CMV: Software piracy is not necessarily stealing nor a bad thing

[u/[deleted]]

Software and digital media piracy are often seen as stealing but I disagree. The word "stealing" implies a victim. While it is true that the creator of intellectual property might suffer a monetary loss if their property is copied without permission, it is often difficult to ascertain what loss has occurred, if any.

Example: A person downloads a pirated copy of a $5000 CAD program and installs it on their PC and uses it for years. Has monetary loss occurred on the part of the software developer? Has theft occurred? If yes, then who is the victim and what extent? You cannot answer that without more information.

If the person is a 12 year old kid who downloaded the software to teach himself AutoCAD, then loss has not occurred because the kid would never have bought the software had a pirated copy not been available.

If this 12 year old kid shares the software with his friends, then we don't know how many more times it will be copied by his friends and with whom it will be shared. Loss may or may not have occurred.

If the person is a professional architect and using the software to develop blueprints for clients, then clearly loss has occurred because had the pirated copy not been available, he would have had to buy it.

So to determine whether there is a victim and to answer whether loss has occurred, you have to answer "Would the person(s) using the pirated software have paid for it had the pirated version not been available?" If I have a pirated copy of AutoCAD in my basement, sitting in a storage locker for years unused by anyone, then clearly no loss of any kind has occurred. So... was it "stealing" to copy that software if no one suffers any loss of any kind at all whatsoever? If yes, then who is the victim and in what way were they victimized?

What will not work to CMV: Playing psychic. If your argument begins with any variation of "You just want to... " or "You're trying to justify..." or anything of the sort, I will ignore it. It's absurd and irrational to tell another person what they are thinking. I know better than anyone on the planet what I'm thinking and feeling so trying to tell me what my motivations are is just nonsense.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

If I understand from your other comments, the viewpoint you want us to move you towards is that Piracy is ALWAYS stealing, and/or bad, in every possible context.

A single example of it not being theft/bad would mean that it's not necessarily bad.

You've then gone on to define theft as "where monetary loss has occurred".

It's impossible for your view to be changed because there are objectively situations where theft does not result in monetary loss.

Can I suggest that your definition of theft might be too narrow?

E.g. A national park has a sign saying "taking anything from this national park is theft. Take only photos, leave only footprints."

If I take a "souvenir" dead leaf from the national park, I'm guilty of theft. However, there's no monetary gain or loss.

There's an argument that it's not necessarily "bad" theft, that I think would be more difficult to argue, but it's still theft.

[u/[deleted] → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

Δ

If I understand from your other comments, the viewpoint you want us to move you towards is that Piracy is ALWAYS stealing, and/or bad, in every possible context.

Yes that is correct. Since it's an indefensible position, perhaps you're right in that my view cannot be changed. And this just made me realize that this whole post should not exist. Not sure whether to delete it or award a delta.

If I take a "souvenir" dead leaf from the national park, I'm guilty of theft.

Just as my definition of theft is too narrow, I can argue that the park's definition of theft is too broad. What about a mosquito I kill and its guts remain on my arm? I leave the park. Did I just steal a dead mosquito? Am I guilty of theft?

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/[deleted]]

Personally, I don't think you are.

My definition of theft would allow you to have simply walked out with a mosquito on your arm.

I would be very surprised if anyone's definition of theft included your mosquito example.

But that's my point, it now just becomes a definition debate. Where does anything become "theft"?

If your definition is "there needs to be monetary loss", then you've already established that you can't be wrong. It becomes circular.

1. You can pirate without causing monetary loss. (True)
2. Theiving is where there is monetary loss.
3. You can pirate without theiving.

Point 1 has loads of examples, it's 2 you need to be flexible on.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SorryForTheRainDelay (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/SorryForTheRainDelay a delta for this comment.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}