Pirating - it's kind of like marijuana possession

There is a world of difference between theft and loss of profits. If you have a copyright to a product, and I release a similar product, I will be cutting into your profits. But am I stealing?

 

If it infringes copyright, yes.

Profit projection is essential for giving the go-ahead on a project (and therefore the allocation and spending of funds) with big business.
If you infringe copyright, then that is a method of "stealing" that has otherwise taken away from the projection.

If the projection fails to take into consideration any competition from legitimate (non-copyright) sources, then the project manager should be fired. It's not stealing, it's poor management.

 

Your whole point about profit projection is moot. Yeah, it's important, but there are multiple problems with it. 1) If it's the basis for establishing that pirating is stealing, then legit competition is steal - obviously it isn't. And so profit projection is a sidepoint. 2) An unexpected competititon is not something that could accurately be taken into profit projection. And if the project manager includes consumers who would never pay for the product as if they would, shouldn't the manager also be fired?

You used the profit projection as a basis for calling piracy stealing, when it's obvious that it is not such a basis. Even copyright infringement isn't theft - it's copyright infringement.

 

Whoa, I never used profit projection as a basis for calling piracy stealing. Piracy is piracy; defined against copyright. You might note that I used the word stealing in my last post with inverted commas and said it was a "method of stealing", because I agree - it is not stealing in terms of definition. You mentioned stealing; I was just pandering to your comment (a direct yes, with a formal explanation below). I don't think there is a debate about the definition of piracy, is there? That said, I've seen ads that go "You wouldn't steal a purse, you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a DVD" - and the ad is about piracy.

I'd certainly use profit as a suggestive basis for IP and copyright protection from piracy, but naturally IP can be about more than that.

What I am talking about was in the OP comment; I'm comparing why piracy continues to get prosecuted whilst marijuana possession does not (so much). It's about money for big business. Piracy means that big business does not see as much cash as it could (would). Marijuana use is not hurting big business (it might actually aid it - cigarettes, papers, munchies - all increased in sales if people use marijuana) ... and prosecution costs tax payers money.

What I'm suggesting is that big business is encouraging prosecution because it hurts them if prosecution doesn't happen.

 

marijuana is not theft, taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft

that said, sometimes media goes to far, time shifting tv, or putting something you bough on multiple devices you own, ect, should not be consider stealing, example, I buy a record and copy that to a mp3, so I can play it on my mp3 player as well

using the dmca to say you can't refill ink cartridges would be another example, by that logic your car maker could put a digital lock on the hood of your car and you would be violating the DMCA if you opened the hood on your own

another example of going too far, selling someone a plant and saying they can not regrow the seeds that plant produces

.

 

The two aren't comparable. Marijuana usage does not violate anyone's rights. Copyright infringement violates publishers' rights to their intellectual property.

Now, I agree that filesharing should not be illegal, but that's because I don't view property rights as absolutes; property rights, such as copyright, are justified by societal benefit and the societal benefits of filesharing outweigh the harm that it inflicts on the creation and production of intellectual property.

 

I would go after the ones sharing the files, not the ones that download, bigger bang for the buck in stopping this crime

if I post a copyrighted picture here, would everyone that downloaded and viewed it (you do that simply by refreshing the page) be a criminal, or just me, the one that put the file on the net is the one imo violating the copyright?

.


.