Not to mention that if piracy weren't possible, then they probably WOULD have bought it, since they wanted it enough to pirate it.

I'm pretty sure nobody will change their opinion and we'll have the same discussion next year.

What is really interesting is the amount of times Arthur have said the word "Doom" in this thread... I've counted three.

You seem to know a lot about pirates... I wonder why...

Wow, thread rush. O_O

My feeling is if you wanted it enough to obtain it, it clearly held value to you. So stop being a douchebag and compensate the creators of whatever you just took. Price too high? Do without. Stop being an entitled little twat.

Which is just as bad, because it makes it look like the demand for whatever is being pirated is actually much higher than it really is. And demand usually has a strong impact on the price of it. I imagine a lot of software, movies, etc. would probably be a lot cheaper if companies didn't have piracy as a convenient excuse for a lot of things (like, say, SOPA).

tl;dr I'm coming around to copyright infringement for a few simple reasons: the industries that are affected by it are exploitative and greedy, producing increasingly poor works and doing everything in their power to get more and more money for them. It has gotten to a point where legitimate use is unacceptably restrictive and most works are poor quality automation (i.e., it's no longer a work of originality or talent, but of hardware and software; similar quality can often be achieved with a PC and some freely^[1] available software at very little cost).

The difference in value of the Mona Lisa versus the materials used to make it are in the unique combination of the materials and its history. The value comes from the very specific strokes, the creator, the hands it has passed through, it's decay over time, and most importantly its uniqueness. We can easily reproduce an image of the Mona Lisa. I'm sure there are artists that have even created some rather impressive duplicate paintings that the average user wouldn't be able to distinguish from the real thing.

Value is relative though. People apply inflated value to things to flaunt their wealth. It's effectively just a statement to say, "look at how wealthy I am". The average Joe would not consider the Mona Lisa being worth millions. Matter of fact, I consider it worthless because I don't care for paintings; especially paintings of ugly transvestites...

If you could reproduce the Mona Lisa at a negligible cost (pennies for the electricity, after the initial hardware and software investments were already made, which aren't counted) such that the best appraiser in the world couldn't differentiate it from the original then the value of the Mona Lisa would drop to nothing for everyone. It would become impossible to know which one was real and which one was fake. Nobody would consider it valuable anymore, except for maybe sentimentally valuable.

The problem with intellectual property is the corporations that rule it, exploiting their power to force authors and consumers alike to sacrifice their rights and freedoms, for the end goal of maximizing profits. It's not about making a fair or reasonable profit. It's about making as much money as possible by forcing people to pay more than they would normally be willing to do. There is certainly an argument for "go without", but at the same time this intellectual property has become so ingrained in our society that it's virtually necessary to do your job or homework (e.g., Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office), or be socially accepted or intellectually matched (e.g., music, movies, games). You can certainly go without some of it, but you can't really go without all of it without making some serious sacrifices that are just impractical.

What's more, the quality of works is steadily declining, while the price remains the same or increases. Microsoft has been caught intentionally adding misfeatures to software to maximize profits, and we all know that most "popular" music, movies, and games are just following simple formulas and applying automation technology to exploit human nature. Most of the mainstream, popular media is not original, not interesting, and not expensive to make. The industries that produce it still want you to pay them lots of money for it, despite it not costing them much money to produce. The real artists that do create original and interesting works are held down and exploited by these same industries.

In short, to reiterate, things need to change, and we already know that they won't change voluntarily. The change needs to be forced. The best way to force that change is to stop supporting the corporations that are Doing It Wrong(tm). For the reasons stated above that make it impractical to go without all intellectual property, I think that it is reasonable to justify copyright infringement in many (but not all) cases.

If it's overpriced, then people won't buy it, by definition. Movies and games are "elastic" in that they're not necessary for survival, as Trent pointed out. Food and shelter are inelastic necessities.

The problem here is the media corporations twisting the law to their own ends to get that last drop of blood from a turnip, as it were. Never mind that other goals will suffer, just so they get as much as they can. This isn't a free market anymore.

So if pirates couldn't get illegal copies they'd just stop watching movies, using computers, and listening to music etc all together? Get real.

Holy fuck.

First of all, let's get this straight:

• Theft / stealing: purposefully removing items from their rightful owner

• Trademark infringement: selling goods in a way that makes them confusingly similar to an established brand

• Copyright infringement: copying a work of art or literature, or any other work that is copyrightable, without the copyright holder's permission and beyond fair use

• Piracy: attacking ships at high sea, in order to steal their cargo, hold passengers and crew ransom, and / or steal the ships themselves, typically involving violent means to achieve these goals

Then. Copyright infringement is certainly illegal (in most parts of the world), arguably harmful to at least some companies' profit, and immoral depending on your stance. But it is not the same as stealing, and certainly not at all comparable to piracy (unless performed at high sea whilst killing or kidnapping those trying to prevent it); the crucial difference being that nothing is directly taken away from the rightful owner.

Even if you consider copyright (and enforcement thereof) immoral, breaking existing laws is not the way to go. Peaceful protesting, democratic debate, and playing your economic weight as a consumer is; and if you are an author of copyrightable works, you should be leading by example and release your works under liberal terms.

Nonetheless, calling copyright infringement "theft" or even "piracy" is plain out incorrect, but since theft and piracy are much more serious crimes (at the very least in the subjective ears of the general public), copyright enforcement lobbyist and similar interest groups all too happily play into sloppy language and purposefully misuse the terms.

Now, the "lost profit" argument: strictly morally speaking, the burden of proof is with the copyright holder. You cannot claim lost profit unless you can provide evidence that there would indeed have been profit if the infringement hadn't taken place. The only way I can see that happening would be to get the infringers to testify that, given infringement had not been an option, they would have paid for being allowed to copy the work. Even if you can argue lost profit, this doesn't mean calling it "theft" is justified.

This is all theoretical though: copyright infringement is illegal, and if you do it, you are breaking the law. The law may be wrong, but again, if that is the case, use all democratic means at your disposal to have them changed. Breaking them is not the way.

*TL;DR*

• It's 'copyright infringement', not 'theft' nor 'piracy'. Use the correct words.

• The 'lost profit' argument is questionable at the very least, but it's irrelevant anyway as long as copyright infringement is illegal.

• Just because it doesn't fit your moral standard is not an excuse to disobey the law as you see fit.

Here's how it works for me:

Case 1:
I'm given two options:
Watch a movie at the cinema for 15$ or Don't watch.
I choose "Don't watch".
Suddenly I am given a third choice "Watch on personal computer for free, but infringe on copyrights".
The third choice is appealing and I take it.
No money has been lost to the movie industry.

Case 2:
Let's go back to these two options, this time I choose "Watch at cinema for 15$".
Suddenly I am given a third choice "Watch on personal computer for free, but infringe on copyrights".
The third choice is appealing and I take it.
Money has been lost to the movie industry

Case 3:
And again let's go back to these two options, this time I choose "Watch at cinema for 15$".
Suddenly I am given a third choice "Watch on personal computer for free, but infringe on copyrights".
I keep true to my original choice and watch the movie at the cinema for 15$.
No money was lost to the movie industry and even some money was gained, good for them!

Case 4:
And again let's go back to these two options, now I choose "Don't watch".
Suddenly, I am given a third choice "Download to personal computer legally for 10$".
I choose the third option and now the movie industry gained money

Personally, I am never in Case 2, but I am often in Case 3 and some of the time Case 1. This is because I think going to the cinema sucks and I'd much rather watch movies at home (whether it is with friends or without).
For me, even though I'm technically committing the crime of copyright infringement (not theft.) I don't really care, since my lawfulness is not brought fourth by my fear/respect of the law, but rather by my morality, and my morals tell me that as no harm came to anyone I'm fine with it.
The real interesting case of course is Case 4, had I only been offered the experience I wanted in the first place (for an appropriate price), there would have been much more profit for the movie industry...

There are of course more cases - what do I do when the content is completely unavailable for me to consume? Or some local organization or restriction prevents me for reasonably obtaining such content? Technically it is still a crime; If the copyright holder uses his rights to say "There is no copying whatsoever allowed. No one but me may watch this" it may be his right to do so, but how is he harmed by me infringing on his copyright, and why should I even care?

</rambling>

Walking a red light when there are no cars is not acceptable as well, huh?

I find downloaded HDrips a lot more comfortable, at least because the rewinding is instant :]
Oh well.. & you also don't need to look for any disks, all done through the interface. + free

No! Arguing all night here is free!

@Matthew: I've done that. Neighbor's internet went down

The result was we simply stared at the wall. We went to see the sherlock holmes movie, only because I promised my best friend that we could see it on his break from the navy. When confronted with the two choices: buy or go without... we just went without.

I don't have money to waste on mediocrity. I'd rather spend money to go see my friends' band; they are far more important than some dead horse franchise.

@23yrold: I don't completely agree, but I see your point and want to commend your sizable ummm... ballz... I guess.