Search Results
6/30/2025, 8:11:13 PM
>>509142899
Consuming any one piece of media is exclusive because of the limited amount of time one has to consume media. There is an opportunity cost to it- that being the opportunity to watch/play something else during that limited amount of time. This is especially the case for movies in theatres and AAA video games.
So yes, by your logic if the threshold to an act being considered theft is whether or not the chance of you purchasing a product from the distributor afterwards has diminished, then doing anything that diminishes that chance has to be theft. Choosing to watch one thing over another diminishes that chance, and so it would be theft.
To take a break from your silly semantic game for a second, while piracy is clearly distinct from theft, it does resemble trespassing much more closely. To illustrate what I mean, imagine if someone hops the fence to get into a private concert. The venue and performers haven't actually lost anything (apart from the extremely nebulous concept of a lost ticket sale,) but that person has actually gotten into something that they're not allowed to get into. If record companies just compared piracy to trespassing in the 90's then this conversation would have been a lot less retarded, but calling something 'digital trespassing' isn't as punchy as calling it theft, so they went with the less accurate but more effective phrasing.
>>509143116
Yes, that is not theft. Something 'being bad' doesn't make it theft- there has to be property that was stolen. Hypothetical sales are not anyone's property.
Consuming any one piece of media is exclusive because of the limited amount of time one has to consume media. There is an opportunity cost to it- that being the opportunity to watch/play something else during that limited amount of time. This is especially the case for movies in theatres and AAA video games.
So yes, by your logic if the threshold to an act being considered theft is whether or not the chance of you purchasing a product from the distributor afterwards has diminished, then doing anything that diminishes that chance has to be theft. Choosing to watch one thing over another diminishes that chance, and so it would be theft.
To take a break from your silly semantic game for a second, while piracy is clearly distinct from theft, it does resemble trespassing much more closely. To illustrate what I mean, imagine if someone hops the fence to get into a private concert. The venue and performers haven't actually lost anything (apart from the extremely nebulous concept of a lost ticket sale,) but that person has actually gotten into something that they're not allowed to get into. If record companies just compared piracy to trespassing in the 90's then this conversation would have been a lot less retarded, but calling something 'digital trespassing' isn't as punchy as calling it theft, so they went with the less accurate but more effective phrasing.
>>509143116
Yes, that is not theft. Something 'being bad' doesn't make it theft- there has to be property that was stolen. Hypothetical sales are not anyone's property.
Page 1