This, Krice, is exactly the type of confusion I sought to avert.
What confusion? That piracy IS or ISN'T stealing? Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of anything, except companies of a part of their predicted income. Income which was only predicted and never came to fruition, and as such, can't be stolen, since it doesn't exist.
I had supposed that Krice was using the term hyperbolically or something, and I supposed that you might not realize that, but it seems like I was wrong. I do not think that piracy and theivery are the same. It seems that Krice does.
If those benefits were owed the company, it is still a wrong, whether you call it damage or not.
It's illegal. Killing people is both immoral and illegal, but in some modern states the death penalty exists, which I find barbaric. Morality and legality are not one and the same.
I'm well aware of the distinction. We are indeed discussing our opinions on morality, and I have not once defended something simply because it is law.
By terms of distributive justice, it's actually better than fair. It's even pareto efficient: nobody gets worse, and at least somebody gets better.
That depends entirely upon which rules of destributive justice you accept.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/It’s only “fair” in terms of strict egalitarianism, and such a philosophy cannot be effectual.
Yes, it's not theft, I was speaking metaphorically, but the agreement is made upon purchasing the digital media, also, the whole "you're not buying this disk you're buying a license to use it" is a legalese contraption that limits your ownership of a physical item.
I expect you suppose all other forms of barter to be legalese contraptions, yes? Deeds to land and the like? It is only by agreement that things are possessed, for nothing else can imply ownership. It is a pact, and it should be honored, as honest people are the best benefit to society.
I don't concur. I know many people who wouldn't have bought a lot of gaming systems so happily if it weren't for their vulnerabilities. And probably, so do you (knowing people like that).
We aren't discussing “willingness to buy”.
With intent of black market monetary profit. That's the difference.
I understand.
Yes, we do. Here is a counter question: do you really want us to feel sorry for you because you don't want to buy those products?
No, I don't.
It certainly does not appear to be that way, as you were just complaining about the high prices of software.
Your justification for piracy is that you think the companies make too much money? Very well, how much is too much in your opinion? You would deprive them of what is theirs by right just because they make more money than you do?
It's theirs by right because they hold sway to determine what rights they have. The problem isn't that they make more money, the problem is that it's blown out of proportion to the effort and money they put in. It may not be unjust, but it is unfair.
Who is the judge of that? Who are you to say that it is out of proportion? By what measure shall you determine how much they deserve for the work?
Do you know that with a flat benefit rate of 20% for everyone, for every transaction, people would still be able to actually become rich?
Yes, but why should they not charge as much as people are willing to pay?
Poverty doesn't give one leave to take what he will from the rest of society. Such is gravely arrogant thinking.
I'm not taking what I want from the rest of the society (since I'm not depriving anyone of anything), I'm duplicating for my personal use a digital resource.
Yes, but you are using your poverty to justify your violation of copyright. Poverty alone does not give one leave to commit an act that is unfair and unjust, whether it is stealing or not.
Except they don't decide the price, the price is decided by the seller. Sometimes not even the seller, but the provider:
I was correct in assuming that you know little of business. The “provider” is also a seller. They sell the the PS3 to the stores. The stores are under no obligation to accept the price.
You can't sell a PS3 any price you want if you own a retail store, you know? You have to keep at a fixed price.
I am not familiar with the laws in your country. Does the law require that goods are sold at a certain price? If it is, I will agree that such is unfair.
They purchase it because they want it, and because they can afford it, not because they think it's worth the price.
This sentence contradicts itself. If they are willing to spend the money on the object, it must, by the very definition of the word “worth”, be worth the price to them. If they wanted to purchase it, and they are willing to spend the money, how can you hold the seller to blame?
If one cannot afford their product, he should swallow it like a man. Also, I'm afraid you shall have to tell us which crisis you mean and evidence that companies have thrown us into it.
If you can't see this for yourself, I'm not going to spell it out. Sorry =(
I’m not going to make your point for you. You and you alone must provide evidence for your claims.
It could be construed as encouragement of illegal behavior 
As long as you don't help anyone do it, I don't see a problem. Of course, it's up to Slash to decide.
Do you see the irony here? You say that they care too much for themselves, but only because they will not freely give you what they have created.
Not because they won't freely give me what they have created, but because they abuse their already bloated power.
You consider their insistance that the public keep the pacts they made an abuse of power? You say “bloated”. How much power is “bloated”? By what measure do you consider power to be in excess?
Opposite positions tend to mirror one another.
That would make sense if I was mirroring you.
The evil of business is proportional to its size.
So I guess everyone that has a job (they sell their services to their employers) is a little evil too then? Why is business evil? Trade powers human progress.
Repression of software piracy stems from the overzealous protection of the entertainment industry, which is a sin of the current capitalist governments.
I do not consider the acts of a government keeping consumers to the pacts they made a sin, nor do I know if they are truly overzealous.
Why do you suppose that public officials are more trustworthy than private companies? At least companies give you the option to simply not purchase their products. Taxes are compulsory, and, if you don't like how they spend it, you can do nothing to stop it.
Do I have to suppose the contrary?
No, you don't, but you don't have to suppose as you do either, so you must defend what you hold to be true. Like I said, they aren't more trustworthy, but, unlike the government, you have the option of not accepting their terms if you deem them unjust.
Taxes are compulsory, but are spent on things I and my fellow citizen can enjoy freely afterwards. Even if they couldn't afford it, were them market offered. Taxes aren't in place for the one who can pay them, but for the one who needs that which the taxes pay.
This system is flawed, for it does not reward work, and I should not be robbed of what I have rightfully earned to be distributed to others. Yes, that IS robbery.
Yes, I honestly think it. A company is not a man, and this is bringing again the piracy !=/= theft issue.
Yes, piracy is not theft. Already established. Just an example.
You cannot seperate people from the company, for a company is owned by people. It is an organization of people. What you have said is like arguing that you don’t mind taking the man’s money from the wallet because a wallet isn’t a person.
It means that you have to pay a tax (the state's privilege) to a private company, for letting your customers hear your radio (a radio you already paid and which is airing a broadcast)
I’m not familiar with the laws in your country. That does sound unjust, but, of course, this has nothing to do with software piracy.
An agreement, however partial, can't be made without the parts making. If you want me to clarify it, even more, to me it feels like a deserved injustice.
That is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a “deserved injustice”.
Companies aren't people, and as such cannot suffer.
Again, they are comprised of and owned by people.
Trying to better your social standing and income is fair competition. Making your life worth several thousands of other lives is humiliation.
Are you honestly trying to say that making money makes one's live more valuable, and, thus, a rich person has made his life as valuable as thousands of other lives? Such a conversion is the only way that what you have said can make any sense.
And we all live in this system, even you and me. If company and governmental honchos were each half as rich, everyone in the world could be several times as rich as before.
Sure, but, of course, why should other people have that wealth? What makes them more deserving of it? They didn't earn it. No one paid them in exchange for a product.
Hell, we could all work three hours a day and live in paradise.
It doesn't work that way.
It's the obscenity of it all what is hard to get for the average citizen who defends that system. But it's clear for me that it's main beneficiaries not only get it, but bask in it.
It's the efficacy of it all what is hard to get for the average citizen who doesn't understand how life works.
Don't blame them. They have not forced anyone to buy anything. Regard their customers with contempt, for it is they that have willingly supplied the companies with the money they have.
With contempt, after they've had their minds bombarded with a thousand and one forged promises of satisfaction, broadcasted in the hundreds of TV and radio stations, and plastered everywhere? What should I regard those directives with, admiration? I refuse.
Here in America, we have laws against false advertising, because, you’re right, false advertising is wrong. I don’t know how broken your free market system is, I’m afraid. With truthful advertising, it is just, which is why I suggested that software licenses be placed in more obvious places.
Well, it seems we have strayed from the topic a little with this talk about economics, but I don’t mind if you don’t.
