Stealing

[jps]

Is stealing always wrong?
What constitutes stealing?
Can an act be called stealing if it does not deprive someone else of something?

Is copying music or software stealing if it was music or software that you could not otherwise afford or would not have bought otherwise? Since no on loses anything in that situation. I do not believe it constitutes stealing at all.

Actions that genuinely constitute stealing are not always wrong either in my opinion. If the person doing the stealing would benefit from the stolen property significantly and the person from whom they are stealing will not be adversely effected, or if they obtained their property by illegitimate or immoral means than it is acceptable.

 

[Jerrek]

Is stealing always wrong?
Yes.

What constitutes stealing?
Taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Can an act be called stealing if it does not deprive someone else of something?
Yes.

Is copying music or software stealing
Yes. No "ifs."

if it was music or software that you could not otherwise afford or would not have bought otherwise?
I just spent $1,000 on games. I can't afford music, so now I'm going to copy them. It is still sealing.

Since no on loses anything in that situation. I do not believe it constitutes stealing at all.
I do.

Actions that genuinely constitute stealing are not always wrong either in my opinion.
Maybe.

If the person doing the stealing would benefit from the stolen property significantly and the person from whom they are stealing will not be adversely effected
So stealing $5 million from Bill gates would be justified, right?

Sick.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by jps
Can an act be called stealing if it does not deprive someone else of something?

The answer to this question is irrelevant to the situation you described since it does not apply.
If you steal software that has a value of $100.00 it is no different than stealing a $100.00 bill.

You may want to try and justify it to yourself and convince yourself that Bill Gates doesn't feel a measly $100 dent in his $40 Billion fortune, but that is no more than justification to ease your mind.

First of all, there are thousands of people that steal from Bill.
At $100 a pop (or often times MUCH more) that can easily add up to millions of dollars.

Secondly, regardless of how much it is worth, how many other people do it or how much the victim is worth...
Stealing is stealing.
You are taking that which is not rightfully yours (Software, music or anything else) at the expense of someone else who it (and the revenue of which) DOES rightfully belong to someone else.

If you have no doubt that it is not wrong you would not be posting here looking for other pirates to agree with you to make you feel better.
If you DO have doubt, it is wrong.

Justify it to yourself all you wish.
Only you can be the judge of if theft is right or wrong, but the fact remains, pirating IS theft.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So Jerrek what if you are really hungry, starving even, then is it wrong to go into a supermarket and steal food?

I would agree that stealing is wrong and then qualify it by adding that there are instances when stealing is justified by circumstance.

 

[jps]

Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by one_raven
The answer to this question is irrelevant to the situation you described since it does not apply.
If you steal software that has a value of $100.00 it is no different than stealing a $100.00 bill.

perhaps you're unfamiliear with the concept of "copying" If you copy something, the original is still there. If you steal a hundred dollar bill from someone, they're down 100 bucks, if you copy their music that you weren't going to buy otherwise, they've lost nothing.

Originally posted by one_raven
You may want to try and justify it to yourself and convince yourself that Bill Gates doesn't feel a measly $100 dent in his $40 Billion fortune, but that is no more than justification to ease your mind.

Actually. I don't pirate things as general rule. I can afford to pay for them, and chances are that music or software that i'm unwilling to pay for I'm not likely to need. This isn't something I dreamed up to assuage my guilt.

Originally posted by one_raven
First of all, there are thousands of people that steal from Bill.
At $100 a pop (or often times MUCH more) that can easily add up to millions of dollars.

millions? the mans a multi-billionaire. people shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near that rich. Stealing from him is something I think people can do guilt free.

Originally posted by one_raven
Secondly, regardless of how much it is worth, how many other people do it or how much the victim is worth...
Stealing is stealing.
You are taking that which is not rightfully yours (Software, music or anything else) at the expense of someone else who it (and the revenue of which) DOES rightfully belong to someone else.

If someone else can easily afford to replace something and would not be overly troubled by its loss and and another person desperately needs that thing and cannot obtain it otherwise, then sure, its stealing, but its not immoral.

Originally posted by one_raven
If you have no doubt that it is not wrong you would not be posting here looking for other pirates to agree with you to make you feel better.
If you DO have doubt, it is wrong.

Actually I was posting here because I thought it would inspire an interesting debate.

 

[one_raven]

Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by jps
perhaps you're unfamiliear with the concept of "copying" If you copy something, the original is still there. If you steal a hundred dollar bill from someone, they're down 100 bucks, if you copy their music that you weren't going to buy otherwise, they've lost nothing.

I know what copying is.
It has nothing to do with whether it is stealing or not.
The loss that they take is not the loss of the property they had for sale, it is the loss of the revenue they would have if you bought it.
And your argument against that is thet it is not stealing because if you didn't copy it then they would not gain the revenue because you wouldn't have paid for it otherwise?
If you take a $100 CD player from a store is that not stealing if you would not have bought it otherwise?

Actually, I think it is WORSE because if you can afford to pay for it, and would not have, then you obviously don't need it.
It is not a matter of survival.
It is theft to satisfy a simple whim.
Then justifying it by saying, "He can afford it".

Originally posted by jps
Actually. I don't pirate things as general rule. I can afford to pay for them, and chances are that music or software that i'm unwilling to pay for I'm not likely to need. This isn't something I dreamed up to assuage my guilt.

Really?
Show me how you reconcile that statement with the next one...

Originally posted by jps
millions? the mans a multi-billionaire. people shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near that rich. Stealing from him is something I think people can do guilt free.

Which leads to....

Originally posted by jps
If someone else can easily afford to replace something and would not be overly troubled by its loss and and another person desperately needs that thing and cannot obtain it otherwise, then sure, its stealing, but its not immoral.

Bullshit.
So if I make 110K a year, and you steal a $50 DVD from me that is OK because I can afford to buy another one?
That is tired selfish justification.

You said that you can afford to buy these things, but choose to steal them.
So from that I think it is safe to assume that if I steal your TV you can afford to buy a new one, right?

How do you "desperately need" a software package that you said you could afford to buy but choose not to?
Obviously you don't, so again, this doesn't apply to your original question of whether pirating is stealing or not.

Originally posted by jps
Actually I was posting here because I thought it would inspire an interesting debate.

So far so good, I think.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by jps
Is copying music or software stealing if it was music or software that you could not otherwise afford or would not have bought otherwise? Since no on loses anything in that situation. I do not believe it constitutes stealing at all.

But they lose the revenue that they would have taken in if you had obtained the music legaly, so yes, it is stealing.

 

[GuitarToadster]

In the case of copying music files (MP3s) off the internet it IS NOT stealing because

1. It is a reduced quality product that is not a replacement for an original CD. An MP3 is actually a worse recording than anything you will ever buy (cassete or vinyl) due to the compression.

2. We have all paid for the rights to copy and burn CDs when we buy CDs and CD burners. The taxes are already figured into those sales for the RIAA and the bands. (Nothing is EVER really free you know)

Other than that, the only time I would justify stealing would be like the scenario you painted... someone starving and stealing food. In those types of instances I can see past the stealing idea, easily.

 

[Mystech]

Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by jps
millions? the mans a multi-billionaire. people shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near that rich. Stealing from him is something I think people can do guilt free.

Shouldn't be allowed to be that rich? Who are you to say that? Who is anyone to say that another person isn't entiteld to money that they have earned. Unless he got it through illegal means (and not just vaguely immoral, that doesn't count, sorry) then who is to say that he doesn't diserve his money?

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by GuitarToadster

1. It is a reduced quality product that is not a replacement for an original CD. An MP3 is actually a worse recording than anything you will ever buy (cassete or vinyl) due to the compression.

I've heard some pretty crappy MP3s, yes, but most of the MP3s that I have, and have ripped off of CDs that I own sound exactly like the track on the CD, there's no loss of quality on most of them. All of them are certainly lightyears beyond vinyl.

Also I don't see how quality even matters. You are still taking a product put out by an artist (through a recording company, yeah, so what?) something which you inherently have no right to have unless you agree to the terms which the OWNER of the media has put forth (IE the price tag). Instead you circumvent this, and take something which you have no right to own. It's stealing plain and simple.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
2. We have all paid for the rights to copy and burn CDs when we buy CDs and CD burners. The taxes are already figured into those sales for the RIAA and the bands. (Nothing is EVER really free you know)

You certainly did not pay for the right to copy burn or distribute their music just by buying the equipment to do it. All you payed for when you bought those things were blank CDs and a CD burner to the company that manufactured them. The sales tax goes to the government, and RIAA never sees a cent from the product that you have stolen from them.

Imagine you paint a beautiful picture, and decide that you want to see if you can't make a name for yourself, and maybe a buck or two in the local art circles. So you make a bunch of prints of this painting to sell around town as posters, but what ends up happening is that people break into your home and steal the prints. Is that ethicle? Have those people stolen from you, or was it their right to take those prints from you?

 

[GuitarToadster]

Actually I agree on this idea. Do you think Joe Schmidt should be making 5 Million Dollars a years to toss a baseball around? I don't. What about taxes? Why is it that the filthy stinking rich have to pay a less % on income taxes? They are the ones raking in on the cash!

Again, sorry, but the filthy stinking rich are the ones doing most of the stealing, which is why they are filthy stinking rich in the first place.

Figure it out, will ya? Hasn't Enron, Worldcom, or Martha Stewart taught you anything yet? How about G W Bush? What the Hell is he doing in office? Oh yeah, daddy's got $$$ and a lot of friends from his days in office. So little monkey boy gets to be "just like daddy!"

 

[GuitarToadster]

Originally posted by Mystech
I've heard some pretty crappy MP3s, yes, but most of the MP3s that I have, and have ripped off of CDs that I own sound exactly like the track on the CD, there's no loss of quality on most of them. All of them are certainly lightyears beyond vinyl.

You certainly did not pay for the right to copy burn or distribute their music just by buying the equipment to do it. All you payed for when you bought those things were blank CDs and a CD burner to the company that manufactured them. The sales tax goes to the government, and RIAA never sees a cent from the product that you have stolen from them.

Firstly, duh!

An MP3 is encoded at MOST 328 kb/s these are the highest quality that I have encountered. A wav file (from a CD) is encoded at 1,411 kb/s. BIG DIFFERENCE! What do you think happens when you COMPRESS a music file? Information is lost! Sorry but you have no ability to hear music as it was originally intented. I must say, I am a musician, have played for 13 years on guitar, keyboard, drums, bass and I sing... I KNOW the difference.

Secondly, you are soooo very uninformed about what taxes you have paid for when you bought those CDs and that burner in your computer... maybe a google search would enlighten you? Until then keep your uniformed opinions to youself, thank you.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
Actually I agree on this idea. Do you think Joe Schmidt should be making 5 Million Dollars a years to toss a baseball around? I don't.

He sure as hell should get paid that much. If the owner of the team (or whoever signs his pay check) sees that this is how much this particular player is bringing in, then he's entitled to every penny of it. You think he shouldn't get that money because he doesn't work as hard as someone in a coal mine for instance? Well that's the real secret to financial success isn't it? It's not how hard you work, but how smart you work. A Pro baseball player brings in way more revenue than a cable repair man, or a plumber, and it's only right that he should see a big ol' chunk of that cash.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
What about taxes? Why is it that the filthy stinking rich have to pay a less % on income taxes? They are the ones raking in on the cash!

You seem to have some misconceptions here. The rich pay a lot more in taxes (yes in terms of percentage) than people with lower incomes. You've got it backwards.

If you're thinking about Bush's recent tax cuts, for instance, the reason they were so disproportionate was because the rich are the ones who are already paying most of the taxes, anyway, so he gave them the biggest break.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
Again, sorry, but the filthy stinking rich are the ones doing most of the stealing, which is why they are filthy stinking rich in the first place.

I can tell that you're going to get far in life with an attitude like that. So everyone who's better off than you is better off because they are weasily and cheated people? Yeah, really great outlook on life. Aspire to mediocrity.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
Figure it out, will ya? Hasn't Enron, Worldcom, or Martha Stewart taught you anything yet? How about G W Bush? What the Hell is he doing in office? Oh yeah, daddy's got $$$ and a lot of friends from his days in office. So little monkey boy gets to be "just like daddy!"

There are crooked weasels, and spoiled rich kids who get a free ride through life, but you're turning a complete blind eye to the men of skill, and innovators of our time who have made quite a living off of their own ingenuity.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by GuitarToadster

Secondly, you are soooo very uninformed about what taxes you have paid for when you bought those CDs and that burner in your computer... maybe a google search would enlighten you? Until then keep your uniformed opinions to youself, thank you.

So you're trying to tell me that RIAA is taxing blank CDs and CD burners? What kind of crackpot are you?

 

[jps]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by one_raven
I know what copying is.
It has nothing to do with whether it is stealing or not.
The loss that they take is not the loss of the property they had for sale, it is the loss of the revenue they would have if you bought it.
And your argument against that is thet it is not stealing because if you didn't copy it then they would not gain the revenue because you wouldn't have paid for it otherwise?
If you take a $100 CD player from a store is that not stealing if you would not have bought it otherwise?

You don't seem to be getting the "copying" thing. If I stole a cd player from a store, then its not in the store anymore. They've lost something.

Originally posted by one_raven
Actually, I think it is WORSE because if you can afford to pay for it, and would not have, then you obviously don't need it.
It is not a matter of survival.
It is theft to satisfy a simple whim.
Then justifying it by saying, "He can afford it".

The thing is, no one loses anything if someone copies music that they would not otherwise have bought. People have to make choices about how to spend their money. Someone may want a new cd and a new book and only be able to afford one, and decide on the book. If they choose the book and that decision was made without taking into account the availability of the cd online then what harm does it do for them to download the cd?

Originally posted by one_raven
Really?
Show me how you reconcile that statement with the next one...

I was just stating that I don't personally do these things. I don't see how it contradicts the next few statements...I only mentioned it as proof that I'm not making this up to make myself feel better about having a pile of bootlegged cds.
Bill gates has way too much money. If I had an oppurtunity to steal from him personally I'd probably take it, as it seems unlikely i could carry enough money for him to even notice the dfference.

Originally posted by one_raven
Bullshit.
So if I make 110K a year, and you steal a $50 DVD from me that is OK because I can afford to buy another one?
That is tired selfish justification.

Its hard to draw the line. That situation would be wrong in my opinion, but when you get to people making millions of dollars a year then yes. I think maybe the line could be drawn where the loss of fifty dollars would not be noticed outside of reconciling bank statements. If someone stole fifty dollars from me that would mean i wouldn't go out to eat this week. No major loss, but still noticeable. If someone stole fifty dollars from bill gates it would mean nothing to him.

Originally posted by one_raven
You said that you can afford to buy these things, but choose to steal them.
So from that I think it is safe to assume that if I steal your TV you can afford to buy a new one, right?

huh? where did i say that?

Originally posted by one_raven
How do you "desperately need" a software package that you said you could afford to buy but choose not to?
Obviously you don't, so again, this doesn't apply to your original question of whether pirating is stealing or not.

I was raising two distinct questions. whether or not pirating is stealing if one would not have bought the pirated product and whether or not stealing is wrong. Pirating a software package that you would not otherwise have bought is not stealing regardless of whether you can afford it or need it.

 

[Mystech]

Look, the bottom line here is that you are taking something that does not belong to you. Where I'm from we call that stealing!

YES you are depriving someone of something, because they have set up a system whereby you can legally obtain the item which THEY own (and to which you have no other right to possess than that which they are willing to give). But instead of following this system, which the owner has set up in order to distribute their own property for mutual gain, you decide to take it from them in such a way that they have not agreed to. So unlike the mutual exchange for mutual benefit system of paying for your damn music, you have decided to cheat the owner out of 20 bucks or so, and take their property without their consent.

How is this not stealing? How is this justifiable?

 

[one_raven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by one_raven
You said that you can afford to buy these things, but choose to steal them.
So from that I think it is safe to assume that if I steal your TV you can afford to buy a new one, right?

Originally posted by jps
huh? where did i say that?

Here:

Originally posted by jps
Actually. I don't pirate things as general rule. I can afford to pay for them, and chances are that music or software that i'm unwilling to pay for I'm not likely to need. This isn't something I dreamed up to assuage my guilt.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by Mystech
Look, the bottom line here is that you are taking something that does not belong to you. Where I'm from we call that stealing!

YES you are depriving someone of something, because they have set up a system whereby you can legally obtain the item which THEY own (and to which you have no other right to possess than that which they are willing to give). But instead of following this system, which the owner has set up in order to distribute their own property for mutual gain, you decide to take it from them in such a way that they have not agreed to. So unlike the mutual exchange for mutual benefit system of paying for your damn music, you have decided to cheat the owner out of 20 bucks or so, and take their property without their consent.

How is this not stealing? How is this justifiable?

Its not stealing because they haven't lost anything. They weren't going to get that twenty bucks from you anyway, so the only thing that has changed is that you have something that you didn't before.
If you take a photo of a picture in a museum, have you stolen it?

 

[jps]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing

Originally posted by one_raven
Here:

Did you read that?
I said:
"Actually. I don't pirate things as general rule. I can afford to pay for them, and chances are that music or software that i'm unwilling to pay for I'm not likely to need. This isn't something I dreamed up to assuage my guilt"

in other words, in general, I neither pirate things nor steal them because I can afford to pay for them.

 

[420Joey]

Pirating will simply never die because of it's conviency, period. Why pay 100 dollars if I can obtain it for free.


Most pirating-music arguments are based on bigger proportions of the conceptual problem and use proportionized-examples to simply decoil the most accessable aspect of the whole problem.

*Takes a hit* :m:

Most psp networks / websites now have information on the album, information on the song, and if you like it you can buy the CD directly from the web.

I say the people that abuse it are equivlent to the people that buy the CD's and actual loss is diminished, if you can't solve the problem, atleast put the problem to your favor.



I'm high excuse if I dont make sense.