When I spoke of someone who didn't have money, so they couldn't have bought it, so there was no real or potential lost sale, I was using that as an example to show why that argument is ridiculously broken -- in fact I consider it ridiculous precisely because, if accepted, it leads to the conclusion that whether piracy is "theft" or not depends on whether the person could have (and, even more awkwardly, would have) purchased it legitimately, which is obvious nonsense.
I fail to see how the argument is broken, Benson.
Using that logic, someone who would never buy a Mercedes but steals one is not committing theft.
When someone has put a price for their item/service/favor, then you dance around paying the amount by using a 1001 excuses, I call: BOLLOCKS.
You know what, I was about to spend $100 on software A, but my dog got sick. So I had to reallocate that fund for my canine conundrum and I was FORCED to pirate the software to get my job done in time.
BOLLOCKS.
You know, I have enough money in the bank to buy Adobe Photoshop suite, but I have enough common sense to save up the money instead. So I was forced to download it via torrents. BOLLOCKS.
I saw this nifty ad for an app but I'm not sure whether it's worth the asking price. So I did a quick torrent search and found it for free instead. I had fun with it for a couple of hours, but if you ask me to cough up the money, fair and square, I wouldn't have done that. It's not worth it. BOLLOCKS.
Bottomline is: if it's easy to pirate, then you'd pick up the copy for yourself first, THEN, rationalize your actions via a convoluted logic putting yourself as the ultimate judge of who is worthy of what.
Using that logic, someone who would never buy a Mercedes but steals one is not committing theft.
But still.. the fundamental paradox in all this is that this statement is only accurate if by "steal" you mean pulls a device out of his pocket, scans the Mercedes, and prints himself an exact copy and drives away in the "new" one.
I would never buy an iPad. Though if I won one in a raffle or found one discarded I might find use for it.. but Apple has no hope what-so-ever of getting me to buy an iPad. Now I wouldn't "steal" an iPad either, because that deprives the owner of that iPad for something they paid for, their object. When dealing with piracy the only legitimate thing you can be accused of "stealing" is "time". The time it took to make product X because you aren't "stealing" anything physical. Now, if stealing time is a crime then every company in the world that's ever held a meeting owes it's employees some dues .
Having said all this.. I disagree completely with the original question asked in this thread. Either you believe pirating/"stealing" software is wrong or you don't. Either you believe stealing or thieving something physical is wrong or you don't.
Just because a starving woman steals a loaf of bread to feed her malnourished six year-old doesn't suddenly make the wrong a right. It might make it more understandable, but it doesn't change the thing itself. The punishment may change based on the circumstances, but the fundemental thing itself hasn't changed.
IMHO.. when you have to ask "Is it ok when..." you should immediately start to rethink your situation. Justification is like masturbation.. you're only screwing yourself .
But still.. the fundamental paradox in all this is that this statement is only accurate if by "steal" you mean pulls a device out of his pocket, scans the Mercedes, and prints himself an exact copy and drives away in the "new" one.
Yes, I realize copying is a special case. But usually a unique product key must be obtained as well. These are usually cracked and sold/given away on the black market. They can only be used once. Far too often someone registers software with a stolen key and locks out the legitimate purchaser. It happened to my son on one of his games. Fortunately the publisher provided another. But still...
Anyway, the rationalization for piracy breaks down because it assumes all or most people who pirate software would not otherwise obtain it legally. If piracy was impossible, and they really wanted it, they would find a way to pay for it.
If you can't see it, feel it, or taste it, it's not stealing.
Utterly incorrect.
Services can be unseen, but they're still just as valuable.
Anyway, you folks who are convinced your rationalizations are valid aren't going to change your mind based on internet debate. Just as I'll not be swayed into supporting someone acquiring an item or service without compensation based on how much money they have at a given time.
.
.
