If you could copy a car or an object without affecting the original car, would it be considered stealing?
No, because the original product is still intact.

It's the same thing with software.
You're not taking a physical product made with real materials, you're copying virtual data to your drive and making use of it.

Companies are not losing money because of it, because we are not taking anything physical from them.
It's the same thing as not buying in the first place, so if that was the case, not buying something (aka, not supporting a product) would be the same as stealing.

P.S.: I know some people are against piracy and will go against my idea, but my logic is flawless and you can't deny it.

1. everyone agrees with you
2. you're wrong, companies are losing money from it. They don't just own the data, they own the IP for the data, the right to prevent other people from copying it. If you copy it, you're removing (they no longer have it in the morning) their expensive, sellable right to prevent other people from copying.

Fuck moral arguments just pirate.

>>105810308
IP/copyright is retarded and should be abolished
people are literally dying because the goverment gives corpos a monopoly on life saving drugs. its very cheap to make but its expensive because only 1 or 2 companies are allowed to make it

>>105810244 (OP)
Why is it considered selling if what you're taking money for is an automated copy and not the product of your many work hours?

When you write a book, why should you get any royalties for the copies sold, if the guy selling the copies is using his own paper and ink to print? He should be charging for his materials and his work, not the work of someone else. In fact, it's the authors fault if he sells his work for peanuts, he should be responsible for trusting his own potential and dismissing whoever doesn't care about it, also the author should be responsible for making copies and selling them himself if he's that interested in copy revenue.

If I pirate a work, that means I'm running the costs for building the copy. The author has no business looking into how or what I use the copies for. He is not entitled to any revenue, he decided to make his ideas available, he should have kept it in his brain if he didn't want me to share them.

Don't tell a secret if you want it to remain a secret.

>>105810334
Just make the frickn drugs free uwu. Companies will design Lifileucel even if they don't make any money from it because researchers are heckin good people.

The alternative world where people can't make money from their investments isn't one where everything we have now is free, it's one where we don't have anything that we have now. If you're not smart enough to realize this, you'll become a communist in a few years.

>>105810308
They don't own nothing. They have the use of legal force as an option. This is not owning, the fact that pirates can use the work means they don't own it.

Would you say you own a wife if she is dating a nigger behind your back? No, she doesn't want you, she's not yours, it's only your wife from a legal artifact. The same way rights are owned as legal artifacts. The difference is that wives could be punished before for cheating and that changed, thus IP rights are still punished for now but nothing stops that from changing because they only exist as political decisions.

They won't change in the meantime because they are money sinks. When money sinks become problematic and society is losing their shit only then will IP laws be revised.

>>105810379
Actually, researchers will do it anyway because academia relies on filling the gaps in whatever bullshit paper can be churned out, real advancements are only incentives for researchers to keep motivated and get their obligatory paper/grant bait paper finished.

>>105810244 (OP)
>Companies are not losing money because of it
lost profit is a loss
of course this idea assumes that if I didn't download their product I would have bought it, which most of the time is not the case

>>105810334
People are literally dying because they drive drunk, because they did something retarded trying to impress a girl, because they keep consuming cigarettes and alcohol, because they live in shitholes that haven't yet discovered agriculture
People dying isn't that big of a deal

do not care and did not read and still pirating everything))

>>105810333
This lmao I don't do it because I think I have the moral high ground I do it because there are no consequences

>>105810466
Are all projects entitled to be successful?

If I projected a number of sales and I didn't reach the goal, then I made a bad estimate. They overestimate the amount of people interested in their product, they fail to recognize piracy as a real world phenomenon and tap its potential.

For example what if you decided to release software with built in ads paid in advance, pirates will get it and be exposed to advertising, you may track the pirated copies and extort money out of the companies that wanted advertisement in it, and separately intend to remoce the ads for full price sales?

This is evil shit but it's inevitable in this evil world. I'm only saying it because at some point some fuck will start doing it, the only thing stopping them is seeing piracy as opposed to their paradigm of rights ownership.

>>105810244 (OP)
tl;dr — " "intellectual" property" is bull shit.

>>105810244 (OP)
I like piracy

>>105810244 (OP)
The law only exists for the lower classes. Corporations steal IP freely, billionaires can have anyone they want executed and have as much drugs as they want, government can steal your property for made up reasons. If you voluntarily follow the law even when you can get away with breaking it then you are a slave

>>105810244 (OP)
NOOO YOU DIDN'T GIVE ARTIFICIAL GOYCOINS TO SHMULIE SHEKELSTEIN, THAT MEANS IT'S BAD, EVEN THOUGH CREATING INFINITE RESOURCES OUT OF THIN AIR TO SUPPLY ALL OF MANKIND WOULD BE A POSITIVE THING IT UNDERMINES THE POWER DYNAMIC AND REMOVES THE HOLD THAT THE PEOPLE, WHO CREATED GOYCOINS, HAVE OVER YOU

>>105810244 (OP)
because the internet doesn't work like the real world, then what you describe seems logical, but intellectual property is a product, a product of ideas. so even if you just copy software because the computer allows it, you are stealing the idea of making the software, not the finished product of the software.

>>105810244 (OP)
Only /v/tards and especially mindbroken tendies will only tell you that piracy is bad. Every other internet savvy and rational person will tell you that Piracy is a necessary evil that needs to exist. So, the moral of this is to pirate freely, but dont be too uppity online for updoots. You not only you look like a faggot, but you help shedding the spotlight on piracy which attracts the attention of corpocucks.

>>105810790
Courts genuinely think it does, e.g. requesting someone's id to buy alcohol is the same as requesting a picture of yourself to watch porn.

Also, ad blockers are getting axed next.

>>105810244 (OP)
I couldn't care less about any moralfaggotry. I VILL NOT argue with any moralfagging redditors, creators, media production companies and xitter trannies. I VILL NOT listen to their mental flips. I VILL steal your car, your wallet and your intelectual property.

>>105810244 (OP)
>Companies are not losing money because of it, because we are not taking anything physical from them.
You are spending time using something you got for free. You would be more likely to pay for something if you didn't have the free alternative.

>>105810244 (OP)
sneaking into a theater or stealing cable to watch a movie doesn't erase the movie. if everyone could watch movies for free would anyone be making movies?
>Companies are not losing money because of it
they're losing their massive investment that made it possible in the first place. nobody would invest money into making games if they had to give them away free. no profit = no investment. no investment = no game. that means piracy = no game. i sincerely hope you're only pretending to be this retarded.

>>105810840
Necessary? You need to watch the Simpsons illegally?

>>105810244 (OP)
So you wouldn't feel slighted at all if you spent thousands of hours making a wonderful piece of software for the express purpose of making money off of it, only to have the very first person to buy it give it away for free to anyone else who wants it?

You wouldn't feel bad about that, right? You *technically* weren't wronged!

>>105810960
No, but I need to watch the Matrix interpolated in 60fps. Jokes aside, piracy is necessary because it helps preserving e-stuff to their original shape. Perhaps you are going to mald about it and throw an ironic joke to downplay that aspect of piracy, but that's how it is.

>>105810379
austrian economics :)

>>105810985
>piracy is necessary because it helps preserving e-stuff
What youtube video essay did you get that take from?
You don't delete the file after you watch it, right?

Your killing the comic industry

>>105811002
I dont need youtube man to tell me what to think.
I have a personal example where shitzzard killed the original warcraft 3(I had it purchased on disc) and forced me to buy the Reforged in order to play the classic version as an only option. Now, I dont need 30+gb of bloat since I play wc3 on my old laptop, so I had to pirate an older version of wc3 in order to resume playing LAN with my friends

>>105810965
these same faggots cry if you steal their oc pepe they made in 2 minutes with mspaint. they piss all over themselves when reddit steals a slang term from them. they would have a screeching crying meltdown like that "leave britney alone" girl if somebody stole a game or movie they made.

>>105811032
>i had it on disc
>i had to pirate it

>>105811044
Yes nigga, I had to pirate a cracked version of it because before reforged's release, wc3 was connected to Blizzard's Battlenet and launched from there. After Reforged's release, you had to download Reforged update as well in order to keep playing. As I said, I dont need that useless 30+gb of bloat in my laptop, since I dont want to purchase that upgrade.
Just google it. There is extensive documentation about it online. Maybe it is you who needs youtube man's opinion after all lmao

>>105810931
>if everyone could watch movies for free would anyone be making movies?
Yes. Not only that, those movies would be art instead of slop. Even movies today tell you money is noise.

>they're losing their massive investment
boohoo. maybe they should have invested in something else. Again they're not entitled to win.

>>105811096
nta retard. why didn't you just get the crack for the version you already owned like i did?

>>105811032
Sure, because when people talk about the ethics of piracy, they're totally talking about 25 year old abandonware, and not a steam game from last year.

>>105810965
I wouldn't, I would be flattered, and I would think I left my mark in the world by successfully disemonating my ideas and becoming part of history and culture.

>for the express purpose of making money off of it
Maybe rethink your life choices and make money off a service like serving burgers then?

>>105811104
>maybe they should have invested in something else
that's literally the entire point of my post, retard. if there is too much piracy then they will simply stop making entertainment and just start investing in financial instruments or some bullshit.

>>105811104
>Yes. Not only that, those movies would be art instead of slop.
Imagine being this fucking delusional

>>105811139
I am not entitled to peoples output specifically on the gaming industry. Maybe if they hadn't followed a quick buck they would have gone into bioinformatics and contributed to antimicrobial research.

If less games are being made, so be it. People will still make games, and even in the unrealistic case they stopped altogether, the world would go on. Companies are not entitled to profit, they are not entitled to my money. If game dev is not profitable to them I have no qualms if they pull out of it.

>>105810244 (OP)
>>105810308
i remember the dev of World Of Goo saying that the amount of seeders/leechers of his game on torrent was 10x the amount of people who bought it.

>>105811120
Piracy is ethical because I personally want something and therefore I should take it, quite simple really

>>105811164
Maybe he should have choosen a freeware+ad business model, it's not my fault his project failed.

>>105811108
Because you had to downgrade it first in order to make it playable and crack compatible. There are some cracked wc3 versions with different pros and cons according to official patches they keep the game running with. I ended up pirating the wc3 version 1.31.1 because it has less bugs on the campaign and 1080p support
>>105811120
This is why I call piracy a "necessary evil". Necessary stands for preservation and accessibility, and evil stands for hoarding things you dont need and pirating new stuff. How hard is this to grasp as a concept?

>>105811172
>his project failed.
it didn't. it sold enough,especially on wii, and has a 90 meta-critic score. what have you done, anon?

>>105811177
Preservation and accesibility goes against the consent of the right holder. People paid a lot to get those rights

Piracy doens't affect sales. idk why corpos are acting like they're mad about it

example: Denuvo stops pirates from playing your game for free, but it doesn't guarantee they will buy it.

Devs/Mangaka/Anime publishers are against the "idea" of piracy. they don't lose any money from it

>>105811180
I have tended my crops, reared my cattle and gooned to pirated porn games, a life well lived

>>105811177
Piracy will never cease to exist as a concept. What I am saying is that there is a big difference between
>Hmm, what are my options for playing pokemon FireRed?
and
>My favorite studio's new release is out. Time to torrent!

The debate is whether an action is moral is not. I'd say the former is, but the latter isn't.

>>105811180
What have I done? I am training, I will make my own videogame company, and I will tell people if you don't want to pay for it just pirate it. If it becomes popular I will sell it and use the money to buy land and protect it from mining jews. If it fails I go back to being a doctor and let the next generation have a shot at preserving this world against jewery.

>>105811209
There is no debate. The choice is simple.

Do I want to pay for X product? No. Can I still access X product? Yes. Simple as.

>>105811212
k notch

>>105811230
>Do I want to pay for X product? No. Can I still access X product? Yes. Simple as.
this is literally the exact thought process of every nigger before they get brained trying to rob a gas station. you're an actual, biological, nigger.

>>105811230
>Do I want to pay for the malt liquor
>No
>Can I still access the malt liquor
>Sheeeeeeeit

>>105811251
Yet it's a nigger who takes your girlfriend's ass whenever he wants, how about you?

>>105811230
>This person made something I like and wishes to profit off of it.
>I will reap the benefits of this, but deny them of their original incentive.

That does not sound very moral to me.

>>105811189
No it doesnt, when the company itself doesnt give a shit about their product(Old unavailable Nintendo games, pre cloud Adobe products), or actively downgrade their product with censorship (nuSkullgirls) or "ai enhancement"(I heard that some James Cameron movies have been updated with AI on streaming sites and you have no other option to watch them online. You can buy the old blu ray, but most modern PCs dont even have disc trays), or when the said company doesn't exist anymore (Volition, Sierra, etc etc). That kind of stuff are 100% moral to download because they exist in a moral limbo.
>>105811209
Its true that piracy is a grey moral area that can spark an endless discussions about ethics. Personally, I lean towards "piracy is mostly ethical" because nowadays, every company not only doesnt hand out free samples to test a product (like demos), but they actively try to screw you over by increasing the product/subscription price. As gaben said, "piracy is almost always a service issue"

>>105811265
>jewish/hindu bbc fantasy
fuck off queer. i won't help you masturbate.

>>105811272
Piracy is always moral, I do not have to give you anything simply because you decided to be a retard and do the hard work

>>105811288
>you decided to be a retard and do the hard work
How do you think the world would be if everybody had this mindset?

>>105810244 (OP)
I fully agree.
t. Mark Zuckerberg

>>105811311
they don't care. they're sociopathic children

>>105811311
The world "works" because cattle do as they are told. Free thinkers need not lower ourselves to their level

>>105811270
Do you think jews thought of morals when deciding they can charge for copies of works they didn't create, that they can buy and sell the rights to making copies based on speculation, that they can buy and sell debt with the promise of violence as leverage?

>>105811311
The fact is that retards do the hard work and whoever finds the niche thrives in it. This is natural law, your idea of fairness is a fantasy and will always come second to the overarching natural law in which jews have found the means to thrive by twisting the moral >>105811311
narratives.

>>105811272
>piracy is almost always a service issue
I disagree. It's almost always a "I don't want to pay $60" issue, plain and simple.

>>105811341
>Where did my high trust society go?

>>105811341
>*tip*

>>105811354
> disagree. It's almost always a "I don't want to pay $60" issue, plain and simple
No, you actually agree. Those 60+ prices are ridiculous for videogames and what they offer in return. There is a reason why AA and indies are thriving and AAA goyslop empire is collapsing. So in the end, its indeed a service problem.

>>105811354
>>Where did my high trust society go?
Imperialism, feudalism and the industrial revolution took it away

>>105811353
>I deserve to reap the benefits of society and not repay people for their effort.
And you have the gall to call others jews lol

>>105811353
>playing vidya is proof that i'm the most fit for survival!
>i won at natural selection because i speedrun elden ring
>i rule you peasants!!!
>behold my achievement list!!

>>105811371
>feudalism
>the world works because the cattle do what they're told
way to deflect right back onto yourself lmao

i don't know why developers stopped releasing demos. there's been so many games that i've pirated only to realize that they're not for me, and i end up uninstalling them. i'm not paying $60 just to try out a video game and never play it again.

>>105811371
And yet you encourage people to contribute to this decline of trust rather than resist it. Sounds amoral to me.

>>105811379

>>105811397
this is a good point. i think this is a good example of gaben saying piracy is a service issue. expecting people to buy a $60 game before they even tried it out it is ridiculous. it would be like buying a car without test driving it.

>>105811401
"Morality" is a means of control. Whoever you let dictate what is moral and what isn't controls you. Daddy government tells you killing is immoral but when the Russians attack then NOT killing Russians is immoral.
I'm not interested in a "high trust society" where I trust the government and the government uses me to make corrupt officials richer. There can't be trust when a few make decisions for the entire society

>>105810244 (OP)
Why go through such mental gymnastics? Yes it's stealing, so what?

>>105811423
>Whoever you let dictate what is moral and what isn't controls you
i control myself then. i dictate what is moral and what isn't. people are entitled to the product of their labor. if you take the product without compensating them you are evil. i consider it slavery. you're a slaver. fuck you.

>>105810244 (OP)
It's the same thing with Counterfeit Currency.
Is that okay too, in your book?

>>105811423
Look at the quality of living of societies throughout history that abided by moral codes vs those that didn't.

>I'm not interested in a "high trust society" where I trust the government and the government uses me to make corrupt officials richer
I don't think you know what a high trust society even means.

>>105810244 (OP)
stealing or not I don't give a fuck, still doing it.
I've been pirating shit my whole life since the napster day and I'll keep doing it until I die

Piracy is the only way to get a digital drm free copy of movies that just works. Every time I try to pay for something like streaming it wont work with my PC / old projector because of some DRM shit. I stopped paying when I never got the product I paied for

>>105811438
You're a sheep parroting the values you've been brainwashed with since childhood thinking they're your own conclusions. An automaton with no capacity to rationalize, just giving preprogrammed responses to stimuli. People like you don't deserve any respect

>>105811458
I never said I'm against morals. I'm against codes of "morality" and law decided by oligarchs who don't abide by those same codes. You cannot have a high trust society unless everyone in that society is equal

>>105810244 (OP)
Hey fren, it's much simpler than that. They release the digital copy into the wild, not you breaking into their vault and stealing it.
>>105810308
Your argument is fake and gay because IP matters only in a commercial/trade setting and does not apply to private and/or sovereign citizens. Thank you for trying your best at sucking the corpofaggot anus.

>>105811470
Whenever I buy anything officially, I'm always left disappointed and frustrated by DRM shit and features that are "no longer included :^)"

>>105811480
Nobody ITT believes that morals and law are the same, or even well aligned. By morals, we simply mean that way the we believe people ought to act.

>>105810244 (OP)
>Run a business selling products for money
>Everyone effortlessly copies everything you make instead of buying it from you
Why are we pretending the "theft" is the main problem? If everyone is using my products without a purchase then my business is getting fucked over. Are you just going to say this highly sought after product was a mistake and laugh in my face because it could be copied and pirated easily?

Then the cries start when businesses jam in DRM everywhere. Shit don't make a lick of sense unless you simply want free stuff because you can get it for free no matter what.

>>105811562
How much do you charge for your product, kike?

>>105811527
I believe people should be free to download whatever the fuck they want and modify it however the fuck they want. I believe people who recognize the value of what they use will feel compelled to support the services they use, and that people supporting the services they use is a sign of a healthy society which basic needs are already met and has moved to the goal of creating meaning.

When man isn't compelled to be part of something it comes from unmet needs. He who has enough will freely give.

>>105811562
>noooo my business is getting fucked over by a not-client who decided to self-expose to my product! Now my fraud will come out to light!

Digital licenses basically sell you an electric pattern in memory. You get sold the right for your machine to enter a specific configuration in memory space.
Still it's considered theft and hurts artists, who am I to judge.

>>105811589
>>105811606
So, you love DRM? The line has gone up since the top result of google with the product name stopped being the latest version.

>>105811625
>tons of people playing a game and generating publicity, which generates new buyers, is a bad thing
Fuck off

>>105811631
Nigga, I literally want the sun to shit itself and have everything EMP'd into fatal error.

>>105811631
I have no influence in the strategic decisions of jews. The goal of their companies is not to make games, their goal is to look like goody-two-shoes for-profit business doing well, clean enough to be a good bargaining chip when shit hits the fan for the stakeholders. DRM is the response to a company philosophy that doesn't see opportunities in piracy. Banning pantyshots is another strategy that aligns with the company goal I mentioned. Piracy has no influence on them from anything but a conceptual perspective, so what I or you do don't have anything to do with it.

>>105811637
Depends on what you're pirating. An anime even encouraged people overseas to pirate it.

>>105811645
Sounds like a /pol/ thing. Where everyone wants a great reset for everyone in their able male 15-40 years of life and I guess everyone else they know outside of that should just suffer and die massively in the chaos ensued by such event.

>>105811665
Uncle Ted was right. Advancement only speeds up mankind's demise. Imagine having high enough IQ to recognize this and still choosing to continue to participate in that process.

>>105811665
Let's continue into a downward spiral for another few centuries instead. I'm sure that ramping world population, resource scarcity and energy usage will somehow balance out by themselves and replace the dystopia with a golden age for humanity

>>105811683
Yet here you still participate with the fruits of such advancements. Don't you have a forest farm to maintain or whatever a person wishing for total collapse does?

>>105811657
If you're a game dev and you can press the button for getting 1M people playing your game BUT they all pirated it, you press the button every time.
Companies literally pay streamers hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them to play their games and gain publicity.

>>105811711
>Yet here you still participate with the fruits of such advancements
What do I preach? My word is all I have and
>Don't you have a forest farm
After certain events I might, :)

>>105810244 (OP)

>>105811730
It's done for market share

>>105811699
Human history is filled with more hardship and strife than any of us can imagine compared to most of civilized world today. People are just too fucked in the head when they compare luxury with their neighbour and on social media. Then act like working for pay is worse than subsistence farming and having each year be the potential end for your entire family tree if the weather sucks in a particular way or the local insects act up or wheat rot fucks the entire crop. But I guess that's "exciting and genuine" or some dumb shit like that.

>>105811780
>Face some unforseen trouble every decade or so
VS
>Be the system dependant yet happy human livestock incapable of survival if the global trade stops for 3 months.

>>105811730
That's literally what Notch did with Minecraft

>>105811847
Cool, I'm in. Who will give me my own subsistence farming land when the civilisation drops?
No one?
I have guns so I guess I'll just take whatever seems good. I hope they don't mind the waves upon waves of desperate people looting their shit and shooting them up.
Oh they have guns too I guess we'll see who gets who first.
Gosh I love local fractured tribes times. No corrupt cops getting in my way ending lives and raiding with the boys.

>>105810244 (OP)
that's cool and all but with the influx of sheep such as yourself, We are inevitably going to see a decrease in quality for most piracy services not necessarily because of higher traffic, but because of the ensuing witch hunt against operators, spearheaded by multi million dollar law firms. We are already seeing this with Scanlations (Kakao) and other anime streaming sites (rip 9anime).

>>105810379
Actually consider lazy you despite the motivation to at least make some money to have luxuries. Consider how little you do even for yourself. And now you're suggesting people will do REALLY HARD WORK for free when fags like you do nothing. People ultimately do hard work because at least some of them get richly rewarded for it.

>>105810244 (OP)
that's cool and all but the influx of sheep such as yourself is inevitably going to lead to a decrease in quality for most piracy services not necessarily because of higher traffic, but because of the ensuing witch hunt against operators, spearheaded by multi million dollar law firms. We've been seeing this problem with Scanlations (Kakao) and other anime streaming sites (rip 9anime). Its become pointless to bookmark high quality services for Manga and anime because they get taken down after a short time anyway which is unfortunate.

>>105812151
dude you're clearly bored but remember that you're dumb, hence why you rely on trolling and writing retarded angry posts

Any "piracy causes no harm" people are very obviously idiots who have given their own ideas no actual consideration. I have no idea why people are so obsessed with moralizing their crimes nowadays. Back in the day people just stole shit and we laughed at people who brought up all these bad faith arguments.

>>105810308
I don't think copyright is retarded but it shouldn't last for 95 fucking years.

>>105812178
Stealing causes harm because it deprives the other person of that thing. Piracy is more like getting mad about someone drawing Sonic because they should've gone to the store and bought a print.

>>105812172
I blame youtube and social media for blowing "trends" such as this one out of proportion and spoon feeding suicidal Gen z trash like you. Soon, when everything your generation touches has been successfully enshitified, there won't be a way around paying for stuff even if is as simple as moving your mouse around on a webpage or scrolling down to read the full article.. oh wait. Anyway good luck finding an entry level job in the current economy you poor fuck.

does this edgelord actually think pirating hoi4 is going to lead to the destruction of all civilization? huns and mongols, no problem. but a fat weeb downloading malware-infected paradox slop, oh the humanity. this is the worst thread on /g/ in days. pirate or don't, it's not even worth talking about, faggots.

>>105810379
Drug development can be funded through governments, ngos and charities. Besides that being able to distribute the drugs we already have at cost or at a small profit (anything less than 100% markup) would do more good than inventing new drugs at this point.

You can't pirate physical objects, as you can't create matter from nothing

>>105812331
How did pirates did it in the XVII century then?

>>105810244 (OP)
>If you could copy a car or an object without affecting the original car, would it be considered stealing?
if I had a replicator ray I would shoot it at hot girls and clone them for my basement collection

Does stealing make you look strong and cool?
Does piracy make you look strong and cool?
If the answers are the same, then piracy is stealing.

>>105812271
yes this board has indeed seen better days, Yet another example of enshitification by Gen z. And how does one get malware from video streams or viewing pngs? please share these techniques of yours. actually don't. work a trade, clean up your room, and make some plans for your future home (pro tip: you cant, ur zoomer ass was born too late for that).

>>105811847
Will never understand anons who think that humans forming societies isn't natural.
Your mom couldn't birth you in the woods and fuck off. You'd die. And while pregnant, she's vulnerable and would need to eat at even more of a surplus or for the survival of the baby.
So her husband/lover or some support group needs to keep her safe.
You are generally helpless until about 5 or 6, and only can you survive "on your own" around your early mid teens.
No human can fend off a huge predator or groups of predators by themselves without tools and knowledge of those tools so people would inevitably team up to ensure survival and to protect their families from rivals.

Some of you anons need to take a political science class.

>>105810244 (OP)
I'm not selling my car, or looking to profit from my car. So if someone copied it I don't give a shit, it doesn't effect me. But if I wput my car beside the road with a sale sign on it and assholes kept coming to my house to copy my car instead of buying it it would piss any normal person off.

>>105812680
I don't get it. If you are selling your car and other people come copy your car, that means you could copy anyone else's car if you were selling it because you need one, and if you were selling it for profit alone, why wouldn't you do anything else for profit instead? It's not like you're entitled to profit from that car specifically. If the car is worth nothing, then why bother selling it?

>>105810379
>companies being allowed to extort normal people is good and if you disagree you're a communist
i'd tell you to kill yourself but judging from your posts you're morbidly obese and will die of heart disease anyways due to being incapable of affording proper care

>>105812222
No, that would be akin to making your own game from scratch instead of buying one.

>>105810922
no, i just wouldnt use the thing, neither would millions of others.

>>105810333
but nothing is free

....

>>105813283
Oxygen is, sun is, rain is, ducks at the pond are...

>>105810244 (OP)
Piracy is theft. You're robbing the creator/distributor of the money you'd normally have to pay for access to the content. I'm not even against piracy, but saying it's not stealing is just retarded. It's stealing.

>>105810470
Then you do it

>>105810308
But if I would never have bought the right to copy, they would not lose any money if I make a copy for just myself. Only if I distribute copies to others they could claim damages if those others were likely to pay if it had not been for me giving them copies.

>>105810367
Stealing =/= copyright infringement and it saddens me that people are spreading corpo propaganda for free.

>>105810244 (OP)
but your car now has a resale value of $0 dollars

>>105810244 (OP)
If somebody copies your car they devalue it. If anyone can just copy your car then it's monetarily worthless.

>>105810244 (OP)
If someone copies my Ferrari then my Ferrari isn't worth what I bought it for, therefore stealing money out of my pocket. It also means owning a Ferrari isn't special anymore, I don't get to be part of a tightly-knit owners' club, I just have to settle for being part of the mainstream plebs that drive crossovers and camries.

Piracy isn't the theft of content it's the theft of payment

>>105814351
>isn't worth what I bought it for, therefore stealing money out of my pocket
To expand upon this point further, by pirating a game, you are signalling to the developers and publisher that you believe the game is worth nothing. You aren't willing to support them or put food on the tables of the developers who worked so hard on the game, you just want the game for yourself. This is a selfish view that helps nobody and is directly responsible for killing your favorite games and forcing DRM, DLC and MTX on everyone in an attempt to regain lost profits from piracy. Even open source software relies on donations. Do your part. Support what you love. Don't copy that floppy.

It's like sneaking into a half empty movie theater.

>>105814036
Retarded take. You're not robbing them of anything. They have their copy of the software. There is no such thing as a "lost sale". By your logic, a bad review is robbing too.

If anything, piracy helps the publishers and creators because it's free publicity. There's been a ton of shit I bought after the fact that I wouldn't have bought otherwise if I didn't try it first or if my friends, who also pirated it, tried it first and recommended it to me.

It's like reading a magazine then putting it back on the shelf.

It's like jumping the gate at the subway: the train is gonna go with or without you.

>>105814348

Wrong. Its utility makes it intrinsically valuable.

It's like taking a photograph of someone's artwork for sale and printing your own copy of it.

It's like rain on your wedding day.

>>105814368
This is you. This is what you sound like.

It's like tailgating a semitruck to save on gas. No actuslly it's not like that one.

Point is the only difference between pirating and paying is the payment part, so piracy is the theft of payment.

>>105810244 (OP)
Stealth trans colors in this image

>>105814420
They're not entitled to my money, and creating a copy by flipping bits costs them nothing.

If a train journey exists and nobody pays the fair, do you think that journey will continue to exist? The more people that pay, the more the operating company can continue to invest by making a better service or more frequent journeys.
It's an undeniable fact that consuming media without financial compensation to the creators counts as a lost sale.

>>105810244 (OP)
companies steal from each other all the time, why would I be different?

>>105814455
If their whole business model runs contrary to the functional machinations of the internet, then their business SHOULD fail. Anyone can make any copy at any time, anywhere. This was the design.

The free software folks have it right. Charge for the thing that is actually matters i.e. the labor, the development time, and the bugfixes. Creating copies of software costs nothing; it's the development that is the precious and scarce commodity.

>>105810308
>the right
"right" was an ethical term before it was a legal one. These companies are immoral. They do not have *the right*. It would be immoral for me to aid them by funding them, or in any manner.
There is nothing *right* about supporting evil.

>>105814476
>Charge for the thing that is actually matters i.e. the labor, the development time, and the bugfixes.
That's what you're paying for when you purchase a license to play a game.

>>105814476
>Anyone can make any copy at any time, anywhere. This was the design.
Anyone can sneak on a train at any time. That train was operating anyway, right? this was the design? The only meaningful difference is that there's increased risk with sneaking on a train.
In another reality where binaries can only be executed by those with valid purchases, you can guarantee there would be more sales.

>>105814514
>That's what you're paying for when you purchase a license to play a game.

Wrong.

>>105814539
>Anyone can sneak on a train at any time.

That's not just a bad analogy, it's a red herring. First off, not everyone can *afford* to pay for software. Believe it or not, there was a time operating systems costed tens of thousands of dollars. Then Linux came in, and guess what? Today Microsoft is shilling for people to take it for free. Your whole premise is categorically wrong in every conceivable way.

>>105810308
>Companies are losing money
If I wasn't going to buy it to begin with then they don't lose money from me pirating it. After all for a lot of the overpriced or convoluted shit It's either piracy or nothing.

>>105814374
>I wouldn't buy the game anyway, so why not pirate
most people who would have otherwise bought it can now pirate it too ie lost sales, besides you know good and well you would s.0.y out over the latest slop that UBsoft and EA come up with.

>>105814751
sorry meant to quote this >>105814639

>>105810333
I find it hilarious that the retards at r/piracy are obviously ashamed of pirating so they have to create copes everyday; just fucking pirate for the sake of it man

>>105814751
I don't play games. There is a ton of software besides games. The world doesn't revolve around games. Games are a waste of time for me anyway, not even worth pirating. And there is no such thing as "lost sales". They're not entitled to my money or anyone else's to begin with. They lose exactly $0 even if I pirate the software. They lose exactly $0 even if a thousand people pirate the software. Companies who make it their business model to sell copies of software deserve to fail anyway. Their model is completely retarded.

>>105814801
and what's a better model, the Freetard one? Where inferior software developed by freetroons in their spare time gets broken upon every release, is endlessly forked, and makes everyone's lives miserable? get real retard

>>105810379
>>105812315
>Drug development can be funded through governments
they already are. taxes go to universities that partner with big pharma. they share labs and equipment and then the patent goes to the corporation because the whole system is corrupt

>>105814801
Games are also software, the principle applies.
>I'm entitled to a copy of their program for free. Why? just coz
It is easier to simply admit you're a poorfag than coming up with absurd cope arguments.

>>105814751
That is the tricky bit then isn't it? Deciding how much is actually loss revenue vs people who wouldn't have bought it otherwise?
I honestly think piracy is great so long as you're doing it in a scenario in which you wouldn't have bought it otherwise. Either because of money constraints on you personally, or because you hate the company who makes it. Hell just as long as you aren't pirating small indie works I really see no drama to be had about it.

>>105814900
I make a six figure salary writing GPL'd software. You're a dumbass because you just don't get it.

>>105814915
If you mean software generally then use the term "software" and stop insisting on just games. I'm fairly rich, upper-middle class with a luxury car and 150k in investments excluding 401k.

No. I pirate because DRM is fucking retarded. I get higher quality products without the locked down bullshit. Louis Rossmann has videos on this, go watch him and then tell me how piracy is cope.

>>105814980
DRM is retarded because niggers like you go out their way to crack products for gibsware. Rossman doesn't say 'go pirate everything', not everyone is Adobe with bullshit practice. You pirate because you are either poor or find pleasure in jewing your way through life.

>>105815005
>not everyone is Adobe with bullshit practice
Funny, I pirated adobe photoshop too. I'm glad I did. Enjoy your lifetime subscription ;) I actually own my copy

>You pirate because you are either poor or find pleasure in jewing your way through life.
You can repeat it as many times as you want, doesn't make it true. I could easily buy it, but I'm not giving Adobe or Ubisoft my money. Actually, most software I own is Free/Libre anyway. Believe it or not, 9 times out of 10 it's better because I get to actually tweak it like I want it. DRM exists because companies think if they push a square peg into a round hole hard enough that it'll work. Their business model is broken fundamentally.

>rossman doesn't say go pirate everything
Wrong again. At this point I'm laughing at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhvDXmFEeUI

>>105814949
Well let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a clothing store has a secret door behind the store, inside the door is a room containing a quantum materialiser, whereby he can infinitely replenish his supply of clothing. Now, during a riot, a pack of niggers went into the store and looted it out completely. Would you say their looting is justified?

Piracy objectively isn't stealing in the literal sense and anyone claiming otherwise is fucked in the head. It's copyright infringment. If you want to make some sort of argument that's depriving the copyright owner of potential revenue and therefore spiritual theft then that's fine, but I simply do not care and will continue to pirate stuff for the rest of my life.

>>105815086
Nta but in that scenario the shop owner should be tortured to death of her was selling items of clothing for anything more than a dollar

>>105815052
>Funny, I pirated adobe photoshop too
Yea we know, kike.

>Actually, most software I own is Free/Libre anyway.
There we go, a freetard just like I predicted. Hey why don't you use gimp instead of photoshop? I thought the freetard business model produces better software?

>Wrong again. At this point I'm laughing at you
It's hyperbole, he is talking about Netflix. Nice to know freetards are disingenuous.

>>105815086
Nta but in that scenario the shop owner should be tortured to death if he was selling items of clothing for anything more than a dollar

>>105815117
Were the niggers justified in their looting?

>>105815125
Yes obviously, because the shop owner deserves to be robbed and killed. I thought that was clear from my post.

>>105815110
>There we go, a freetard just like I predicted. Hey why don't you use gimp instead of photoshop? I thought the freetard business model produces better software?

Kek this isn't some revalation, I openly advocated for Free/Libre software earlier in this thread. You're slow.
I use photoshop because it's what I'm used to, plain and simple. Free Software does tend to be better. Also, There's GPL'd code in photoshop, dumbass. God you're so fucking dumb.

>It's hyperbole
It's cope. You desperately grasped at straws and even that failed you because you're so wrong. You're so delusional you're rationalizing that "pirate EVERYTHING" to actually mean only netflix because he talks about netflix in one part of the video. No, he's talking about pirating everything, generally. Because it's better. Because DRM sucks. Because you get a better product with pirating, generally. With photoshop. With netflix. With youtube. Everything.

>>105814374
>They have their copy of the software. There is no such thing as a "lost sale". By your logic, a bad review is robbing too
Most media these days is streamed, where the barrier to enter and use the service is usually a monetary one. Yes, you're not physically taking the content when you pirate it, but you're also not giving back the amount of money the service would have charged you to watch legally. If everyone pirated the content, the content would stop being made because the service would not make money. Do you think hosting servers at the scale Netflix et al do is cheap and easy?
>If anything, piracy helps the publishers and creators because it's free publicity.
True to some extent, definitely not true all the time. Do you think slop like One Piece or Squid Game needs "free publicity"?

>>105815168
>Do you think hosting servers at the scale Netflix et al do is cheap and easy?
Stremio is superior to Netflix and requires no hosting costs whatsoever.

>>105815086
>During a riot
>Niggers
>Unrealistic bullshit
Try harder

>>105813643
That's how commie bugs thinks so all the chinese wumao come to the pond and eat all the ducks and there are no ducks anymore.

>>105815095
Once I started earning money I bought all my games. Pirating is for kids who don't have an income.

>>105814630
>First off, not everyone can *afford* to pay for software.
Like train rides?
>Your whole premise is categorically wrong in every conceivable way
And yet you have completely failed at explaining why.

>>105815224
I don't care, still pirating despite having plenty disposable income.

>>105815168
>Yes, you're not physically taking the content when you pirate it

This is the heart of the contention in this entire thread. Now that it's been established, we can all say it's a non-issue, full-stop.
>but you're also not giving back the amount of money the service would have charged you to watch legally
Or if I hadn't watched it at all. Let's get something straight here.
1. They're not entitled to my money, period.
2. Their business model hinges on people not doing the thing that the internet at large and personal computers are functionally designed to do. That makes their business model retarded and so it deserves to fail.
3. Ownership is paramount. I refuse to acknowledge that "piracy" is "stealing" in a world where buying thing X doesn't imply owning thing X. I can buy a car. I can open it and tinker with it. I can re-sell it if I want to. These rules don't apply generally to software. So let's stop pretending that we should abide by the same social contracts. We have different rules for software and data over the internet than we do for tangible goods. Copying software is practically free. So let's stop pretending like it a no-no on multiple infrastructures that were DESIGNED to do that very thing.
>If everyone pirated the content, the content would stop being made because the service would not make money.
Free Software exists, and it's dominating in just about every industry except the OS/Desktop marketplace (and even there it's gaining traction).
>Do you think hosting servers at the scale Netflix et al do is cheap and easy?
No. Ads pay for it. If Netflix wanted to garner my sympathy, maybe they should make their 4k streams available to my computer if I buy their service. But they don't. They'll deliberately make it lower res even if I pay for their best plan. See the video in >>105815052 Netflix has only themselves to blame for people pirating their content.

>>105810244 (OP)
Piracy isn't even morally wrong because the sellers themselves are introducing artificial scarcity and charging money for something they can clone infinitely for free

>>105815228
>And yet you have completely failed at explaining why.
Read the previous sentence.

>>105815168
>Do you think slop like One Piece or Squid Game needs "free publicity"?
Do you think either of those would have gotten nearly as popular as they were in a world where there existed an effective means to lock down content? No. They would have drowned themselves into irrelevancy. They only got as popular as they have because people who pirated chose to pirate them. And it became popular. Then those people bought their merch. Yes, it was "FREE" publicity and only helped them. You're looking at this though fictional pink lens where publishers reap the benefits of the free publicity while at the same time capitalizing on locking down the content. You should be smart enough to understand how those two separate ideas are in direct conflict with one another. No, you already know that One Piece and Squid Game got popular BECAUSE of piracy.

Not compensating someone for their work is stealing.

>>105815341
Made a crap ton of mud pies and dug a ditch in your front yard and filled it up with dirt again over and over. Pay me money. Not compensating me is stealing.

fuck off with that shit

>>105815341
How does that apply on the case of large software companies? Those don't the work are already paid a salary, the purchaser isn't compensating them.

>>105815303
Exactly. If they're going to charge something it should be on the thing that's actually the scarce resource e.g. the R&D
That is the only sustainable business model
But they are so fucking retarded they just don't get it
Well except the ones that do. Those make a ton of money.

>>105815341
How does that apply in the case of large software companies? Those doing the work are already paid a salary; the purchaser isn't compensating them.

>>105815341
>yes I value the work of "making a copy of this data" at 70 euro
No thanks, I'd rather make the copy myself for free

>>105815303
>sellers themselves are introducing artificial scarcity
No they aren't. Do you even understand what scarcity means? You can download it as much as you want. The sellers aren't making anything scarce. You're paying for the labour that went into it. If you don't pay, people won't make you anything anymore. It's that simple. Or can go play in a sandpit like the retard you are. Sandpits have a scarcity of space though, so if other retards are already inside the sandpit, then there's no more space for you. Then you have to pay just to get into the sandpit, and if you don't pay the bigger retard will beat you up. You sound like you need a beating anyway.

>>105815349
I don't want your mud cookies in the first place. If you don't want a product, no one's forcing you to buy it. But if you do, you need to pay for it sorry thats how it is.

>>105815361
The developers are paid salaries because people buy the software. If everyone pirated it, there'd be no revenue to pay those salaries. You're still taking something that costs money to create without paying for it.

>>105815383
>Those doing the work are already paid a salary; the purchaser isn't compensating them.
> muh food comes from the supermarket not the farmers lul

>You're paying for the labour that went into it.
Wrong. You're paying for a license to use a copy. Those are fundamentally different things. Stop acting retarded.

>>105815424
>If you don't pay, people won't make you anything anymore.
Linux is free, always was, always will be. There's a ton of free shit. Stop pretending they doesn't exist.

>>105815434
So in order to compensate those doing the work the price of the software should be the total sum required to pay the developer divided by the number of users. That would mean it cost and $5. Why isn't that the case?

>>105815450
Your shitty linux that was smashed together by a bunch of bored students on their weekend that don't give a single shit about the end result or the user experience is nowhere near a quality product. It's like comparing someone's garage bicycle they welded a motor to, to a car. Yeah you can get around on your shitty bike, until it starts raining, and maybe because you're poor and retarded that's enough for you. That's okay, you can be poor and retarded on your rusty bike in the rain while I drive past, no shade really, I'm not judging, you do you little guy.

>>105815427
>>105815434
So in order to compensate those doing the work the price of the software should be the total sum required to pay the developers divided by the number of users. That would mean it cost something like $5. Why isn't that the case? What percentage of a software's retail price goes towards compensation those doing the work of making it? If it's significantly different from 100% then your statement is incorrect, and you're compensating the copyright holder.

>>105815467
I don't know how you came up with that maths but FYI co-operatives exist, if you're interesting in that kind of flat company structure you should read up on it. It's actually pretty cool.

>>105815467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

>>105815466
Android is Linux. All the world's supercomputers run on Linux. Even fucking Microsoft servers run linux because windows servers are such utter shit. You are so wrong on so many levels and don't even realize it. Linux dominates the phone and server marketplace. AWS, Netflix, Google, fucking everything runs linux. Even your PS4 runs on BSD. Your brain is fried

>>105815478
>I don't know how you came up with that maths
500 developers x $250k a year / 25 million users. I'm not saying that's exactly the numbers but it's reasonable enough to get an idea what a piece of software would cost it it was accurately priced to compensate those making it.

>>105815308
I didn't think you were being sincere. Consumers don't dictate the price of a product or service, businesses do. In an ideal world, companies would charge the maximum amount each individual paying customer is willing to pay. That will never be a system that ever works, so service providers change their pricing based on thousands of variables. Treating all services the same at all points in time in a given market is astutely business illiterate.

>>105815466
that's great! now imagine this shitty bike like you qualify being backed by millions of devs worldwide and even corporations use it for their servers

i

>>105815515
Do you even comprehend analogies? Oh what am I saying, of course you don't. You sandbox dweller. Android is Google, google engineers get $500k / y to fix your little garage project and make it into a product. Same for Microsoft. Same for Amazon and Netflix. Keep riding your little tricycle though buddy, it's fine, it gets you from A to B in a few hours, that's cool you know. You're doing really well.

>>105815576
You almost typed a complete sentence there little guy, I'm proud of you.

>>105810244 (OP)
I dont care whether piracy is morally acceptable or not. The fact is that piracy is the only way to ensure proper preservation of all sorts of media.

>>105810244 (OP)
stealing = theft
piracy = copyright infringement
adblocker = ToS violation
theyre all separate things and only 2 are illegal

>>105815577
Your analogies are shit just like your brain dead arguments. You were proven wrong and now you’re downplaying the success of Linux and moving goalposts to save face. You argued that nobody makes shit for free. Linus and other developers did for the shits and giggles and now it’s serving as the foundation for every modern infrastructure. Take the L, at this point you’re just embarrassing yourself. IBM lost. Apple lost. Xerox lost. Microsoft lost. This “toy” project dominates the market and it was only after that the corpus pour developers into it because their own shit is so fucked up.

>>105815539
>In an ideal world, companies would charge the maximum amount each individual paying customer is willing to pay.
"Ideal" for who?

do not care and did not read and still pirating everything))

>>105814771
cope is an understatement.

>>105815651
> your analogies are shit because.... billion dollar megacorps made a free project into a for-profit product so take that! HA YAH!
Yeah I really lost there little guy, you did good, keep up the good work.

>>105815190
that's why its a thought experiment dumb nigger

>>105815145
So looting is permitted under this scenario, are you not saying all pirates are niggers?

>>105815729
>Implying free software like linux can provide value

Yo’re almost there little guy

>>105814363
Piracy when someone ceases your goods. It is not what is being discussed here. Again, thanks for sucking the corpofaggot anus this hard.

>>105815086
>Now, during a riot, a pack of niggers went into the store and looted it out completely

Brain dead take. A better analogy is a them coming in with their own quantum materializers making copies of everything leaving the store intact exactly as they found it. But that wouldn’t be a very compelling argument now would it ;) even though it’s a more accurate analogy

>>105814363
it’s not even that they lose exactly $0

>>105815341
You make it sound like you've signed off the rights to big company who will be making billions and they haven't compensated you. Shame how you kikes don't see anything wrong with twisting words and meanings to fit that corpofaggot narrative.

>>105815163
>Free Software does tend to be better
No it doesn't, Libre Office is vastly inferior to MS Office no matter how you look at it and you'll never convince anyone outside the freetard sphere that its better, otherwise even 'free' software like davinci resolve limits some functionality unless you pay. The FOSS business model is simply unsustainable for anything outside of server maintenance.
>There's GPL'd code in photoshop
Virtually every company has at least some GPL code, that don't mean the whole thing is FOSS, freetards can never not be disingenuous.
>No, he's talking about pirating everything, generally. Because it's better
Show me where he said 'pirate every single software'. Rossman pays for software too, has never encouraged you to be a filthy nigger and rob developers unless they do some shady shit. You're the one grasping at straws because you got BTFO itt.

>>105815755
Obviously not, no. If a black person goes to church, does that mean going to church makes you a nigger? That's the level of your reasoning here. In your fictional scenario about the shop owner anyone would be justified in looting it, not just niggers.

>>105815810
Niggers don't have quantum materialisers, they just come and loot when it's convenient. I love how I post a thought experiment and you go 'ok but if we tweak the basic premise to fit my narrative then I am right'.

>>105815779
Piracy is acts of violence committed at sea, it was considered a heinous crime. Someone decided to call distribution of media without the rightholder's consent "piracy" to make it sound more serious and bad than "copyright infringment" - which is what it actually is, and sounds very trivial and inconsequential - which it is. Since that hasn't worked they're just trying (and failing) to call it theft.

>>105815904
But his premise is a much more accurate analogy for software piracy than yours. Copying software didn't cause any disruption or loss of items the way looting does, even if you add in the materializer.

>>105815877
>you'll never convince anyone outside the freetard sphere that its better
A German state is moving 30,000 PCs to Linux and LibreOffice
>Its unsustainable
Again, wrong. Major US government contractors operate on GPL code in several major as part of their core business model. You have no clue what you are talking about.
>Show me rossman because I fail to understand what he means by pirate EVERYTHING in all caps
Honestly at this point your retarded takes are just tiring.

>>105815904
>Niggers don't have quantum materialisers
They have computers that copy data
god you fucking suck at analogies, and you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are

>>105815890
He isn't going to church to rob the place, he goes to worship his sky daddy jewish messiah. A pirate steals, and so does the nigger. You saying it's justified to loot the place by virtue of having unlimited supply are essentially saying pirates are essentially niggers who loot when given the chance.
>>105815933
'niggers have the thing that makes the thing too' that is far from accurate and is just you reframing the question to fit your narrative, a company has the means create the software and they can choose how to distribute it. The act of looting is the part where they copy (steal) the software.

>>105815983
You're embarrassing yourself at this point. You're getting tripped up by your own a man analogies.

>>105815766
>free software like linux can provide value
So can a bicycle you built in your a garage... after it's taken to a factory and re-built by paid labour. You really are retarded you know that right?

>>105815981
They aren't coming in with the computer and scanning items, they are just looting, you are just upset that a simple thought experiment deconstructs your arguments and repeatedly come up with nonsense takes.

>>105815991
>useless comment with no argument
come back when you've thought it through

>>105815998
How is looting comparable with software piracy? You're admitting your "thought experiment" is deliberately contrived to make piracy sound worse than it actually is.

>>105816006
Software piracy isn't like niggers looting a store. It's like a nigger going to a store, buying an item, taking it home, making copies of it and distributing them for free. The store owner isn't even aware of it.

>>105815690
I can't take you seriously if that is what you're asking. Capital is the primary driver of work.

>>105815998
You’re the one upset. You have to resort to sensationalizing with terms like “looting a store” when in fact making copies is the more apt description. YOU are just upset that I’ve undermined your whole argument by exposing your retarded takes.

>>105816031
Why not just answer? Why is it ideal for a consumer to pay the maximum price he's willing to for every item he buys?
>Capital is the primary driver of work.
Obviously, but that doesn't infer what you think it does. You sound like a first year economics student.

>>105815971
>A German state is moving 30,000 PCs to Linux and LibreOffice
Come back when LibreOffice gains more than 0.03% marketshare
>Major US government contractors operate on GPL code in several major as part of their core business mode
Lmao the US government (and other govts) being the customer literally means its unsustainable, why else do you think we're in big debt funding massive projects and equipment
>Honestly at this point your retarded takes are just tiring.
You literally just read the title (which is obvious hyperbole) and thought you had a win. Show me, which timestamp in the video, he advocates what you are alleging.

>>105815920
Finally anons with common sense have arrive.

>>105816056
>Moving goalposts again

>>105816015
It isn't contrived if you have to constantly reframe it, just follow through the logical conclusion.
>>105816027
You are presupposing they have the capability of replicating items, in other words you are inserting your own fanfic in this experiment, them buying something from a store and making copies without the materialiser is just them producing copies with resources.

>>105816092
>'random logical fallacy that hadn't occurred'
You lost.

>>105816125
>You are presupposing they have the capability of replicating items
low iq take

>>105816146
low iq non-argument

>>105816132
You move goalposts. It’s all you do. You can’t argue in good faith. Like a pigeon you shit on the board and strut around like you are victorious.

You are being purposely sidetracked and frustrated because the discussion (they're losing it) has to be derailed by wasting your time and energy on bullshit arguments. Never be too constructive unless you're facing the kikes in an open and public setting.

>>105816193
Explain how I moved goalposts? Is it because I said you won't convince anyone to move to libreoffice, then you whipped up some example somewhere, meanwhile libreoffice usage is less than 1%
>Hey I found 1 guy that moved from Office to Libre so technically you're wrong checkmate atheists >:^)
yea ok big boy, 'you got me' kek

>>105816228
France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Brazil to name a few countries. Sure. You might not like it, but people use it. You lost.

>>105816125
>It isn't contrived if you have to constantly
Are you ESL? The reason it needs to be reframed is to more accurately fit the analogy of software piracy because as it is you've contrived it be more sensationalised at the expense of accuracy.
>You are presupposing they have the capability of replicating items
That's literally what software piracy is.
>inserting your own fanfic in this experiment
Your analogy already is fictional, anon.
>them buying something from a store and making copies without the materialiser is just them producing copies with resources
i.e. literally the same as software piracy

>>105816243
>still only 0.03% global marketshare
Yea I lost, totally. kek

Notice how:
- mentioning (((them))) gets you banned for "racism".
- using racial slurs doesn't get you banned if you're a retard.
- re**it ty*ers and "NTA/normie" sayers (aka retards) are calling you an immoral thief for copying ones and zeroes.
- the retards are projecting by saying you're one of (((them))) for not wanting to give your money to (((them))).

Really makes you think.

>>105816305
>retarded newfag calling someone esl

post eye and skin color, turdie

>>105816305
>The reason it needs to be reframed is to more accurately fit the analogy of software piracy
Its a thought experiment, not an analogy. They don't have to be 1:1 with reality which is why you can have literal magic in it. You can draw analogies from it but you have to do it within the confines of the experiment. In this case you are simply saying 'no here's my own way of how to look at it' without actually engaging in it.
>Your analogy already is fictional, anon.
You're adding your own fiction into my experiment just so you can reach your own conclusion.
>That's literally what software piracy is.
>i.e. literally the same as software piracy
I'm saying you are presupposing they have the same device as the store owner which is something you inserted into the premise. A nigger going into a store, buying grape juice, and replicating it to everyone without a materialize is just them buying grapes, crushing it, filling it in empty bottles they had bought in bulk, and then distributing it. Only one of these is piracy.

>ITT: Capitalism vs Communism

>it's OK when (((they))) do it

Theft implies I deprived someone of something.
I simply made a copy using things I paid for and therefore own.

>>105816479
So your "thought experiment" has nothing to do with software piracy?

>>105811745
kek
sellfags roping
buycucks in shambles
copygods stay winning

Its clear sheckles work to keep the economy going. What, are we not a capitalist society now?
However piracy gives us some leverage when companies get too big for their britches.
Its like having the option to cook our own food. We can do that instead of buying their chemical slop and remind them they work for us.
If I steal everything, im just a theif, no different than a bunch of niggers. My thievery become tyrannical.

What's needed is mutal exchange for goods and services. Balance in all things.

>>105816929
piracy is a fair exchange. i give then nothing, for their product consumes my time. in fact, they should pay me to play their game.

>>105810244 (OP)
>>105810308
Piracy has never been theft. The copyright warnings/ads are completely fraudulent and misleading consumers. Theft is a crime under the crimes act, piracy is copyright infringement and is civil infringement and comes under the civil act and therefore not a crime.

>>105810334
It depends on the drugs, some yes, others no, it costs a lot to r&d then run human trials. I think alzheimers medications have had over 500 failed trials, they need to fund this shit, it's not merely the cost of material components and manufacturing. Old stuff like insulin shouldn't be jacked up though etc

>>105816947
Buck the hecking companies and and economirinos

>>105816947
So paying for their time to build something for you isnt worth it?
No one's going to build shit for you.

>>105816997
good, i'll only pay for more time

>>105810244 (OP)
>i am a nigger and i do not understand incentives and social contracts
stop attaching ideology to the idea of getting shit for free

>>105815890
>does that mean going to church makes you a nigger?
it doesn't mean that but coincidentally going to church does make you a nigger

>>105812680
where's the "effort spent making the car"part of the argument you fucking controlled opposition braindead NIGGER

>>105816947

>>105817093
The effort is the car payments.
The payment he made to the manufacturer for their efforts.
When you buy it, its passing on the payment responsibility.
If he already had it paid off, the payment is for its upkeep. Maintenence, if any was done. Thats why you inspect it to see if you have to do an alignment, you have to install a new air compressor, or flush a transmission. To negotiate a lower price due to the moron on upkeeping his vechicle. Youre paying for the upkeep.

>>105810308
Giant corporations steal money and irreplaceable time from us all day every day in a hundred different ways so fuck capitalism, fuck communism, hoist the Jolly Roger and start slitting throats. In Minecraft of course.

>>105817112
>>105817037
>>105816997
>>105816929
>>105816923
why
do
you
type
like
this

>>105817128
retarded newfags type like that

>>105817112
Would you think it's fair if the manufacturer sold you the car but told you you weren't allowed to sell it yourself at a later date? That you can't lend the car to a friend, and that you had to drive it according to how they define is acceptable, and at some point they may turn off certain features of the car unless you make additional payments?

>>105810244 (OP)
Piracy, a subject of such action, known as a pirate, Is a man that sails on his ship among other pirates and invades other ships, where they will occupy the said ships, in most cases kill all the crew of that ship, steal all their goods and in most cases burn down or sink the ship. Copying a file on a computer has nothing to do with such a horrible act as piracy. Please be correct about this, since you are comparing some of the most horrible acts humanity has produced to an intended usage of a computer system.

>>105810308
Nobody is losing money. You cannot lose something you never had. Besides it's ((them)) that are the problem. If I could buy any physical or digital edition of a movie, TV series or even games for those that play them. But you cannot buy anything, instead you are forced to pay perpetually for and get this, a permission to watch or play the said content. This is something that people will generally not allow themselves to do. I say this as a software engineer, making money of software is a legitimate way to earn money, but as all things it has to be reasonable. When you sell a car, you are using physical materials to produce it, which cost money for each model you produce. Software will be written once, naturally it would not be realistic nor moral to charge someone perpetually for it. The standalone software should and must be sold once and work forever. On the other hand, if I offer you, let's say weather data, data that requires constant updates to be relevant, it would make sense to make it a service, and as such it would require a subscription.

>>105810334
This is a concept that exists in United States, in the rest of the developed world there is no such thing as "intellectual property". Because it generally does not make sense, and is proposed and enforced by the influential ones that base their entire business no matter on what software or hardware solutions they offer of a perpetual service. That is why their earnings are huge and dissatisfaction has never been higher. Yes it should be abolished, but United States has no concept of rational thinking if they can choose more money. Perhaps citizens of United States should strive to change these ways as they proudly believe that they live in a democracy.

>>105817293
>in the rest of the developed world there is no such thing as "intellectual property"
Are you retarded?

>>105817383
I'd imagine he means as a legally enforced standard, not as a philosophical concept, anon.

piracy is good because it limits the ability of companies that make digital products to waste money

>>105810308
IP law is more sophistry than justice. it's the act of companies punishing anyone who is preventing them from making more money using nonsensical arguments. if copying is not theft people should not be punished by court. and they wouldn't, if it didn't hurt companies.

>>105816753
it does if you don't keep injecting your own headcanon and follow through. Is this the first time you've heard of thought experiments?

>>105817397
even then he's wrong

>>105810334
>IP/copyright is retarded
Why should I let some nigger profit from my time and energy when he didn't do shit? That is fucking retarded. I hope all Fossturd hippies burn in the lowest hell.

>>105817504
You've already admitted it's not a 1:1 analogy for software piracy and you keep arbitrarily rejecting changes that would make it more correct because then your position falls apart.

>>105810244 (OP)
If cars could be copied freely, why would anyone buy a car? If no one buys cars any more, how would anyone finance the production of new cars? A market could never work that way. The reason you are able to pirate software, is that there are still people willing to buy that software and keep the market for it alive. Since you're enjoying the product without contributing to the market, you're a leech. Doesn't matter what your moral standpoint is, how greedy the developer is, or whether you call it stealing. Any way you look at it, you are lesser than both paying customers and those who choose not to use the product.

>>105817594
The existence of FOSS and freeware is living proof your premise is incorrect.

>>105817622
That's beside the point. We're talking about piracy. Choosing FOSS over paid software isn't piracy.

>>105817504
Your thought experiments are fucking retarded. If you’re going to give the shopkeeper a quantitative replicator to freely copy things infinitely, to use it as an analogy for copying data on a computer then the logical conclusion is to give the “niggers” in your example each their own functionally equivalent replicators (computers) with the same copying capabilities. But you deliberately have them “loot” the store instead of merely copying everything in it and leave it intact to fabricate a (false) sensationalist parallel that “piracy” steals from the shopkeeper and leaves him with nothing. Except we all know “piracy” is simply making copies so your “thought experiments” is incoherent on the subject matter. You know that giving everyone their own replicator is a more suitable idea but that doesn’t fit your narrative so you play the retard or are actually too retarded to understand what is being said. Even if your retarded take was coherent, it still falls flat on its face because the shopkeeper having access to a device that infinitely reproduces things at zero cost means he effectively has access to his things infinitely and as we all know infinity minus any finite thing is still infinity therefore he’s not actually deprived of anything.

>>105817676
>A market could never work that way.
Your implication was that if everyone resorted to piracy there would be no software development. The existence of free software demonstrates this is incorrect. Why are people so dumb itt?

>>105817676
No, you’re missing his point. The fact that FOSS exists completely undermines your point at its core.

>>105817585
Yea its not 1:1 because its a thought experiment and is meant to shed some light on piracy ethics, I keep rejecting your changes because you are reframing it when you could just be engaging with it like a normal person
>Schrodinger: Suppose there's a cat in this box and a quantum device that either kills it or does nothi-
>OK BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE CAT MIGHT BREAK THE DEVICE BEFORE IT HAPPENS WHAT NOW HUH
its honestly getting boring 4 posts in and still you are finding ways around the question, if you want me to restate it in clearer terms I'm happy to do it

>>105817383
No I am not retarded.

>>105817729
>is meant to shed some light on piracy ethics
But it doesn't do that because you've deliberately framed it to paint piracy in a negative light by making your analogy (it is an analogy btw) a poor reflection of how piracy actually works. You might as well say
>What if a nigger broke into your mom's house and raped her!? Do you still say piracy is harmless now!?
You're either retarded or - more likely - pretending to be retarded (which is worse).

>>105817707
I'm not saying there would be no software development, I'm saying there wouldn't be money in it. Sure, FOSS will keep existing, but not all software can exist as FOSS. Do you think that if everyone stopped paying for Photoshop, Adobe would just decide to keep making it and release it as FOSS? If everyone stopped paying for movies, that film makers would keep making billion dollar movies with no chance for profit? FOSS and free media can't replace everything.

>>105817692
Why would the store owner 'give it to niggers'? He made it himself, he is there to use it for himself. I have them loot the store because it's what niggers usually do in a riot.
>ok but what if every nigger had this device
You are simply restating what the other guy said ie rewording the question without answering it. Notice how you accuse me of trying to fit a narrative yet here you are fitting a narrative with this your own scenario.

> the shopkeeper having access to a device that infinitely reproduces things at zero cost means he effectively has access to his things infinitely and as we all know infinity minus any finite thing is still infinity therefore he’s not actually deprived of anything.
lol this is elementary school level sperging out

>>105817797
It's a thought experiment anon, what you have been describing in your scenario can be considered an analogy. In your head you presume piracy can never be negative in any scenario, I simply asked if niggers looted a store where the owner has a replicator are justified in their looting. How would you answer this?

>>105817799
>I'm not saying there would be no software development, I'm saying there wouldn't be money in it.
But there would be money in it. Even with piracy, there would be money in it. There are ways for MORE money to be involved because of “piracy” as you call it. That is what we are trying to explain to you. But you are so fixated on your dogmatic, wrong view that runs contrary to the functional requirements of the internet & computational infrastructures that you fail to see how.

>>105817797
To be honest, people who loot shops have a high likelihood to pirate software

>>105817800
The store owner wouldn’t “give” it to them you retardedly dense fuck. They would have replicators of their own to begin with because everyone has a computer that can copy data. The store owner would not need to give them anything and he would not lose anything when they copy his shit with their own replicators

>>105817128
it's a single line reply to a fucking quote you fucking plastic water faggot NIGGER kill yourself

>>105817954
>They would have replicators of their own to begin with
This is your headcanon. Replicators aren't computers in my example, you are making that link on your own.

>>105817939
>there's money we PROMISE!!!
fucking niggers

>>105817939
>That is what we are trying to explain to you
You haven't explained anything, you simply said "FOSS proves you wrong". I'd love to hear you explain how someone would earn money doing something no one wants to pay for.

>>105817973
Because describes the functional requirements (and costs) of “piracy” in every conceivable way. A quantitative replicator that can infinitely duplicate things? Hellooo??

>>105817877
I already answered it here >>105815145

>>105817973
Then you're no longer describing something resembling piracy but a completely unrelated and fictional scenario.

>>105818003
Do you think all developers working on FOSS aren't getting paid or something?

>>105817975
See, you refuse to acknowledge it. I make a living writing software, so I actually know my shit and you don’t. I make six figures and I have Free Software to thank for providing the tools and platform for making my labor productive and profitable. How about asking me HOW instead of acting like like a pretentious ignoramous so you can learn something. Go on. Ask. Or don’t and expose yourself as a disingenuous prick larping as a retard because he can’t take an L on an anonymous image board on the internet

>>105811201
Based

>>105817973
>Replicators aren't computers in my example
You’re admitting here your example boils down to a red herring.
>niggers looting is bad therefore piracy is too
A non-sequitur at best

Why do you guys make so many excuses. I have no problem admiting I'm a parasite.

>>105810244 (OP)
If I could do things without consequence I'd be one of those "ignored by the world" rapists like in doujins.
I would steal everything I want, squat in peoples homes who fucking cares.
I'd do anything and everything I feel like if there were no consequences.
I pirate because nobody cares here in Eastern Europe.

Is it stealing? Yeah and I'm stealing because I can.
I'm not any better than those niggers in America looting during a protest, I'm just more risk averse.
My impulse control is 100% predicated on the fact that big bad men are going to take me away and put me in a cell with gypsy hordes if I do bad things.

>>105818130
>Do you think all developers working on FOSS aren't getting paid or something?
Of course not. If they're getting paid, that means there's someone willing to pay to keep the development going. My whole point is that they are the reason development continues.

>>105810244 (OP)
whats the current seedbox wisdom
is it still DO?

>>105818315
You earlier implied there's no incentive for software development if the software is being acquired for free (which it is in this instance).

>>105818315
What you are not seeing is that there is a distinction between being paid for the development of software and the product of said development. The development is the scarce resource. Pay for that. Creating copies is piss cheap. Don’t pay for that. Any developer who’s livelihood depends on people NOT making copies of their own is fucking retarded and deserves to go homeless. It’s not how the internet is designed to work. It’s not how personal computers are designed to work. It’s a bad business model. Do you get it now?

There is not much worth buying either.
I bought a bunch of shit that looked fun, but turned out to be shit on steam sale.
Refunded a bunch and now I got 40€~ sitting in my steam account.
Looking through games, even on my wishlist I just don't feel like they are worth my TIME let alone my money...
It's kinda weird. I used to love games. I still do I think... idk.

Imagine paying for software/games when there are no refund options and it turns out to be dogshit? I would rather pirate .

>>105818363
You’re coming to the realization that video games are a form of sedation. A waste of time.

>>105818109
Right, so they are justified, now consider that the store owner has replenished his supply the next day. Everyone who has looted the store has in his possession items from the store that are now in stock again. As you pointed out this isn’t exactly the same as piracy as we know it, however the end result is the same: Owner has the items, looters have the exact same items. What we have elucidated is that harmless replication has turned a clearly wrongful activity, looting during a riot, into a justifiable act. Do you agree?

>>105818335
>>105818352
Maybe my original message wasn't clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that people contributing to a market by spending money are the ones keeping it alive. That's true whether if they're paying for the product directly, or sponsoring the development. Pirates aren't contributing either way.
>The development is the scarce resource. Pay for that. Creating copies is piss cheap. Don’t pay for that.
Absolutely. But pirates do neither. Besides, I just don't think all software can exist under that business model. That's what I mean when I say FOSS can't replace everything. If the budget is so big that sponsors/donations can't cover it all, you charge for copies. Not because the copying is costly, but because development is, and the development is necessary for the copies to exist.

>>105810244 (OP)
If buying something isn't owning it, then privacy isn't theft either.

>>105818441
>isn’t exactly the same as piracy as we know it, however the end result is the same
I reject this premise. The means is just as paramount, if not moreso, than the ends. Looting is not piracy. Refer to the image in >>105814374 to see exactly what is wrong with your take.

>>105818511
I'm talking about in my example where material goods can be replicated. You can't simply quote a section and reject the rest of the question. My god do I have to spoon feed you everything..

>>105818406
I want them as escapism so I don't mind the sedation aspect.
The issue is it's not even all that good for escaping reality anymore.
Perhaps I'm just too old (29).

>>105818458
>the point I'm trying to make is that people contributing to a market by spending money are the ones keeping it alive
You are simply wrong on this. Having a market isn’t the goal. Having software developed is. And it’s been established that Free Software does and will continue to be developed. You are simply wrong on this. Moreover, there is a right and wrong way to pay for software. Paying for development of software is the right way. Paying for copies is not. One funds development directly. The other funds it indirectly in a manner that incentivizes the erosion of the idea of ownership via DRM. You have to see this.

>>The development is the scarce resource. Pay for that. Creating copies is piss cheap. Don’t pay for that.
>Absolutely. But pirates do neither
So what? As a software developer myself who makes a living off of the development of Free Software, the free publicity helps my business and promotes tools that make my job easier. Pirates help my business. I even get free bug reports and even patches. I’ve had people hire me specifically to support their infrastructure because of other work they’ve used that’s free software. This is stuff that wouldn’t be possible if I didn’t have access to the source code and if they didn’t “pirate” copies of their software other people developed through their “pirated” tools other people were paid to develop. There exists an entire market you’re not seeing that works better than the one you have in your mental model.

>>105810379
Looks like someone doesn't know the history of insulin

According to Kant's Categorical Imperative, Formula 1: If piracy was proliferated as a universal activity, it would cease incentives to make quality software as developers would not be compensated properly if at all. Formula 2: Developers are treated as a means to end when an act of piracy is committed, rather than an end in himself.

Therefore upon close inspection, piracy is ethically unviable. QED.l

>>105818634
>Having a market isn’t the goal. Having software developed is.
Maybe that's enough for you, but it doesn't change the fact that software which *requires* a certain budget won't be made if that budget can't be met. That's true for other pirate-able things as well.
>So what? As a software developer myself who makes a living off of the development of Free Software, the free publicity helps my business and promotes tools that make my job easier.
The whole thread and my point is about piracy. Piracy means acquiring and using something you're meant to pay for, without paying. If your software is free, there's no such thing as pirating it.

>>105818684
>it would cease incentives to make quality software as developers would not be compensated properly if at all
Sure it would. developers would be paid for the development and maintenance of new software. you don’t get to be paid in perpetuity of software you’ve written 30 years ago that you would like to sell copies of over & over. That’s just bad business and it runs contrary to the internet /modern infrastructure at large.

>>105818740
Free Software can cost money. You can sell Free Software. You can buy Free Software. Seriously, go educate yourself. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

I think there might be a decent argument based on economy of scale principles against piracy if someone was smarter than me to articulate it.

Physical goods are only affordable because these principles apply, if each physical good had to be copied (manufactured) by hand still, like some people here make it seem >>105811745 they would be insanely expensive to buy.
So without the economy of scale effect vidya and shit should cost a 1000€+ easily.
Sure software can be copy pasted freely, but the initial creating costs r&d etc. needs to be recouped in some way.
So if people could only sell a game once and everyone else copy pasted it the initial sale would have to factor that in and make it cost 1000000€ or more.

>>105818796
Anon... I know it can. I never said it can't. My original point has nothing to do with FOSS. You/someone else brought that up.

>>105818754
Who would pay developers for the development and maintenance?

>>105818840
The people whose business requirements necessitate said development. That’s how it works in my business. Just last week so was contracted to write a LUA extension to nginx for some edge case scenario

>>105818561
Go play TCOAAL
Don’t spoil yourself on it. Go play it because I said so. It’ll be fun.

>>105818823
The R&D costs are kneecapped when you factor in the fact that the tools, algorithms, software, and in many cases parts of the content itself are freely accessible. The bridge goes both ways. The people against “piracy” stand to benefit only from creating artificial scarcity. Plain and simple.

>>105818926
I grabbed it from f95, no way I'll get some coomer game on steam.
I'll see if it's worth it.

>>105818832
The end result is the same. Somebody obtaining some tool without personally paying for it themselves. They are functionally indistinguishable whether there is a price tag on it or not. Those foolish enough to put their livelihood on the line in the hopes people don’t do this thing the internet was designed to do should go out of business. That is a good thing.

>>105818441
No, I don't agree. Looting is still disruptive and damaging, regardless of the stock being able to be replaced at no cost.

>>105818906
But I am not a business. How do developers for generic software get paid? How do game developers get paid?

>>105818840
Organisations, businesses and individuals that want the software to be developed obviously.

>>105819393
> But I am not a business.
You buy stuff every day, don’t you? You don’t need to OWN a business to do business. Generic developers get paid every day to produce goods and services just like every other business. See my LUA/Nginx example. Games are no different. Server costs and maintenance and upkeep costs money - they can charge for that like any sane business. OSRS did it, as did WoW and Genshin Impact do today. Solo self contained games work too, like Minecraft and TCOAAL and Undertale. Success is rewarded despite all the FUD being spouted here.

>>105819369
Correct! The act of looting is disruptive therefore unjustified. It is clear that replication without deprivation has to be at least done in manner that is calm and non-destructive if it is to be justified. In contrast to looting, we can say shop lifting is more apt, surely this is then justified?

>>105819404
So a bunch of individuals pay directly to Rockstar studios to get GTA6 done? Like a crowd funding project?

>>105819594
> In contrast to looting, we can say shop lifting is more apt
No, it is not more apt. Shoplifting is still destructive in ways “piracy” is not. Looting and shoplifting removes the original. “Piracy” makes a perfect copy and leaves the original intact and is not disruptive to the operation of the store. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? The best store analogy there is, is walking into a store with a replicator and copying things on the spot. Things that don’t involve taking stuff of the shelves or touching anything in any way. Because that’s what “piracy” is. Making copies. Not looting. Not shoplifting. If you need to make these sensationalist parallels to get your point across then it should be telling that your analogies are wrong on their face because they are not drawn from the premises that you would like them to be. We all know you don’t like piracy. That doesn’t make it morally wrong in principle no matter how much you argue with bad analogies to the contrary.

>>105819594
If we ignore an attempt to parallel with piracy and treat your scenario as a thought experiment as you claim it is then the shop owner owns a device that allows him to create infinite goods at no cost, yet is withholding them to create an artificial scarcity so he can charge for items and make as profit. In the case he should be dragged through the street, tortured and publicly executed. So the looting can be forgiven in the same way killing is justified in a war, even though killing itself is not an acceptable act. However in general terms looting would not be justifiable just because the items can be replaced at no cost to the owner (e.g. if covered by insurance). Neither would shoplifting as it's still removing a physical item. Of course, neither is comparable to piracy, which is creating a copy and leaving the original intact.

>>105814368
>This is a selfish view that helps nobody and is directly responsible for killing your favorite games and forcing DRM, DLC and MTX on everyone in an attempt to regain lost profits from piracy.
A take that can be trivially disproved even with zoomer-tier knowledge of the history of videogames. Unbelievably retarded.

>>105819656
No. Rockstar Studios pays for the upfront investment costs like every other business does with their upfront investment costs.

>>105818560
> You can't simply quote a section and reject the rest of the question.

I can and I did, because when your premises are wrong then so is the foundation you use to build your case. ntsa4

>>105819715
So any single act of pilfering, whether looting or shoplifting, is not justified? The store owner, who developed the replicator for his own use, clearly wouldn't let others replicate his stuff 'just coz'. And i've already explained in this experiment material goods can be replicated by the store owner why do you close your ears and say 'LALALAL YOU CANT DO THIS IN THE REAL WORLD LALALA' for like the 6th time now. Its just a simple thought experiment, why are you afraid of it?

>>105819734
And who funds rockstar? I'm still not understanding where the cash flow starts and where it stops.

>>105819722
>yea we just kill the greedy shop owner ezpz
This is supposed to be an argument?
>oh btw stealing is when no item and piracy is when item
Wow haven't heard this before totally not what the last guy said thanks for the fyi!

>>105819932
Nobody is afraid. You are just too retarded to understand, even after having it explained to you 6 times. Why don’t you think critically about what is said to you for once?

>>105819776
>I can cherry pick things reach my own conclusion and I will do it
Sick own bro

>>105819989
>This is supposed to be an argument?
It was an answer to your question whether or not looting could be justified. It's an example of when a normally unjustified act can be forgiven in exceptional circumstances. You asked for your premise to be honestly engaged with on its own merit rather than ascan analogy for piracy so that's what I did. If you disagree why not explain your reasoning instead of making yourself sound like a passive aggressive girl?

>>105819989
Having thing there vs not there has some pretty important implications about private property and ownership that you are conveniently ignoring

>>105820004
Nigga I had to correct you 6 times while you ignored it and pretend it never happened every single time. And you still are beating around the bush instead of answering direct questions.

>>105820005
nice strawman bro but I’m right here

>>105820021
Yea you're just posting a word salad reply after saying "its simple we kill the store owner" (not even my question btw). Come back with a proper response that doesn't sound like edgy 12yo.

>>105820036
So am I, right here BTFO you.

>>105820048
Are you retarded? I didn't say "its simple we kill the store owner". I implied the store owner's actions are so grievous that his store being looted is a justifiable act. Do you disagree? Your position was that the looting is justified based purely on his ability to replace stock at no cost, which I reject. Do you understand?

>>105820029
Your questions are not worth answering because your “corrections” are disconnected with the subject matter. They boil down to a non sequitur akin to “niggers looting stores = piracy” which isn’t even a remotely good analogy. Nigger you fail to understand the parallels of copying files on a computer with a replicator so why should I engage with your bullshit?

>>105820048
>>105820079
I'll make it even more simple for you.
>Is it justifiable to loot a store?
No.
>Is it justifiable to loot a store if the owner can replace the goods for free?
No.
>Is it justifiable to loot a store if the owner has a replicator that can make infinite goods at no cost and has been denying its widespread use in order to create artificial scarcity to charge for items?
Yes, but only as an act of retribution and punishment.
State what you disagree with instead of being a whiny little bitch.

>>105820085
Here let me to translate your post:
>I am too dumb for thought experiments I need a babbys tier analogy to confirm my worldview

>>105820131
>hurr durr Im so retarded
hoho you sure showed me

>>105820131
You actually appear to be too dumb for your own thought experiment as you've been unable to comprehend the answers you've already been given to it multiple times. Everyone has said that looting isn't justifiable just because the items can be replaced.

>>105820119
Yea your whole extracurricular logic of 'why is this owner withholding a free energy machine this changes everything the right thing is for the looters to kill this insane mad scientist.' You are digging nonsensically into something in order to escape having to reckon with the actual meat of the experiment. This option can therefore entirely be dismissed.

>>105820195
>escape having to reckon with the actual meat of the experiment
I haven't. I answered your question several times now but you refuse to accept it. It's not acceptable to loot a store simply because the items can be replaced for free. Now answer my previous question and tell me which of my statements you disagree with and your reasoning.

>>105820184
I think he’s losing more and more brain cells with each post. Maybe we should stop. I’m starting to feel bad for him.

>>105820184
Only 1 guy has said it and then backtracked when I made the point about shoplifting (or anything involving taking from a store no matter how its taken). Its just a cop out really.