piracty always a sin

[Neogaia777]

I am sot struggling financially, but many artists are and the theft of their intellectual property is a serious concern for them. Fortunately the laws are clear.

You say that you are not trying to justify anything here, but just pointing out that no one ever really truly cares about what is truly right, etc. I disagree. Artists, writers and musicians care about this issue.

Ok, half of all groups everywhere care, and half don't, etc.

And most of the content that is most usually pirated is not taken out of anyone's pockets who it "struggling" most of the time, etc.

Poor people (the people who are really struggling) need entertainment, and need to be able to afford entertainment too.

Might even keep them from doing other things that might be bad, or contribute very negatively to society sometimes, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

People are wanting us to accept "all kinds of things" nowadays due to the way the world has changed, or is changing nowadays, etc.

So if some artists or filmmakers or whatever, most of whom are already millionaries, or multi-millionaires, etc, can't accept the way the world has changed since the age of the internet regarding what they think is their own personal property since the internet came out, etc, then they can go cry me a river, or go cry in a corner if they want to, cause I don't feel one bit sorry for them, and really just don't care, etc. Especially not with everything else most of them are not only wanting us to accept, but are forcing us to accept, etc, whether we want to or choose to or not, etc. And this, due to their own personal sickness caused by their own fortune and fame (and probably pride/ego/vanity also) that they are now forcing the rest us to accept "or else", etc...

Yeah, well, anyway, they can go cry me a river for all I care, cause I just don't care, etc.

What if having access to some free downloadable content is keeping some people from completely losing it in this world, etc?

And that is something that they (Hollywood) (entertainers/filmmakers) are causing, or are fully responsible for by the way, if you ask me, etc.

So, yeah, I have absolutely no problem with some of them having to compensate some people for that, etc.

You don't want a bunch of poor people sitting around with nothing better to do than just sit around and think of how they could get back at, or could forcibly take back/overthrow society, etc.

And in fact, you don't even want one person sitting around with nothing better to do than just think about that for too long, etc, let alone a bunch of them, who could possibly think about getting organized, etc.

Dull their minds with entertainment, and maybe that might not happen maybe, etc.

I think that could maybe be a "greater good" that some piracy could serve, don't you?

There are a lot of very angry people nowadays, like "a lot", etc, especially in the US right now, etc, and you don't want them sitting around with nothing else better to do than just "stew/marinate" in that anger, etc. The results of that could be "very, very bad", etc.

Entertainment creates an outlet, and also a way to somewhat pacify them, etc.

And with the way the world is today, or right now, etc, I say give it to them, etc, and give it to them for free, etc.

God Bless.

 

[JSRG]

Any ethical justification people might offer for the theft of intellectual property must include justifying the stealing of food from a supermarket or mugging a stranger on the street.

If I take food from the supermarket, or mug someone, I am taking something from them, and they no longer have it.

These are not the case in piracy. Piracy (defined here as "distributing for free a copy of the entirety of a copyrighted work without permission") is, by its nature, copying. Nothing is actually being removed from anyone; the pirate site I got a copy of a TV show from still has it ready for their use. For the comparison to work, I wouldn't be going into a store and stealing food; I'd be going into a store, using my Star Trek-style replicator to make copies of the food, then leaving with those copies of the food while the original food remains in the store. But piracy doesn't take anything from anyone; it might deny them money they would have made on a sale, but there is a difference between taking money from someone versus not giving them money. The former actively decreases the money they have, the latter simply doesn't increase their money.

The examples you cite would be more analogous to plagiarism, because in that case you actually are taking something from someone, namely, credit for the work.

The ethical argument about why taking food from a store or mugging someone is ultimately different from that of piracy. When one gets down to it, the argument on piracy is not whether it's acceptable to take something from someone (leaving them without it), but whether it's acceptable to make use of someone else's work without compensating them. A more logical comparison would be something like paying someone unfairly low wages for their work, because the moral arguments there are far more similar. After all, even if you're paying someone way less than they deserve, you're not taking anything from them, you're simply not giving them as much.

 

[Whyayeman]

Nothing is actually being removed from anyone...

Except income. The reason people copy protected work is to avoid paying for it.

Property theft is theft, ultimately identical to mugging and shoplifting. It may be an uncomfortable thought but there is no avoiding it.

 

[Whyayeman]

The ethical argument about why taking food from a store or mugging someone is ultimately different from that of piracy

It is ultimately the same.

I have been reluctant to discuss the ethics of piracy (which seems to me to be oxymoronic). There are only two ways property can be transferred legitimately from one person to another: the owner can sell it at an agreed price; or can give it away. Theft is taking what is not yours without payment, as is universally well understood - except perhaps on this thread.

The original poster asked if piracy was a sin. Well, of course it is. 'Thou shalt not steal' - it could not be clearer.

 

[JSRG]

Except income. The reason people copy protected work is to avoid paying for it.

Property theft is theft, ultimately identical to mugging and shoplifting. It may be an uncomfortable thought but there is no avoiding it.

If I mug or shoplift, once again, they no longer have the money or product I took. If I pirate something, then the original person still has it. You say "income" is being stolen, but income isn't something you actually have. It's something potential. If I decide to not buy something just because I'm not interested in it and never pirate it, then I'm denying you potential income, just like piracy. So the claim it's "ultimately identical" doesn't make much sense, unless someone thinks it's immoral for me to not purchase things just because I don't want them.

Now, there obviously is a difference between simply not buying a product because I have no interest in it versus pirating it, namely the fact that in the latter case I get to use it. But that again means the ethical argument is not the same, because what is being lost is something potential, not anything you actually have.

So the argument for it being unethical isn't that anything is actually being taken away, but that something is being denied. And more specifically, that it's wrong to deny income to someone while still making use of their work. So again, the ethical argument is much more akin to that of the question of the morality of paying wages that are seen as unfairly low or not properly compensating someone for their work. And hey, people can criticize that as unethical (comic book companies have gotten criticism for the fact that creators of some of the most popular and lucrative comic book characters saw very little of all of the money the companies made off of them). Indeed, this is what your post really says, that "The reason people copy protected work is to avoid paying for it." Again, since nothing is being taken away (income is potential, not actual), the argument ultimately turns into one of compensation, not of taking. The problem with that in terms of rhetoric, of course, is that what is "unfairly low" wages and what would be proper compensation is much more arguable than outright taking something. It's less rhetorically powerful. The attempt to equate it to mugging or shoplifting seems more of a desire for stronger rhetoric than it being an actual proper analogy.

To be clear, I do think there are frequently moral problems with piracy, and I identified an ethical argument against it above. But I don't think the claim it's ultimately identical to shoplifting or mugging really holds up.

However, here's a question, and I ask it because I am genuinely curious about it. If I get a book, DVD, game, or something else from the library, I'm avoiding paying for it even though I get to use it. No store gets money from me, nor does the original creator. In both cases, income is being "stolen", but very few people would ever claim that it's unethical to get something from the library instead of buying it. There's obviously a legal difference between them, but we're talking ethics here. Unless the argument is that anything illegal is immoral (which carries with it some obvious objections), what is the moral difference between the two? Obviously, getting something from the library is for several reasons less convenient. If that is the reason, does it mean that if piracy was less convenient, it would become moral? And if convenience isn't the moral difference, what is?

 

[Whyayeman]

If I mug or shoplift, once again, they no longer have the money or product I took. If I pirate something, then the original person still has it. You say "income" is being stolen, but income isn't something you actually have. It's something potential. If I decide to not buy something just because I'm not interested in it and never pirate it, then I'm denying you potential income, just like piracy. So the claim it's "ultimately identical" doesn't make much sense, unless someone thinks it's immoral for me to not purchase things just because I don't want them.

Now, there obviously is a difference between simply not buying a product because I have no interest in it versus pirating it, namely the fact that in the latter case I get to use it. But that again means the ethical argument is not the same, because what is being lost is something potential, not anything you actually have.

So the argument for it being unethical isn't that anything is actually being taken away, but that something is being denied. And more specifically, that it's wrong to deny income to someone while still making use of their work. So again, the ethical argument is much more akin to that of the question of the morality of paying wages that are seen as unfairly low or not properly compensating someone for their work. And hey, people can criticize that as unethical (comic book companies have gotten criticism for the fact that creators of some of the most popular and lucrative comic book characters saw very little of all of the money the companies made off of them). Indeed, this is what your post really says, that "The reason people copy protected work is to avoid paying for it." Again, since nothing is being taken away (income is potential, not actual), the argument ultimately turns into one of compensation, not of taking. The problem with that in terms of rhetoric, of course, is that what is "unfairly low" wages and what would be proper compensation is much more arguable than outright taking something. It's less rhetorically powerful. The attempt to equate it to mugging or shoplifting seems more of a desire for stronger rhetoric than it being an actual proper analogy.

To be clear, I do think there are frequently moral problems with piracy, and I identified an ethical argument against it above. But I don't think the claim it's ultimately identical to shoplifting or mugging really holds up.

However, here's a question, and I ask it because I am genuinely curious about it. If I get a book, DVD, game, or something else from the library, I'm avoiding paying for it even though I get to use it. No store gets money from me, nor does the original creator. In both cases, income is being "stolen", but very few people would ever claim that it's unethical to get something from the library instead of buying it. There's obviously a legal difference between them, but we're talking ethics here. Unless the argument is that anything illegal is immoral (which carries with it some obvious objections), what is the moral difference between the two? Obviously, getting something from the library is for several reasons less convenient. If that is the reason, does it mean that if piracy was less convenient, it would become moral? And if convenience isn't the moral difference, what is?

I hope you realise that this is utter nonsense!

 

[adrianmonk]

If I mug or shoplift, once again, they no longer have the money or product I took. If I pirate something, then the original person still has it. You say "income" is being stolen, but income isn't something you actually have. It's something potential. If I decide to not buy something just because I'm not interested in it and never pirate it, then I'm denying you potential income, just like piracy. So the claim it's "ultimately identical" doesn't make much sense, unless someone thinks it's immoral for me to not purchase things just because I don't want them.

This is true. If you do not buy something the seller misses out on potential income. However you do not receive the product either. If you pirate, then you receive the product but the seller still misses out. You have gained something whereas the seller has lost that potential income. In this scenario one person (you) receives the benefit, but the other party (seller) loses it.

We have copyright laws for a reason, and that is so that people who create movies, music, software etc can create those items and make a living from it. We also ensure that creators are able to dictate terms on the copying and distribution of these items and in return the work has to go into the public domain after a certain period of time. I think the time before works go into the public domain is too long atm, but that can be resolved legislatively.

As far as pirating music, books, video games etc, they are not essential items for you to survive. Technology has made it easier to create perfect copies of those items, where as prior to the printing press if you wanted to copy someone's work, you had to manually copy it which could take hours. Now it is easy and therefore more widespread.

You can refuse to purchase that item, but you can also refuse to copy that item as well. You have other options such as renting it from the library and if using certain platforms or physical media (like DVDs and books), you can borrow a copy from a friend (this is also not illegal). You can buy items through sales (Gog and Steam for video games have sales every week). If you don't want to pay for things like Windows, then use Linux or a BSD.

 

[partinobodycular]

Property theft is theft, ultimately identical to mugging and shoplifting. It may be an uncomfortable thought but there is no avoiding it.

Ah, if the world was only that simple, but you and I both know that it's not.

Here's what I do know. Whether I watch the authorized version of a movie, or I watch the pirated version, somewhere a few rich guys are making a whole lot of money off of that, and a bunch of common people are making just enough to try to eke out a living. This goes for both groups, not just one. So basically what we have is a battle between two groups of people, both trying to eke out a living, and I have the ethical dilemma of trying to decide which group I'm going to support. In making that choice I have to weigh a number of factors, among them is which group has the stronger legal claim. And hurray for you, that would seem to be the people behind the authorized version. Ah, but my dilemma doesn't end there, because I have to decide if the entire system is rigged in that group's favor. If so, then I may choose to disregard the legal argument entirely, and look for some other grounds on which to base my choice.

And the grounds upon which I'm going to make that choice... is the greater good. Here again, there are two sides to every argument. The people behind the authorized version will claim that a system based upon laws is the only reasonable choice. Otherwise we have anarchy. But the pirating side may argue that they exist precisely because that 'legal' system isn't fair. It favors the upper classes at the expense of the lower ones. It's there to serve some of the people, but not all of the people. And one look at the economic divide within western society, not to mention global society, says that this is probably true. The system is rigged in favor of the rich. It works, but it's not completely fair.

This is where we can take a cue from nature, because nature tends to fill a void. If there's an empty niche to be found, nature will find a way to fill it. And in this case that niche is the underserved poor. That's the niche that pirating fills. If the system doesn't give people access to the same standard of living that everyone else enjoys, then they'll look for something outside of the system that will. That's just the nature of people. They don't want to steal, they just want to be like everybody else. And some things, like watching videos, allows them to do that.

But the bottom line is, that if there's a need, someone will find a way to fill it... and that's a good thing, because at the end of the day, no matter which choice you make, you're going to be helping hard working people eke out a living. That person may be in Hollywood, or they may be in Shanghai, and yes, you're also gonna be helping rich people... that's life. But in supporting either one, you're supporting people.

There's one last thing... I don't like being guilted into thinking that watching pirated videos is somehow unethical and evil, it's not. So with this in mind... on the first day of its release... I watched a pirated version of 'Road House'.***

***(An admission that I clearly understand may get me banned) But that's life, and I'm a big fan of life.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is true. If you do not buy something the seller misses out on potential income. However you do not receive the product either. If you pirate, then you receive the product but the seller still misses out. You have gained something whereas the seller has lost that potential income. In this scenario one person (you) receives the benefit, but the other party (seller) loses it.

We have copyright laws for a reason, and that is so that people who create movies, music, software etc can create those items and make a living from it. We also ensure that creators are able to dictate terms on the copying and distribution of these items and in return the work has to go into the public domain after a certain period of time. I think the time before works go into the public domain is too long atm, but that can be resolved legislatively.

As far as pirating music, books, video games etc, they are not essential items for you to survive. Technology has made it easier to create perfect copies of those items, where as prior to the printing press if you wanted to copy someone's work, you had to manually copy it which could take hours. Now it is easy and therefore more widespread.

You can refuse to purchase that item, but you can also refuse to copy that item as well. You have other options such as renting it from the library and if using certain platforms or physical media (like DVDs and books), you can borrow a copy from a friend (this is also not illegal). You can buy items through sales (Gog and Steam for video games have sales every week). If you don't want to pay for things like Windows, then use Linux or a BSD.

I love it when the other side's position is clearly and articulately presented. Well done sir.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can refuse to purchase that item, but you can also refuse to copy that item as well. You have other options such as renting it from the library and if using certain platforms or physical media (like DVDs and books), you can borrow a copy from a friend (this is also not illegal).

As much as I like your post this bit seems a tad simplistic to me. Because you seem to be suggesting that there are legal, although obviously cumbersome ways of accomplishing something that other people can do with just a click of a link. This may give you the feeling that you're accommodating the needs of the underserved, but it also demonstrates that you know that they're there, and these 'other options' are more of a PR move.

It's like... look at all of these other options they have, yet they still watch pirated versions, so obviously the problem is with them and their poor level of ethics. Ehhhh, I'm not buying it. I think that they're just people being people, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I also think that certain elements of society are doing exactly what they should do, find a need and fill it. If this isn't getting done in a way that's sustainable, then society will simply find a different way. That's how it works. So in some sense, it isn't some people abusing the system... it is the system.

 

[adrianmonk]

As much as I like your post this bit seems a tad simplistic to me. Because you seem to be suggesting that there are legal, although obviously cumbersome ways of accomplishing something that other people can do with just a click of a link. This may give you the feeling that you're accommodating the needs of the underserved, but it also demonstrates that you know that they're there, and these 'other options' are more of a PR move.

What I am saying is that if you need to consume this media (be it a movie, tv show, book or videogame), there are legal alternatives. Even digital distribution platforms such as Steam allow you a way to borrow a game from a friend. If you have a physical copy, you can loan it to someone who cannot afford to buy it. Or rent it out from a library or a similar digital service.

I used to make video games back in the day, and in most cases people developing these games do not work for a large rich company. In fact before platforms like Steam allowed us to self publish, a large amount of the money we received as developers were paid out to the large publishers such as EA, Activision etc. Same for the authors who self publish ebooks. Every pirated copy is taking away money from people who are not wealthy. You do not hurt Amazon if you pirate an ebook but the author.

Additionally movies, tv shows, video games etc are not basic necessities that you cannot live without. And who are these under served anyways ? Those who cannot afford the product, or those who can but prefer to get it for free ? If there are options such as libraries, sharing of physical media or digital rental services, then it all boils down to convenience right ? An individual does not want to pay for the product and does not want to take the effort to find a legal alternative because it may be more cumbersome, that definitely sounds like entitlement to me.

 

[partinobodycular]

What I am saying is that if you need to consume this media (be it a movie, tv show, book or videogame), there are legal alternatives. Even digital distribution platforms such as Steam allow you a way to borrow a game from a friend. If you have a physical copy, you can loan it to someone who cannot afford to buy it. Or rent it out from a library or a similar digital service.

Perfectly reasonable system in theory, but obviously not effective in practice, because people simply don't feel compelled to use it. Ideally, one would like to have a system that accommodates all parties equally, which oddly enough is what piracy affords us. It gives the creator a legal market through which to sell their products, and it gives those who either cannot afford to pay, or simply choose not to pay, a market through which to access the product by other means.

Which, to a disinterested observer, seems to be a perfectly reasonable system. The creators make money, the suppliers make money, and the consumers get the product at a price that they're comfortable with. Win, win, win. Unfortunately, one group... the creators, will complain that the other group is stealing what's rightfully theirs. What they fail to realize is that this is a symbiotic relationship between creators, suppliers, and consumers. Everybody is incentivized to fill their particular niche. Put too many people on the 'piracy' side and you disincentivize the creators, likewise if you price too many people out of the creator side, you increase the incentive for the pirates.

Disney Plus increases subscription prices, piracy goes up. Netflix cracks down on password sharing, piracy goes up. This is simply the consumer adapting to a changing market, and increased piracy is the effect. That's just the way that the market works, price people out of one area and they'll move to another. There's no huge ethical conundrum here, no one side stealing from the other side, just the ebbs and flows of the market.

What you have to do is to visualize the market as a collective whole, not as individual pieces.

 

[Whyayeman]

There's no huge ethical conundrum here

That is the only bit which makes any sense. Piracy is theft.

No conundrum.

 

[partinobodycular]

That is the only bit which makes any sense. Piracy is theft.

I realize that you're in the U.K, so the following may not apply to you.

Here are links to the relevant legal codes.

Copyright Act of 1976

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021

These are both quite lengthy, but for those who want a synopsis: When is streaming illegal? What you need to know about pirated content

“I think the best interpretation of copyright law is that it’s not illegal to watch unlicensed content,” Gibson said. “The person who’s merely watching a stream should incur no copyright liability from that act alone.”

As to the specific legal codes mentioned above:

Watching a stream of unlicensed movies, TV and sporting events is legal​

Any discussion of the legality of streaming in the U.S. begins with the Copyright Act of 1976. This grants copyright holders “exclusive rights” to make copies of their work, distribute it and perform it publicly.


And watching a stream — even if it’s unauthorized by the copyright holder — doesn’t technically violate these rights. There have been numerous challenges and interpretations as copyright law has adapted to the internet, but this reading has essentially held true.


The new PLSA law “will not affect the activities of ordinary internet users. Nor would it criminalize good faith business/licensing disputes or noncommercial activities. This means that individual internet streamers cannot be subject to felony prosecution under the PLSA, for example by incorporating unauthorized content in a YouTube or Twitch stream. The normal practices of internet service providers (ISPs) would also not be subject to penalties under the PLSA, even when ISP users/subscribers misuse their services for purposes of infringement,” according to the Copyright Alliance.


“I think the best interpretation of copyright law is that it’s not illegal to watch unlicensed content,” Gibson said. “The person who’s merely watching a stream should incur no copyright liability from that act alone.”

The PLSA law in question is referred to in the following.

The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020​

In December 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Within that, the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 (PLSA) increases criminal penalties for those who, on a large scale, “willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, illegally stream copyrighted material. Previously, illegal streaming was treated as a misdemeanor. Under the new law, the Department of Justice can bring felony charges against providers (as opposed to users) of such illegal services,” according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


“The new law addresses a ‘loophole’ in criminal copyright law, under which infringing acts of reproduction or distribution triggered felony penalties yet infringing public performances (such as streaming) merely amounted to misdemeanors,” reports the international law firm Perkins Cole on jdsupra.com.


So what exactly constitutes illegal streaming? And what are the consequences?


(Major caveat: None of this should be taken as legal advice. We spoke with four copyright lawyers for this piece, and they all uttered some version of “it depends” during our interviews.)


These cases can be highly fact-specific, and we don’t endorse watching pirated content under any circumstances. Our general rule of thumb: If paying for something will lead to money in the pockets of the people who made it, you should probably pay for it.


As Jim Gibson, law professor and founder of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law, put it to us: “Whether it’s wrong or not, in a moral sense, is something you can ask your friends or your minister. But whether it’s illegal from a copyright viewpoint, the best answer is, probably not on an individual viewer basis.”

I hope that this clears things up for you. You're correct though, streaming unlicensed content presents no conundrum either legal or ethical.

 

[JSRG]

This is true. If you do not buy something the seller misses out on potential income. However you do not receive the product either. If you pirate, then you receive the product but the seller still misses out. You have gained something whereas the seller has lost that potential income. In this scenario one person (you) receives the benefit, but the other party (seller) loses it.

We have copyright laws for a reason, and that is so that people who create movies, music, software etc can create those items and make a living from it. We also ensure that creators are able to dictate terms on the copying and distribution of these items and in return the work has to go into the public domain after a certain period of time. I think the time before works go into the public domain is too long atm, but that can be resolved legislatively.

As far as pirating music, books, video games etc, they are not essential items for you to survive. Technology has made it easier to create perfect copies of those items, where as prior to the printing press if you wanted to copy someone's work, you had to manually copy it which could take hours. Now it is easy and therefore more widespread.

I feel this is arguing against something I wasn't saying; the point I was trying to make was how weak the attempt to compare piracy to mugging or shoplifting was. The argument you're making is a different one than that, and one that is far more reasonable.

In regards to the printing press, as I understand it, the issue there (which caused copyright to become established, it wasn't really a thing prior) was not so much what we could consider "piracy" (making copies and distributing for free), but the fact if you got a book published, a bigger printing company could just print it themselves, claim they were the ones who wrote it originally, and make a lot of money. If you've ever watched Shark Tank, the investors often ask if there's anything proprietary about an invention, because if there isn't, then what prevents a bigger company from just copying it and crushing you with their much greater resources? Internet pirates are usually just about distributing things for free rather than making any money on it themselves (maybe advertisements on the hosted site), and almost never claim to have made it themselves.

You can refuse to purchase that item, but you can also refuse to copy that item as well. You have other options such as renting it from the library and if using certain platforms or physical media (like DVDs and books), you can borrow a copy from a friend (this is also not illegal). You can buy items through sales (Gog and Steam for video games have sales every week). If you don't want to pay for things like Windows, then use Linux or a BSD.

You mention the possibility of getting things from a library. Which is true. But what of this question, which I asked at the end of the post you quoted?

However, here's a question, and I ask it because I am genuinely curious about it. If I get a book, DVD, game, or something else from the library, I'm avoiding paying for it even though I get to use it. No store gets money from me, nor does the original creator. In both cases, income is being "stolen", but very few people would ever claim that it's unethical to get something from the library instead of buying it. There's obviously a legal difference between them, but we're talking ethics here. Unless the argument is that anything illegal is immoral (which carries with it some obvious objections), what is the moral difference between the two? Obviously, getting something from the library is for several reasons less convenient. If that is the reason, does it mean that if piracy was less convenient, it would become moral? And if convenience isn't the moral difference, what is?

 

[zippy2006]

So again, the ethical argument is much more akin to that of the question of the morality of paying wages that are seen as unfairly low or not properly compensating someone for their work.

You keep saying this, but what is at stake is not mitigated compensation; it is zero compensation.

So the argument for it being unethical isn't that anything is actually being taken away, but that something is being denied.

A farmer raises corn to sell and an author writes a book to sell. Someone distributes the farmer's corn without giving the farmer money, and someone distributes the author's book without giving the author money. These are parallel crimes. The basis of the crime pertains to labor and remuneration, not consumability.

But that again means the ethical argument is not the same, because what is being lost is something potential, not anything you actually have.

You are overlooking the fact that an author has a right to their book, just as a farmer has a right to their corn. It is the right that is being alienated in the same way that the right to a consumable good could be alienated. In both cases the means of revenue is being stolen.

There is a difference between a consumable product and a non-consumable product, but it's not as ethically important as you are claiming. To lose money or to lose a crop-to-sell is also to lose something potential, because you lose what could potentially have been exchanged. Money is a special case because it is generally easy to exchange, but a crop is quite similar to a book. There is a difference between stealing an author's unpublished manuscript and stealing their published work, but in both cases the outcome qua labor and remuneration is the same.

However, here's a question, and I ask it because I am genuinely curious about it. If I get a book, DVD, game, or something else from the library, I'm avoiding paying for it even though I get to use it. No store gets money from me, nor does the original creator. In both cases, income is being "stolen", but very few people would ever claim that it's unethical to get something from the library instead of buying it. There's obviously a legal difference between them, but we're talking ethics here. Unless the argument is that anything illegal is immoral (which carries with it some obvious objections), what is the moral difference between the two? Obviously, getting something from the library is for several reasons less convenient. If that is the reason, does it mean that if piracy was less convenient, it would become moral? And if convenience isn't the moral difference, what is?

What is the supposedly obvious "legal difference between them"?

The relation of libraries to copyright law is quite complicated, but not uncontroversial. See, for example: Why Librarians Care about Intellectual Property Law and Policy

 

[zippy2006]

In regards to the printing press, as I understand it, the issue there (which caused copyright to become established, it wasn't really a thing prior)...

Not true. Even as early as the sixth century we see St. Columba fights battles which resulted from copyright quarrels with Finnian of Moville.

...was not so much what we could consider "piracy" (making copies and distributing for free), but the fact if you got a book published, a bigger printing company could just print it themselves, claim they were the ones who wrote it originally, and make a lot of money.

This is piracy. Piracy is what pirates do. It is not "making copies and distributing for free." Pirates are not philanthropists. The issue here is copyright, because that is the place where the modern world is especially vulnerable to piracy. Note too that whether or not a pirate is philanthropic makes no difference to the creator's loss.

Piracy - Merriam-Webster

1: an act of robbery on the high seas​

also : an act resembling such robbery​

​

2: robbery on the high seas​

​

3a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright​

b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals​

 

[Neogaia777]

I make a bunch of other people lots and lots of money.

But I need them to delegate to, and publish/produce, and copy and distribute, or redistribute/broadcast/mass produce, etc, etc, etc, so I guess it's all good I guess.

But, yeah, they are all just raking it in all of the time because of me, and have been for years now, etc.

But that's never been my real true goal with it, etc.

But they are just a means to some of my ends, etc.

I have all that I need, etc, and I only just ask that they never take that away from me, etc.

And if they agree to do that, then I will keep doing my job in making them lots and lots of money, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I make a bunch of other people lots and lots of money.

But I need them to delegate to, and publish/produce, and copy and distribute, or redistribute/broadcast/mass produce, etc, etc, etc, so I guess it's all good I guess.

But, yeah, they are all just raking it in all of the time because of me, and have been for years now, etc.

But that's never been my real true goal with it, etc.

But they are just a means to some of my ends, etc.

I have all that I need, etc, and I only just ask that they never take that away from me, etc.

And if they agree to do that, then I will keep doing my job in making them lots and lots of money, etc.

God Bless.

Beyond just money, I can give them fame, fortune, notierity, recognition, or anything they ever could have wanted in those areas, etc. All they have to do is figure out how to use what I give them, and do the work required there, and it is all theirs for the taking, etc.

For me though, they are just a means to some of my ends, etc, and are just a way of getting all of my stuff out much, much quicker, etc.

Which I could never do or all fully accomplish just on my own ever, etc.

God Bless.