Vix Pervenit), because usury "is to sell what does not exist" (St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 78 a. 1 c.).

Another question is: Is "intellectual property" even property? N. Stephan Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property (free audiobook & ebook) is an excellent treatment of this and related moral questions.

A Doubtful Law does not Bind

The Internet's Own Boy—the free documentary on Aaron Swartz,* who was famously (some contend unjustly) prosecuted for automating the downloads of thousands and thousands of articles from JSTOR, using MIT's subscription—begins with this quote that is reminiscent of the Catholic moral principle "lex dubia non obligat" ("an unclear law does not bind")

>>689302

This is literally what libraries do.

>>689303

There is no such thing as intellectual property. If two people come up with the same idea who does it belong to?

>>689312

A legal contract that is trying to regulate the immaterial. And if all goods are material, once you buy it you are free to share it as you please. And if some goods are immaterial we can't really regulate them.

>t. Living in a country that allows piracy

>>689253

What would you say if someone is forced to use certain software, which is both commercial and proprietary. To make a specific example, let's say you are studying at a university and your professor demands you turn in your files in Microsoft Office or Adobe CS formats. Would pirating such software be justified, because you don't really have the choice of using it? I understand the argument "if you don't want to give them money, don't consume their products", but this is a case where a company forces you use their products.

I'm asking in general, not for myself. I'm fortunate in that all my university computing needs can be met with a toaster running Free Software, but most students are not in such a position.

>>689347

This, but also with books. What if you are forced to have a certain book. What if you have your grandpa's but they force you to have the last edition?

The book was already paid for and they are are demanding your money for something you already possess.

>is pirating a sin

Is banking a sin?

Piracy hurts the pockets of (((them))) the enemies of the Lord our God.

>>689353

You can't steal something that is not in their possession.

>>689344

>There is no such thing as intellectual property.

oh you're an anarch/commie? what is wrong with you, all your arguments assume a lawless chaotic world that has no basis in reality, where nothing matters and good/evil don't exist. you might as well say rape and murder don't matter because people are just atoms flowing through space.

pathetic

>This is literally what libraries do.

Libraries pay fees to publishers.

>If two people come up with the same idea who does it belong to?

The two people, if they can prove its the same idea, and they came up with it at the same instant of time, which would be extremely rare and bizarre. So they would profit share over it, or come to some agreement over how the product can be sold.

>>689321

>If I buy a CD, I should be able to copy it, lend it, etc., because I own it.

You don't buy the rights to it, goofball.

If I buy a Harry Potter book I can't graphically remove the Author's Name and Publishing code and sell it as my own original work in bookstores.

Holy shit who let these 14year old 90IQ brainlets on /christian/ ??

Downloading a digital copy of code = Not stealing

Downloading said copy of code and selling it as your own = Stealing

Ignore the statists in here that say you have to respect the law of the land because it’s an unjust law in the first place.

>>689366

No, arguments against intellectual property are anarcho capitalist, not communist.

>ITT: gibsmedat

>>689384

>gibsmedat shekels for something that isn’t tangible

>>689385

>It's not stealing when I do it

Nice mental gymnastics.

There is a disturbing subtext to pro-piracy arguments.

While copyrighting general things like speech itself, or specific foods or whatnot is of course ridiculous. copyrighting specific individual executions of an idea is absolutely right and necessary. This is because everything that can be sold, including the physical, starts out as an abstract idea: an intellectual property.

The jaws of life stated out as an idea in someone's head, who then drew a rough schematic of it on paper, before it was mass produced into the physical life saving device it is today. No one can copyright the concept of pottery, but if a man creates a uniquely designed pot, with his own unique visual designs on it and sells it as his own unique creation, anyone making a pot exactly like his and calling it his own and trying to make a profit from it is obviously stealing his idea. No one can copyright paintings, but an actual physical painting that a man creates is his own unique execution of that idea. If you were to perfectly copy a William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting on a canvas, with the same tools he used (oil paint, mediums, etc.) and were to call it your own original creation, you would rightly be called a thief/plagiarizer of his unique execution of the painting concept. In the same way, while you can start your own hamburger chain, you can't make you logo a yellow set of arches over "Mcdonald's" text, and start selling burgers and fries with the exact same recipes and marketing strategies and say "this is my original intellectual property." Once again, you are stealing that specific execution of the idea.

Then we come to books, music, video games, and software in general. If a book is sold in the form of a collection of sheets of highly processed tree pulp, or if music, video games and software are sold on some unique physical proprietary physical form (such as vinyl records for music), pro-pirates will say that it is theft to take such things. However, as soon as these formats become digital or in compact digital disc form, in their eyes, it's no longer theft. What happened? What changed?

This is where the disturbing subtext of pro-piracy comes in. What do formats such as digital and digitally based discs have in common? Copying and distributing them requires a pathetically low level of effort. In other words, when a pro-pirate says "copying is not theft", what they're REALLY saying, sub-textually is this: "If it's EASY to copy, it's not theft."

Let's demonstrate this logic in action:

Sandy wrote a book. Getting your book published by a major publisher is very difficult, and the modern world, economically, is becoming more and more digitally based. So she decides to try her luck with selling/distributing her book digitally.

Pro-pirate copies her book and distributes it via torrent, etc.

Sandy: Stop doing that! I'm trying to make living off my work!

Pro-pirate: Your work is easy to copy and distribute, so it's not stealing.

Sandy: But I worked my butt of on it! It's my unique execution of the written word! If it were a physical book, you wouldn't be doing this!

Pro-pirate: So find a publisher who will make physical copies of your book.

Sandy: It's not that easy or simple!

Pro-pirate: Well, tough break toots. As long as your book is digital, it's easy to copy, and thus, not theft.

>>689393

I remember one time when I was very young (and stupid) I helped out "friends" (who I've since broken off with) with a shoplift. In the aftermath, I felt crushing guilt and sickness to my stomach, and never wanted to do it again. When I used to be a pirate/so-called "ethical pirate"(I'll pay for it when I get the money!"), I would feel no such feelings. I just clicked with a mouse, and boom, it was there. I didn't feel any guilt or a drive to rid myself of such things until I became a Christian.

Thus, in addition to ease of copying, a lack of guilt/adrenaline rush that comes from physical stealing is a major part of the pro-pirate's rationalization. And you can see this in action as things become easier and easier to copy.

Vinyl records are now easier to copy than before. The phenomenon of illegal emulation and ROMS is the product of some individuals figuring out how to digitally copy game cartridges and distribute them online, making them easy to acquire. As 3-D printing technology advances, it's going to become a pirates wet dream.

In the far flung future, if someone came up with some sort of a ray gun that you could go to a car lot with, zap a car, and instantaneously perfectly duplicate the car and a set of keys right on the spot, the pro-pirate would not consider this theft, even though if such a practice became wide-spread, Car dealerships would go out of business very quickly.

God commanded us not to steal. Jesus also told a parable of all of us being endowed with talents by him ( Matthew 25:14-30). If someone distributes their talents in a format that is easy to copy, for the sake of said person making a living that person's attempt to make a living should be respected, period. Even if their idea/intellectual property is painfully easy to copy and distribute, and even if you feel absolutely entitled to said idea/intellectual property because of whatever flimsy rationalization you come up with.

>>689394

Almost forgot - there is also the phenomenon of people scanning in physical books, page by page, and then distributing them in a digitized format. Once again, as long as even a physical object becomes easy to copy/distribute/gain, it no longer becomes "theft" in the eyes of a pro-pirate.

>>689396

As you can see: the "If it's easy to copy, it's not theft" logic of a pirate, becomes a literal slippery slope very quickly and easily.

>>689393

>copyrighting specific individual executions of an idea is absolutely right and necessary.

Imagine if the apostles had copyrighted their works and prohibited people from copying and distributing them, all in the name of greed. In all likelihood Christianity would have stayed a little sect now long-forgotten by history.

Freely you have received; freely give.

>>689399

>Wanting to freely distribute an idea far and wide.

>Wanting to make a living as a writer with digital books so that you can put food on the table and possibly take care of your family is all in the name of greed.

Big difference.

Think.

>>689400

>selling digital books

There's no such thing as a "digital book". Here's the definition of a book:

1. a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

How about selling "real" books and not pretend ones?

>>689403

Literally addressed this flimsy argument near the end of this post:

>>689393

You're also proving my point about the "If it's easy to copy, it's not theft" argument of pro-pirates.

>>689255

do a hail mary for each copy and youre in it to win it

>>689403

There's also the fact that, as I pointed out here: >>689396 even the physicality of books does not prevent piracy.

>>689404

I read you're whole post. A digital series of 1's and 0's is still not a book. You can call it a "work", but it's not a book, anymore than it is a scroll.

>>689412

"Book", "work" "scroll", so what? If someone is trying to make a living and you steal by not paying for it, it's theft. At this point I can't tell if you're trolling in bad faith, or if your mental gymnastics are this outrageously elaborate.

>>689393

>This is where the disturbing subtext of pro-piracy comes in. What do formats such as digital and digitally based discs have in common? Copying and distributing them requires a pathetically low level of effort. In other words, when a pro-pirate says "copying is not theft", what they're REALLY saying, sub-textually is this: "If it's EASY to copy, it's not theft."

No, if you painstakingly transcribe the text from one book on to your own copy, that would also not be theft. Theft is taking something from another person, so that they do not have it any more and you do. This is copying, which is different.

>>689417

>"If I keep repeating the "Copying is not theft" meme in those "Question Copyright" videos enough times and loud enough, even in the face of contrary evidence, it'll be true!"

Why do I even bother?

>>689412

>noun

>a handwritten or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.

a work of fiction or nonfiction in an electronic format:

>Your child can listen to or read the book online.

>See also e-book(def 1).

a number of sheets of blank or ruled paper bound together for writing, recording business transactions, etc.

>a division of a literary work, especially one of the larger divisions.

Huh???

>>689419

>Sure, copying is not theft by the definition of theft, but let's act as if all the evidence is to the contrary

>>689419

>>689424

Speaking of which, I wonder….

https://questioncopyright.org/no_more_store

GWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Selling things and maintaining a business requires…. effort? Who would've thunk?

And honestly, if the posts I wrote aren't enough to shake you out of your rationalization via semantic games, I don't know what will.

>>689415

>You steal from someone when you take something that someone else gives you after they paid for it to the producer.

wew lad

Also, when you digitalize a book, that is no longer a book, it's a set of information that is stored on your hard-drive. YOUR hard-drive. Meaning that everything on it is yours.

Copyright? Good luck with that. Ideas are no-one's property.

>>689431

This is just getting monotonous and pathetic now:

>You steal from someone when you take something that someone else gives you after they paid for it to the producer.

Are you seriously trying to equate someone giving you their used book, with pirating a digital book when you should pay for it?

>Once a book becomes digitized, it's no longer a "book", so it's okay to steal.

Semantic games; again.

>Copyright? Good luck with that. Ideas are no-one's property.

Once again, addressed this flimsy argument here:

>>689393

>>689394

>>689396

>>689397

Notice how the pro-piracy arguments have started to progress from "Copying isn't theft/Easy copying isn't theft" to "Once something becomes digital, it's no longer what it was, so it's okay to steal." As I basically said before, if pirates could figure out a way to digitize a car, and then make it a physical copy again, they would rationalize it as being not theft.

The fact that the mental gymnastics are getting more and more elaborate and ludicrous is telling.

>>689432

The real mental gymnasts are those that try to rationalize copying as theft. Spoiler alert: copying is how books were distributed for thousands of years. Furthermore, christian monasteries were by far the biggest culprits. And yet, the idea that they were stealing was never a point of contention. Why? Because the idea of intellectual property is new and absolutely absurd. "But poor Sally! She can't make money selling adult romance novels on kindle???" Well no, it's not because someone puts work into something that they are morally deserving of compensation. If someone tries to make money off of an absurd idea, like selling intellectual "property", they are playing a fool's game and don't deserve money or respect for what they do, and least of all the money they get from the suckers who buy into their scam.

I feel like we just had this thread. Did OP pirate it?

>>689368

>>689393

Horrible example. If you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy.

The fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce. Ideas are not naturally scarce, but by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before.

>>689447

>If someone tries to sell something digitally, it's okay to steal because making money off of something digtal is new and absurd!

True.

>People making money off of the oral recitation of poetry/performance of play is new and absurd! They did it for free before!

True.

>People trying to make money off of putting their words (stories, plays, etc.) on smashed and highly processed tree pulp, is new and absurd! They don't deserve our money!

When did I say that books are new? Are you being daft on purpose.

Btw, repeating arguments and calling them mental gymnastics doesn't make them so. You should try articulating counter-arguments instead of screaming about "muh mental gymnastics". However, it's obvious from the way you're reacting that you've been cornered and have nothing to say.

>>689292

But, I'm fine with #3 too.

Patent is as absurd as copyright and and piracy law. I'm only glad the windshield wiper guy got paid because it was finally a day when the law benefiting an average Joe, instead of only benefiting the uber-elite.

The best law, however, would eliminate patent and copyright law. Do you know how many millions, probably billions, are wasted each year on patent lawyers? This is a net loss to society, smart people could be inventing stuff or making stuff and instead they make their money by arguing who owns what idea. Literally ten of thousands, if not more, people make over 100K a year to create nothing of value - just argue about ownership. You think that's a good system?

Not to mention all the inventors it keeps out of the market. If average Joe invents something original, he'll still be sued into oblivion by 20 patent troll attorneys and rarely makes any money off it.

There's like 100 patents alone on just carbon nanofibers that are gumming up the works so no one can work on nanotechnology without getting sued.

So, yeah, all the pro-piracy arguments are really solid when you look at the social ramifications of enforcing them.

>>689292

>invent miracle cure

>copyright it to sell it at a thousand times the cost of making it

>make billions form the rich while the poor die

OK!

>>689447

That first part of your pic is some pretty ridiculous gymnastics. Legally, piracy is not theft. An element of theft requires the taking, again TAKING of another's property. The property must be tangible- hypothetical things like lost profits are damages, not a taking, and do not support a theory of theft. LEGALLY PIRACY IS NOT THEFT, THAT'S WHY IT FALLS UNDER PIRACY LAW AND HAS A SPECIAL LAW WRITTEN FOR IT.

Now, copyright and patent law is also horribly damaging to society, see >>689455

So, while I can see the argument that we should all respect the law as written, we should all also be desperately lobbying to eliminate copyright and patent law.

>>689457

That falls under patent, not copyright, but it still accurate regarding how things would go down.

>>689312

> then the company doesn't lose profit.

Not true. The sales are a direct consequence of supply and demand, and the demand function is altered when the product is consumed. Therefore if consumption occurs without purchase, the company experiences a comparative loss.

>>689470

Furthermore, it is invalid to control for scope with statements like, "if pirate never intended to purchase" because a) consumers often change their minds over time and b) social affect e.g. his friends see him playing the game or play with him, thereby altering their consumer demand functions directly and associatively.

>>689452

>When did I say that books are new? Are you being daft on purpose?

My point is that at one time they were new, in the same manner of making money from oral recitation/performances was once new. People did pay to get in to see Shakespeare's plays.

>Btw, repeating arguments and calling them mental gymnastics doesn't make them so. You should try articulating counter-arguments instead of screaming about "muh mental gymnastics". However, it's obvious from the way you're reacting that you've been cornered and have nothing to say.

Lord have mercy, the projection.

>>689460

Once again, the early part of your post is just regurgitating the "Copying is not theft!" argument, yet again. This time with a "They're saying piracy instead of theft so it's completely different!" twist. Piracy is literally a synonym for theft. In this case, for a specific form of theft.

I actually somewhat agree with you and >>689455 that there are flaws to the law, but that does not justify breaking it wholesale. Like you somewhat said, I do think there should be lobbying to change the flawed aspects of the law, but not to outright do away with it.

>>689246

piracy is illegal, and the law is just. You have to abstain from it on account of romans 13.

>>689476

>Piracy is literally a synonym for theft. In this case, for a specific form of theft.

This is where you get it very wrong. You believe that because they have created this artificial monopoly called IP it somehow equates to theft. Even the term piracy makes it look as a theft even though it is legally quite different from theft. They have already given you a million reasons with it is NOT LITERALLY theft.

>>689476

> People did pay to get in to see Shakespeare's plays.

Would they have paid to have the right to write down the play? No, of course not. Therein lies the whole point of this argument. People paid to see the play i.e. see something entertaining.

>>689487

>He literally goes from "Making money off plays is absurd." to "Making money off plays is fine, but I should be able to copy the play and distribute it freely!"

You're being intellectually dishonest and you know it. When people see the play, they pay not for the "play" itself, but to see it reenacted by actors on a stage. In other words, they pay for a service, a show. Not an abstract thing, but a tangible thing. I don't know why you're choosing these bad arguments on purpose.

>>689499

>Performances and services are tangible, not abstract…..

A live play performance (unless you own a recording on DVD) is a physical object that you can own and contain? Someone washing your car is a physical object that you can own and contain? No. Yet it has tangible affects. A digital book can have tangible effects in terms of emotions stirred or new ideas implanted, same thing with a live play performance, in spite of being abstract. Live play performances and car washes are abstract, yet okay to pay for, but digital books are not?

>>689500

>"Copying is not theft! I repeated it again! Surely that'll make it right this time!"

>"Laws are flawed so they're okay to break!"

Vid related: how I'm feeling at this point. (And yes, I got that clip from the official channel, so it's not piracy.)

>>689432

>Are you seriously trying to equate someone giving you their used book, with pirating a digital book when you should pay for it?

It is the exact same thing.

Someone buys a book and decides to share it with whomever he pleases.

If the author feels this is not monetarily satisfying, he should price the book accordingly.

>Semantic games; again.

It is literally a physical book becoming digital data on your hard-drive. Semantics don't even enter this concept.

>Once again, addressed this flimsy argument here:

You addressed nothing you just tried to assert the strongly questionable claim that an idea can be property.

It can't be. The same people can come up with the same ideas fully independently of each other, meaning that ideas are not made, they are discovered, meaning that they are not the property of the first discoverer but the property of anyone who can get there with their mind.

So liberalism is not the property of one man the same way communism wasn't the property of another.

>Notice how the pro-piracy arguments have started to progress from "Copying isn't theft/Easy copying isn't theft" to "Once something becomes digital, it's no longer what it was, so it's okay to steal."

Copying literally isn't theft though.

Not to mention that no, I don't have to digitalize a book to be able to share it with whomever I please, given how the book is my property to do with as I please, once I paid the price for it.

Your retarded idea that I stole your "future profits" is easily dismantled by the fact that the future doesn't exist, meaning that I can't possibly have stolen from you, after all you never had those profits in the first place, and by sharing my property with someone I am not taking anything from the author, I simply give what is mine to give.

>>689503

>"Copying is not theft! I repeated it again! Surely that'll make it right this time!"

Look, literally, copyright infringement does not satisfy the traditional definition of theft. It's that simple. What's your counter-argument?

>>689504

>>689505

Same arguments. Already made counter-arguments.

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!:

>>689503

>>689507

>If I scream that they are wrong someone will believe me!

>>689507

What's your definition of theft. Mine is the common law definition.

>>689507

I've read the thread. I don't see your argument, just nay-saying. You keep calling infringement theft, but you ignore that they are separate laws with separate definitions.

If what you mean if copyright infringement is -like- theft, in what way do you mean and how does it matter?

If what you mean is that we should think of copyright infringement like theft, why? How is that socially beneficial? Obviously, this perspective has been pushed heavily by the owners of copyright- for financial reasons. But copyright infringement wasn't viewed as theft until the advent of the internet. So, why should we listen to people lobbying in their own interest?

>>689246

>>689500

Addendum

Opinions on the moral duty to pirate if the proceeds would help to spread sin or evil? I know in general that Christians should limit their consumption of media which portrays sin positively, but even a "good" piece of media made by some company like EA is going to subsidize their productions of moral garbage. Seems to potentially be reason enough to disobey a spuriously justified law, in certain cases. Again, 830cb0 don't bother.

>>689503

>>689507

It isn't theft and is not illegal for me, tough shit NERD

>>689510

>So, why should we listen to people lobbying in their own interest?

You should lobby in your interest.

This is literally just a battlefield over what reality should be.

Do you want to live in a world where ideas can be put in a prison and ransomed for money and everything has a price-tag on it, or do you want ideas to be free of such talmudic tyranny?

>>689509

>>689508

>>689510

>>689511

Now the argument has shifted to "Define theft." and an ad hominum. I've already defined the social beneficialness of such laws as people being able to make a living. It's not rocket science.

>It can't be. The same people can come up with the same ideas fully independently of each other, meaning that ideas are not made, they are discovered, meaning that they are not the property of the first discoverer but the property of anyone who can get there with their mind.

>So liberalism is not the property of one man the same way communism wasn't the property of another.

>>689513

So why not just make everything free? Why did God make that silly "Thou shalt not steal" commandment anyway?

Which will inevitably be responded with:

>Only physical property is theft!

Again. The cycle continues. And it's all about people desperately trying to rationalize getting stuff for free/stealing with a clean conscience. It's sickening.

>>689503

Well the seat that you pay for at a show is real, tangible. The ebook you pay for is imaginary. See the difference?

>>689518

Now you're just trolling.

>>689517

>So why not just make everything free?

It wasn't free. Someone paid for it.

As a result the product became his property to do with as he pleases.

>Why did God make that silly "Thou shalt not steal" commandment anyway?

Because stealing is wrong.

Which piracy isn't, because piracy isn't theft.

>Only physical property is theft!

Any property can only exist in the physical realm. Ideas are literally not property.

>The cycle continues.

?

>And it's all about people desperately trying to rationalize getting stuff for free/stealing with a clean conscience.

>People don't want to pay for my role as a middle man after they discovered that they don't need me.

>It's sickening.

>muh opinions

>>689519

Not an argument.

>>689520

>It wasn't free. Someone paid for it.

>As a result the product became his property to do with as he pleases.

In other words, you're affirming my original argument that physical property originates from abstract ideas: >>689393

>The jaws of life stated out as an idea in someone's head, who then drew a rough schematic of it on paper, before it was mass produced into the physical life saving device it is today. No one can copyright the concept of pottery, but if a man creates a uniquely designed pot, with his own unique visual designs on it and sells it as his own unique creation, anyone making a pot exactly like his and calling it his own and trying to make a profit from it is obviously stealing his idea. No one can copyright paintings, but an actual physical painting that a man creates is his own unique execution of that idea. If you were to perfectly copy a William-Adolphe Bouguereau painting on a canvas, with the same tools he used (oil paint, mediums, etc.) and were to call it your own original creation, you would rightly be called a thief/plagiarizer of his unique execution of the painting concept.

>In the same way, while you can start your own hamburger chain, you can't make you logo a yellow set of arches over "Mcdonald's" text, and start selling burgers and fries with the exact same recipes and marketing strategies and say "this is my original intellectual property." Once again, you are stealing that specific execution of the idea.

>>689522

You know exactly what I meant, and you twisted it.

>>689523

>you're affirming my original argument

That would require ideas to be property, which they aren't.

There is no such thing as "your idea".

>>689246

Next time just start reciting all the crimes committed under the disguise of copyright and how art and human culture gets actively destroyed by the same criminals.

>>689528

>just start reciting all the crimes committed under the disguise of copyright

Like for example?

>>689526

Under that logic, since all physical property has it's ultimate origins as an idea, that means even physical "property" is not property, and everything should just be free. That doesn't tend to work out to well in this fallen world. Even primitive societies at least had a bartering/community contribution system of some sort. God said thou shalt not steal, and assigned various peoples talents for a reason.

>>689529

https://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/

>>689530

That is not logical at all.

In order to turn an idea into a product you have to extend effort, which turns that idea into a material product. A material product that you trade for whatever you wish, thus transferring it's ownership to the buyer, who may do with it as he pleases.

Once you sell a product, it's forever out of your hands however so you should literally be very careful about what price you ask for your product.

>>689517

The argument you made is that it is theft, which it isn't, and so you're the one doing the shifting. And it's socially beneficial, except for all the ways in which it's the opposite of socially beneficial, like when it's abused, of which there are a plurality of examples, so we're left with:

1) It's not theft which is explicitly prohibited

2) It's largely not illegal in many places and so it is not an issue of obedience to the law (and it arguably ought not to be illegal in places it is)

3) It is therefore a prudential judgment on a case by case basis

There really is no other conclusion, to say that it is always sinful in general is completely wrong, and you've for some reason decided to bolster the weak case for IP with the much stronger case for copyright, despite the fact that the social utility of one has precious little to do with the other. I can see the potentially dire consequences of depriving a talented genius of the profit of his inventions because of copycats, in that he may not have the means/will to continue on making revolutionary invention.

Yet the disastrous consequences of relying on patronage for the arts is…? A potential replay of the richest era for the arts in human history? I may not think much of the current cultural elite, they want to be fed garbage, but mass media and corporate product are inherently garbage. With the internet, patronage by the common people for talented artists is more possible than ever, this valuable product being set adrift in the sea of bilge pumped out by corporate IP giants is about as far from social utility as possible.

But see what you've done? You've got me to reply to you again, what do you winnie the pooh work for disney? Ought to teach me to waste my time trying to teach common sense to some winnie the pooh corporation worshipping nerd.

>>689530

You're genuinely an idiot

>>689533

Now THAT is evil.

>>689534

And we're back to the "only theft if it's physical" argument" One does not have to extend effort to create a digital book, game, or movie? Even if they may not be physical? It doesn't take an extension of effort to formulate a scientific theory/hypothesis? (yet the scientist get's payed for such abstract concepts via grants and awards and recognition)

>>689535

>The argument you made is that it is theft, which it isn't, and so you're the one doing the shifting.

"Copying is not theft" argument again.

>It's not illegal everywhere.

Fine, but it should still be followed where it is illegal. (and outright legality with no laws whatsoever is questionable at best, as you yourself will soon say.)

>It can be abused.

Once again, that is not an excuse to break the law, but a rallying cry to reform it.

>I can see the potentially dire consequences of depriving a talented genius of the profit of his inventions because of copycats, in that he may not have the means/will to continue on making revolutionary invention.

Okay, we agree on something. Even you acknowledge a place for such laws.

>Yet the disastrous consequences of relying on patronage for the arts is…?

Reliance on copyright or patronage should be the decision of the artist, not you.

And more ad hominums. I may have attacked the ideas and thinking you believe, but I have never attacked or denigrated you as a person. At worst, I've stated you're engaging in theft if you promote said mentalities, but only because I'm concerned about the promotion of theft on this board and thus the souls of you and those who might buy into this. But honestly, if you getting angry at me possibly helps you change in the long run and not suffer eternal damnation, so be it.

>>689538

Agreed, that is legitimately pure evil.

>>689541

Are you really this dense or do you not understand that THEFT has a strict definition in the legal world and you cannot out of nowhere change that definition

>>689556

This is true. Copying is not legally "theft". It is, however, copyright infringement and should, thus, be avoided by proper Christians.

Stop playing video games, loser. Or just by the DVD if its a movie. Or stop watching movies too. Read a book, nibba.

>>689538

Didn't everyone commit copyright infringement by copying the Ten Commandments from Moses? I mean he got in a contract with god for getting them. And if not wouldn't the Ten Commandments be the prove that god intended that free use be the way forward? Which would make copyright the work of the devil.

>>689571

Stop calling people "loser". If you can't communicate without insulting people, then don't communicate at all.

>>689573

God told Moses to share them freely. Thus the copyright holder - God - gave them to the public domain.

>>689576

Which would make Public Domain gods gift to humanity, and a Human using copyright a heretic abusing the power of god.

>>689580

Uh, no, that's not how it works. God put His word in the public domain. That means someone trying to sell His word is a heretic. God didn't put Harry Potter in the public domain, therefor, Rowling can decide for herself whether to sell it or give it away.

>somebody designs and sells a cool looking, unique doorknob in a hardware store

>you are a carpenter

>you go home and design and produce an identical door knob with your tools/skills

>"durr thats theft and stealing because you're not giving your money to someone else who did it first"

Intelectual property is not a real thing. You don't own ideas that come out of your head

>>689581

So then how can god be called a copyright holder when he always intended to spread his wisdom to Moses for free? There was never a claim from god that this wisdom was his property. (correct me if I'm wrong) And with no property claim from god, sharing your thoughts for free should've been the intended way forward.

>>689513

Right. We should lobby in our own interest. Hence, not being a billionaire, I'm arguing that copyright and patent hurts the average man, it should be erased from law like it was, at least, for the first 5,700 years of society.

And it most certainly isn't theft.

> I've already defined the social beneficialness of such laws as people being able to make a living.

I disagree. The costs of copyright and patent law produce a net social negative. Better that people spend their time producing tangible goods to make money than encouraging them to produce works that appeal to purient interests. I'd even argue the porn industry would diminish significantly if there was no copyright protection for it.

>So why not just make everything free?

Because in one case you deprive a person of something of limited substance. In the other case, you are depriving a person of hypothetical profits.

God doesn't care about hypothetical profits off of ideas. At least, he didn't make a commandment about it.

>>689246

Her argument is a fallacy, copying and pasting isn't theft, end of disscusion

Now if it's against the law of the land that's another issue.

>>689604

>Better that people spend their time producing tangible goods to make money than encouraging them to produce works that appeal to purient interests.

Best Buy has stopped selling CDs. The PS4 section at a Wal-Mart I went to was all cards good for digital downloads. Physical PC games are all but gone, replaced by Steam and GOG and the like. Digital book selling has cut out the middle man and has freed a lot of authors to self-publish (both for good and bad.) DVD/BluRay combo packs aren't including digital copies by coincidence. A lot of mediums are moving towards the digital, and to think this is going to be rolled back anytime soon, if ever, short of a Mad Max-esque apocalyptic event, is wishful thinking at best, barring God's will.

In an eventual marketplace where you can only acquire something digitally, if think you can convince me that buying or stealing and distributing a digital product via torrent to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people at a time, is the same thing as sharing or giving your physical copy to a single friend or neighbor, and isn't theft due to dozens to thousands of people not paying for the product like they are legally supposed to, you're either trolling or deluded. Besides, if there is content out there that is degenerate, then don't buy it in the first place!

>>689556 See above.

>>689564

Legal semantic shenanigans don't matter because:

>you are depriving a person of hypothetical profits.

Which is theft, because the only reason why said profits become "hypothetical" is because of those who are stealing said profits in the first place.

The only reason pro-pirates are so adamant about being anal-retentively precise about terms like "theft" and "copying" and "piracy" is due to image. "Copying" sounds a lot more innocent than "theft." Personally don't know why they would prefer "piracy" over "theft" They're basically synonyms. Or if you absolutely have to get pedantically technical about it: "Piracy" evokes robbery on the high seas, even in it's dictionary definition, thus "Theft."

>God doesn't care about hypothetical profits off of ideas.

>God doesn't care about you obeying the law or depriving people of the only profit that they can get in an all or mostly digital marketplace.

Will you honestly be able to say that to God's face when the dread judgment comes?

Y'all should be listening to this fellow here:

>>689566

>>689635

>In an eventual marketplace where you can only acquire something digitally, if think you can convince me that buying or stealing and distributing a digital product via torrent to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people at a time, is the same thing as sharing or giving your physical copy to a single friend or neighbor, and isn't theft due to dozens to thousands of people not paying for the product like they are legally supposed to, you're either trolling or deluded. Besides, if there is content out there that is degenerate, then don't buy it in the first place!

Charles Dickens, a very important writer in the closer-to-modern era, managed a living without the existence of copyright law. Not one of Dickens' works was copywritten.

How did he get paid, you ask? By the word. Once he published, that was all he ever got paid. Now, it is true that it would be hard to sell even the initial publication because of how fast copying can occur these days. This is why the model of the future is holding work for hostage.

Writers/musicians/etc. need to charge -before- creating a work, based on their previous work. Once enough patrons have assembled their wage, they release the product into circulation forever and wait for their next wage to accrue.

This was how it was done for millenia. Patreon is already at the forefront of this. There was a brief, weird period in history where technology improved to the point where government could inefficient monopolistic laws but had not yet improved to the point where people could circumvent them with extreme ease. That point has passed. Copyright will someday be a blip in the history books as somewhat backwards, strange and regulated to a very small period of time.

>Which is theft, because the only reason why said profits become "hypothetical" is because of those who are stealing said profits in the first place.

No, many people would not purchase the products they pirate. That's why the profits are hypothetical. Obviously some would, but I doubt most would actually buy the product.

Really, even piracy is a misnomer. That requires theft under the color of government. What it is, is infringement of another's rights. No more, no less.

>Will you honestly be able to say that to God's face when the dread judgment comes?

I'll accept God's judgment. I put my faith in Jesus Christ. But if you think giving billionaire-owned, multi-national corporations your money is being a good steward, you're joking.

Buying the products is just as sinful as partaking in them because you're giving evil people money. The only answer is to not partake- which is not the answer I think you want to come to.

>>689686

>Be you

>Make argument that you can't own intellectual property

>Realize nothing you said couldn't be used to justify the confiscation of your labor

>Begome Gommunist

>Get shot in the purges

Slowing down medical progress? Really? If you want to research drugs for charity, nobody is stopping you from doing so, but if you make it impossible to profit from making new drugs, very few new drugs will be made. You can sit and argue until you're blue in the face that it's unfair that medical companies charge people for medicine, but creating intellectual property requires blood, sweat, and tears. SOMEBODY has to pay for it, and you have zero right to tell anybody that they should be required to work for free. You want free drugs? YOU can go make them.

>>689313

I wonder about this too… I try not to pirate anymore but I still do if it's something like music that I can't get digitally otherwise even though I WANT to pay for it. My only option would be buying an expensive physical disc and then ripping it… That might just mean I should simply participate in the market properly regardless of how I have to obtain it, dunno…

>>689670

>"my sense of morality changes when I can benefit financially from it"

>calls others heathens

>Muh piracy

What about usury? Far more rampant, basically the whole capitalism is built upon it.

It's much easier to bash people who download stuff. It's mostly low effort virtue signaling. When those people talk the same way about the whole banking system being a sin, then I'm willing to discuss this with them.

>>689739

>"I call people hypocrites when they get the other side of the fence and find out what they do actually hurts people. I have literally never met somebody who changed their mind after being a victim, and will continue to believe that what I do doesn't hurt anyone so I can continue to download free crap."

>>689741

Off topic. The topic of the thread isn't "What's the worst thing going on in society." It's "Is piracy wrong." Whether something else is more common or more wrong is irrelevant.

Buying this media gives money to bad people, Hollywood, the music industry, sjw gamers, these are sinful evil people and giving them money you can't afford (I pirate because I'm poor) then I believe its s greater evil because these industries are antichristian and immoral.

>>689767

The exact reasoning the Jews use in the Talmud to say it's ok to steal from Gentiles.

>>689752

People who change their stance -after- becoming a victim are weak-minded and selfish. If that's how you operate, you're proving your inability to empathize with anyone until you're hurting.

This is the same idiocy of those who lose their faith because something bad happens to them.

I've created works that I could have copywritten. I choose not to because I believe copyright is ridiculous. I will always feel this way, and haven't chosen a career that would require copyright because of my beliefs. I know others that feel the same.

The biggest supporters of copyright are multinational corporatins. The average common person who supports copyright does so because he's greedy and has fantasies of becoming a millionaire of his artistic expression.

Most people see an unjust, legalistic monopoly when they see it and are willing to decry it, but greed is a powerful motivator in copyright support.

>>689767

If you don't want to support the companies. Then don't consume their media. It's not right that you would sin in order to stop sin.

>>690034

>It's not right that you would sin in order to stop sin.

You're right. His argument is that, while piracy and partaking is evil, giving those evil companies money to boot is even more evil. I have a tendency to agree.

But, true, non-consumption is best.

>>689246

The US Code doesn't even treat copyright and theft under the same article. See: http://uscode.house.gov/

Nor has copyright infringement ever been tried as theft, in the US, or anywhere. Calling it 'theft' has always been a lie. As to the morality of violating copyright law, laws are only binding when they're in line with the common good, which copyright's opposed to. Copyright reduces culture from a form of human interaction to a commodity to be leased out by merchants, which has predictably lead to the break down of family and community, the triumph of consumerism and Mammon over the Church and society. Every Christian has a duty to oppose copyright law in all its forms, and all the lies ('unauthorized copying is theft') that go with it.

>>690006

>People who change their stance -after- becoming a victim are weak-minded and selfish.

Argumentum ad hominem. This has nothing to do with whether a person is wrong.

>This is the same idiocy of those who lose their faith because something bad happens to them.

No. It's not. It's like somebody who stops stealing after somebody breaks into their house and they find out what it's like or somebody who, you know, comes to faith after realizing that they're scummy sinners.

>I've created works that I could have copywritten. I choose not to because I believe copyright is ridiculous.

That's nice. How does this give you the right to revoke that choice to other people?

>The biggest supporters of copyright are multinational corporatins.

BS. The biggest supporters of expanding current copyright law (which is, in fact, BS) are corporations.

>The average common person who supports copyright does so because he's greedy and has fantasies of becoming a millionaire of his artistic expression.

Nice straw man. It's really easy to victimize people when you see them as bad people, but I don't remember anything Biblical about "Thou shalt not steal…unless the person you steal from is greedy. Then, it's totally ok," or the ever popular "Obey those in authority over you, unless you don't like their rules and think they benefit other people more than you."

>Most people see an unjust, legalistic monopoly when they see it and are willing to decry it, but greed is a powerful motivator in copyright support.

[citation needed]

Anon, you are attempting to justify your downright sinful disrespect of the law and the work of others by painting your victims as horrible, greedy, sinners, which still has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not what you're doing is wrong. Repent and find forgiveness, and if you don't want to give these "evil, greedy people" money, then take an ACTUAL moral stand and stop consuming their crap.

Ok lets say this. I have a physical book that I read last year and my friend wants to read it, i let him borrow it for free and to return it once he has read it. That's not stealing.

Now let's say i have a pdf of a book i bought online. Lets also say i have 500 friends who want to read this book as well. If i send then a copy for free , it is not stealing either.

This invalidates the argument that arguments based on medium CAN change. Invalidating a lot ot the argumentation above.

>>689246

A law is morally binding in all occasions the lawgiver meant it to bind, in whatever manner he intended it to bind.

I would, based on this, argue that in cases of pirating from big companies, the law is a purely penal one (i.e. it doesn't create - or recognise an already existing, natural law one - a moral obligation to never do x, whether you get caught or not - rather, it creates a moral obligation to obey the authorities once you get caught). To use an example: laws against e.g. murder bind you morally to not do the act of murdering, whether you later get caught or not. In case of a purely penal law on the other hand, the lawgiver doesn't care if you do the act the law talks about - he only cares that you don't cause problems and submit if you get caught.

Do you think a giant company cares if some random guy downloaded one file? I doubt the lawgiver cares either if you are downloading like this (since the owner consents, and so it can't be called stealing), as long as you submit to the authorities if the owner decides to (although the owner would consent to the downloading in this case, an open and public approval would cause harm to them - so the lawgiver in this case wouldn't want you to escape the penalty and would rather want you to submit). In other words - it seems you can do it without moral fault, as long as you submit yourself to authorities if you get caught.

>>689566

I've also become less materialistic recently, it makes me feel free.

>>690405

>Author writes a book

>Expects $10 for book

>You download book without paying

>Author just lost your $10

You stole $10 from the author. Repent.

>>689246

Use free software, free not meaning free of price, but free as in free speech.

>>690405

Data isn't property though. It's a bunch of 0s and 1s in a particular order. What teachings of Jesus are a gainst piracy?

>>690415

>Author writes book

>book costs $10

>I'm not going to buy book anyways

>I pirate book

Look at that, i just made the author not lose any money. Or:

>game company makes game

>I don't know if I will like the game

>I pirate and play the game

>the game is good

>I buy the game

Here, the creators earned money. In fact, a study by the UK showed that gaming piracy increases sales.

>>690415

Lol.

You know that, for illustration, if a book costs 10 dollars, 9.95 will go to the publisher and the author gets 5 cents?

You should know that the authors of books are very rarely bothered by piracy. They already make very little money from sales, and in the case of theological books, they tend to be pleased that their findings can be shared with other religious people at least.

>>690415

tfw this attitude is common among muslim shopkeepers and it's extremely annoying for tourists

>guys run a shop

>expects people to buy from his shop

>enter and leave the shop without buying anything

>guy feel like he just lost money and is mad at you

>>690485

In terms of increasing sales, this is actually true. I and all my friends pirate games to see if we like them before buying them so we can play MP

>walk into bookstore

>read a bit of a book

>hmm not really my kind of thing,put it down and leave

>tfw I just stole the writers intellectual property

>>690415

Except for the fact that piracy isn't theft and literally nothing was taken away from the author. His book was paid for which means that it's no longer his and than it was freely shared by it's new owner. Don't like it? Put a bigger price tag on it next time.

>>690674

The books don't even belong to the author. Once he sold it to a publisher he doesn't really have a say over anything anymore.

He gets a low % of future profits and that's all and again, you can't steal something that doesn't exist, meaning that "future profits" ain't real and thus can't be stolen.

>How could anybody be so stupid as to engage in obvious sin? Does he not realize that all of his exceptions are just based on making excuses and blaming the victim?

>This isn't sin because it doesn't actually hurt anybody and everybody it hurts is a greedy, awful person who deserves it.

We all make excuses for the one sin we just can't do without. Use it legally or not at all. All other choices are sin.

According to Aquinas, a law is:

<an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2090.htm#article4)

He also quotes Augustine:

<a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.(http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm)

Therefore if a law is against the common good (in this case reducing consumer welfare and innovation), it's not truly a law and thus not binding in conscience, no matter what the ruling authorities say.

>>689533

God bless you for having the balls to post that here.

>>690717

It's not theft. The company pays the website after clicks. I there are no clicks there will be no income, but if you wouldn't click an ad anyway, it literally doesn't make any difference if you blocked them or not.

Not to mention that imho we are all duty bound to block ads in ordee to avoid the disguating porn ads on the internet.

Personally, if the money goes to the artist directly, such as an indie developer or small band, then downloading the thing illegally is immoral as you are taking money directly from the worker (Luke 10:7)

However if none of the money goes to the worker and instead to the record label via them legally owning it then id say funding the music industry that is full of paedophiles is perhaps sinful in itself, especially if this content is easily available though youtube and such.

This also brings to question, what is considered piracy by the persons government, here in the UK they don't follow you unless you show your IP in a torrent, so is it even illegal?