I go into walmart about once a week to get some groceries, and up to a couple of years ago I'd rummage through the $5 bargain bin for DVD's. The last one I got was DOOM. When I got it home, I loaded it up on the computer and Linux said it couldn't read the directory structure. I still had Windows, so I tried that, and it said there wasn't a disk in the drive. The drive was working fine, as some NASCAR DVD I bought at the same time worked as it should. I took the DVD back to Walmart and complained, they said all I could do was swap it for another copy of DOOM (in case the first disk was damaged). The second disk did exactly what the first one did. There was absolutely no information on any special formats or anything on the case. A couple of months later, I bought a new computer, and tried it in that, where it worked perfectly. However, I haven't bought a single DVD since, no telling when they're going to mess up the format again.

He.. Nice start:
"Why I'm a pirate? Because you're not offering a good service."

So true.. I got my SC2 copy via thepiratebay.org. Even though I did buy it. I tried to download it with blizzard tools but it was damn slow, and then decided it can't download anymore cos' of a magic error. Torrent downloaded at max allowed spit, just shy of what would interrupt my internet activities. Never an error, and always fast if it's popular.

Append:
Well it's epic, I agree with every statement. Something good about living in Israel or Russia :]

What a load of bullshit. In the quest to justify their actions, they present one weak argument after the other. Here is a rebuttal:

Even if you don't like the service, you don't have the right to enjoy the material through other means.

Downloading material because you didn't like the service they offer is not a good excuse for piracy. If you don't like the service in a particular place, you don't visit that place any more. You don't go hacking into that place, just to serve yourself.

For example, if you don't like the service at a restaurant, you don't go into the kitchen, grab the food you like and transfer it to your table.

If you don't like the service at a hospital, you don't go back to that hospital. You don't go drag the doctors and nurses to your bed.

If you don't like the service at a hotel, you check out and find another hotel. You don't go drag the service personnel to your room.

If you don't like the way software, movies and songs is delivered to you, you don't have a right to sidestep the process and use your own process to obtain the material.

You can't bring justice to the world by counteracting one injustice with another injustice.

You say that the media companies and the artists they represent are rich, and you pirate things because you think it's unfair for them to complain that piracy hurts them economically.

From a practical point of view, pirating their material doesn't do any justice at all. The only thing it does is to hurt the employees at these companies. The directors and stockholders aren't going to lose their sleep over minimized profit due to piracy. They will simply lay off employees and decrease the paychecks of the rest.

From a moral point of view, you can't fight injustice with injustice. You never know what are the economics behind each CD and DVD you illegally download. There might be an exploited band who got served a bad deal and had no other way out, for example. Pirating their work only hurts the artists and not the companies they have a contract with.

You also are the one responsible for making them rich in the first place. Did you buy CDs worth of 2000€? why? if everyone did this, then the company's execs are enjoying their huge profits in some luxury island while you sit sweating in your cubicle. You shouldn't have bought their CDs in the first place, if you thought injustice is involved.

You are not entitled to use a paid service you didn't pay for.

You are saying that they are messing with your life because you downloaded and used something you didn't intend to pay for.

Guess what? using a paid service and not paying for it is ILLEGAL.

It does not matter if you didn't intend to buy it. That's not the important thing here. The important thing is that you enjoyed the service.

An economic transaction has two parts:

1. delivering the sold item from the seller to the buyer.

2. the buyer pays the seller.

You effectively do #1 without #2, which is a crime.

Furthermore, the argument that you didn't intend to buy it means you didn't intend to use it, but you have used it. I don't think you mean that there is a case where you buy something but you don't use it, is it? so, sorry, you are a hypocrite: once you use something, you are supposed to have bought it first.

Economic freedom, i.e. the freedom to sell one's work as he/she wants is the basis of our civilization.

It is immoral to force a single person or group of people to share their works with the rest of society.

The rest of society has not worked on the products or services or materials these people have created. They are not entitled to enforce a particular way of delivering that product/service/material to the society.

It is only the creators of something that have that right.

If you want to use something someone else created, and that something has a copyright, you have to consult with the creator first. If the creator gives permission, then you have the right to use the creator's material. Otherwise, you don't have any rights on that material.

Intellectual property is a very valid concept. Ideas have value. If you work hard, let's say, all your life, to create an engine that produces more energy than the energy input to it (let's say, cold fusion), aren't you entitled to deliver your works in the market in the way you see fit? do I have a right to go and use your work without compensating you? I don't.

Intellectual property and copyright does not harm the spreading of knowledge at all. It does not harm education at all. If a teacher wants to use the work of another teacher, he/she must consult with them first. That's fair! it would be totally unfair to use someone else's work without consulting with them first.

If you don't want to ask for permission to use someone else's work, then you are wrong. Even if the other person charges for their material, it's their right. You are not forced in anyway to pay them; you can do your own work instead.

You confuse anarchy for freedom.

The fundamental value of freedom you are referring to has another side you conveniently neglect:

Your freedom ends where the other person's freedom begins.

It's not freedom if you use other people's works without asking permission. It is anarchy.

It's not freedom if you use my car without my permission, even if you use it at times that I am not using it. It's anarchy.

It's not freedom if you use my house without my permission, even if you use it at times that I am not in it. It's anarchy.

It's not freedom if you enjoy my video game without paying me. It's anarchy.

It's not freedom if you enjoy my song without paying me. It's anarchy.

If we go down the route you propose, pretty soon there would be no rules left to follow. If you feel entitled to just use my work for your enjoyment, without compensating me, then I might feel entitled to use your car, house, food, television for my enjoyment too. And you know what that would bring? totally anarchy and chaos.

I am not saying that SOPA/PIPA are good laws; they are not, because their purpose is not fighting piracy, it is to instill fear on people to criticize their government. SOPA/PIPA's purpose is censorship; and more importantly, doing away with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty, because these laws enable punishment without going to court first to decide if the copyright violation claim is legit. SOPA/PIPA is a threat to democracy and a prelude to dictatorship.

But you cannot use the immorality of SOPA/PIPA to justify the immorality of piracy. Using another people's works without their consent is immoral and stupid, and just as dangerous as SOPA/PIPA.

Authors of books have hated libraries for years and years.

axilmar, you're not a pirate. Go out of my thread ^^

How about if I hadn't bought that new computer and then torrented the DOOM movie? They had their money from the DVD I bought, although the movie file would last forever if backed up, and the DVD would eventually become unreadable.

Axilmar I'm with you!. Tell me when and where!.

@axilmar

Vast majority of your arguments really a poor.. Comparison of actual theft(when one loses the stolen item) with copying is nonsense.

Regarding anarchy.. I think you're wrong. You just put the border closer to the point of view of authorities paid by the businesses making money by selling this "property".

I think you need to read what I actually said. Yes, people with money that don't pay for something may have actually deprived you of money, maybe, if they would have bought it at all given the opportunity.

Here's an example:

Joe has no money.
Joe can't buy a cd.
Joe copies a friends cd.
Joe now has a CD!
Record company and artist are NOT deprived of anything.

There is no loss if they wouldn't have gotten anything to begin with. Plain and simple. You can't lose something you never had to begin with.

And again, it is not stealing or theft. Having something stolen from you implies something tangible of yours is now gone through no fault of your own. Copying some ones and zeros, or heck, a book using your own paper and ink, is not taking anything away from anyone.

How do you call the situation where one can take anything from anyone else and not pay? isn't that anarchy?

What about the right to profit from each time my work is being enjoyed by someone?

It takes profit away from me.

Copyright represents all possible future profits from selling my work.

If you enjoy something that I have created without you paying me, I lost my right to profit from my job.

You have had to have had something to lose it.

This is like claiming that since only 80% of people in Canada have some kind of cable tv service, the cable industry is out 20% in possible future profits!

Yes. POSSIBLE profit. It has to be possible to begin with. You can't earn something that doesn't exist, like the money Joe could pay for the CD he copied.

append:

Tangible and Intangible objects are not equivalent. Anyone who tries to compare stealing a loaf of bread to copying an mp3 file is either delusional or purposefully ignorant.

Prove it. Seriously. I'd like to see how 0 == 1. I can't conceive of the math you're talking about.

You can't possibly have lost something you wouldn't have got. period.

What value? Do you see any value in Joe's empty wallet? You can't get anything, therefore you haven't lost anything.

It's like saying I'm out a million dollars because I don't have a million dollars.