Lies, slander, and blah. If I own something, that means it's subject to my whim alone and no one else's. If that isn't the case then it isn't ownership. Your definition is wrong.
The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason. There are very specific circumstances when you can lose your house or car. This is a bullshit equivalence and you are the reason why this homosexualry exists. That said, taxes are theft.
>The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason. There are very specific circumstances when you can lose your house or car.
Ah, so just like videogames.
No, not just like videogames. Just like *some* videogames. There are several games whose access can be cut off at any time by the game, including those that are not multiplayer, at any time. There is no form of checks or balances to stop it, the company can simply disable access to it if they so choose. It's a major problem.
>People having property rights, owning their own servers and having the right to refuse service to you, is a big problem
It's not, you're just an entitled child
>taxes are theft
I dislike them as much as the next guy, but every normal human can understand that they are necessary. Someone has to keep the energy running, someone has to keep the roads in condition, someone has to defend the border.
It's not taxes you complaining about, its the shit government that wastes it and pockets it without any consequence.
And if you are really such a hardcore anarchist, i would gladly support a non-state people can go to and give up their citizenship and wallow in their utopia.
Of course. I fully acknowledge that taxes are in some form necessary to have a functioning society. In an ideal world they would be allocated effectively and only to those services which are strictly necessary. However, it is still theft. They are paid only under threat, however benevolent the source of that threat is.
>it is still theft
That it why I wrote that I support the creation of a tax-free space. If you see it as the better alternative you are free to go there without anyone stopping you.
I personally would rather have a hard-work space for every state official that wastes tax money.
A tax-free space is like a non-government space. It's impossible, without some sort of change of human nature and is always a transitional state. I wouldn't want to live in a tax-free zone, it's a state of chaos followed by the same order that any society today has. I would like to not pay taxes, but I would also like to live forever and be able to fly. It's not realistic.
>Someone has to keep the energy running
If it's tax based how are they making a profit?
Why and/or how are energy companies CEO's billionaires if the money they use to build and maintain the grid is from taxes? >keep the roads in condition
Oh you mean that thing they never do, but if they do it's the cheapest way possible so they can "repair" it again 4 years later? And when private citizens just fix pot-holes they're arrested? Is that the thing you're talking about. >muh border
They don't do that, so yes, RIGHT NOW and for the past 100 years taxes are most definitely theft. >"n-no"
Yes. Theft. It used to be that every decision made was up to the citizens. If all citizens said "no thanks" to some new bill, government wouldn't get the money. You do that now you got to jail.
Tax = theft.
It is a proven fact that no tax and complete freedom for each individual creates the best communities in the world and has throughout all human history.
As long as that community is only about 200 people, of course.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>best communities
You brainfart do realize that these "communities" just use your labor and input as tax, right?
No one needs a parasite.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>use your labor
You missed the point.
"Complete freedom for each individual" means you only, for example, grow food for yourself. THEN when there is excess you share with the rest of the community. This is proven to be the most effective way to do anything.
Every single documented experiment (intentional or otherwise) through time comparing "we work for each other, or else" to "do your own thing just for you and your family" ALWAYS yields in much better results FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY from the latter.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>share with the rest of the community
And if you don't?
4 months ago
Anonymous
then people will pirate your crops. duh.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Then eat only your oats.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Not organizing is the most efficient way to operate
God damn, new contender for the dumbest shit ever uttered on Ganker.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>still not reading what I wrote >"dumbest shit ever uttered"
I cannot make it more clear than what I did, maybe actually pay attention before embarrassing yourself.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I read it, it's just bafflingly stupid.
Seek help.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You clearly didn't, since I need to explain it further.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I don't particularly have a horse in the race but you keep talking about examples and experiments as the basis of your argument, link those examples and experiments then
4 months ago
Anonymous
Read the first 200 years of American history.
The white kind, not the plain-monkeys.
4 months ago
Anonymous
link, now
4 months ago
Anonymous
okay, let me produce 14 nm semiconductors for myself
4 months ago
Anonymous
Mister anon, anon was saying the manufacturers make all of the 14nm products for themselves, THEN they share the rest for a fee
4 months ago
Anonymous
Those communities are tribal in nature, they are not societies they are families. It's simply not possible to have that sort of system as a civilization. You are right about everything regarding the taxes however.
Just ignore my line about the problem being the government. Oh wait, then you couldn't spew out all that bullshit.
Energy should be solely in the hands of the government / the people. And the roads. And all other vital infrastructure. But then again, the government is incompetent, corrupt and stupid.
If it weren't, no one sane would have a problem with taxes.
1. energy is private
2. roads are never fixed or take forever to fix because of poor funding, regardless of how many taxes are taken
3. the border is not being defended at all right now, and Biden is currently committing an act of treason by ignoring the problem
Just ignore my line about the problem being the government. Oh wait, then you couldn't spew out all that bullshit.
Energy should be solely in the hands of the government / the people. And the roads. And all other vital infrastructure. But then again, the government is incompetent, corrupt and stupid.
If it weren't, no one sane would have a problem with taxes.
>The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason.
If you live in a country with an anglo-saxon legal system (the entire western world) they absolutely can,
They absolutely cannot, they have to have a reason to do so. You can argue that by abusing the system they can do so, which is true, but the government cannot legally take something from you just because they do not like you.
Your sentences are contradictory.
The original point you were trying to refute was >you can't own a home or car because the government can take them away at any time.
In the western world, the government can take these things away at any time, legally.
Nothing about what I said is contradictory. The government cannot legally take away your house at *any* time. There are specific conditions that follow the legal process of your house being taken, at those times your house can be taken. If you are arguing that due to government corruption your house can be unjustly taken from you, that is also not a valid counterargument. It is illegal for you to be arbitrarily murdered, but anyone *can* murder you at any time for any reason. It's not legal to do so, however, which is what is being discussed. Or if it IS what is being discussed, it is utterly inane and not worth considering.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Or if it IS what is being discussed, it is utterly inane and not worth considering.
To rephrase:
>Or if it is NOT what is being discussed...
I am not paying attention enough while typing.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The government cannot legally take away your house at *any* time.
Yes they can. All that is required is a cop, a confidential informant (who doesn't exist save on paper) and a judge. I'm not reading the rest of your cope.
4 months ago
Anonymous
> All that is required is a cop, a confidential informant (who doesn't exist save on paper) and a judge. I'm not reading the rest of your cope.
None of that is legal. You are either too stupid or being annoying on purpose in the interest of whining for the sake of it. Either way it doesn't make you look good.
You can't. The government has monopoly on violence. All it takes is for the wrong person to thing that you suck, so they send the cavalry, and the cavalry are all good little slaves that just follow orders and they think they're free from any form of responsibility.
If every citizen had the potential to be Timothy McVeigh at the drop of a hat, the government would act very differently. But here you are, worrying about taking money away from billionaires.
and in america, australia too, aussie government just made the laws more convoluted than others but essentially it's still the government owning the land and they can take it if you don't pay your fees
My ISP is not allowed to just cut off my internet access because I visit a website they don't like. Police can't just come into my home and take my stereo because I blast my music too loud. If you think that is at all equivalent to how property ownership works, then you either don't know your rights or you are an idiot who's willing to waive them at the slightest resistance. >inb4 "it's just video games lol, calm down chud"
It's bigger than that and you know it.
>My ISP is not allowed to just cut off my internet access because I visit a website they don't like. Police can't just come into my home and take my stereo because I blast my music too loud.
uhhh yeah they can? your isp can cut off your connection at any time for any reason and the police can come knocking on your door if your neighbours file noise complaints
>My ISP can't just cut off my service!
Because they are government regulated and their service is considered a necessity. >Police can't just bust into my home and steal my stereo because it's too loud!
Actually they totally could by using the noise as probable cause and then charging the stereo with being used in a crime (they do not have to prove said crime happened)
Accessing a game server hosted by a private entity is not a right any more than accessing land owned by a private entity.
your isp can absolutely cut your service off and have done many times to people suspected of hacking or committing any other crimes, it just isn't heavily policed right now but if the government had the leisure to police the entire internet then a lot of people would get their service cut off
>NO!
How eloquent you rat-frick moron. >Explain!
Here you go moron:
Yes. It's copyright infringement.
Software is intellectual property, like a song or a recipe, not a good. The "owner" of a piece of software is the rightsholder - they are the one legally entitled to modify/license/distribute the software.
"Buying software" has always legally been purchasing a limited-use license.
Pirating has always legally been copyright infringement
That's like saying a cook book of recipes or a vinyl can be retroactively revoked from you past the point of purchase, to put it in your terms. Or hell, a digital copy of a movie. Which I'd pirate anyway. You advocate for something fundamentally nonsensical.
What I'm hearing right now: >WHO CARES IF IT'S PREDATORY? THAT'S HOW IT LEGALLY IS, moron!
So, once again, you're not just okay with not owning things, you're actively claiming we have never actually "owned" video games, despite the shelf full of CDs I can play right now that work and no one can take from me. You are a strange one.
This is an incorrect analogy. What is being misunderstood in these threads is the difference between a SERVICE and a PRODUCT. A company can suspend service for anything at any time. Any contracts that I make with an ISP can be voided by either party at any time per the terms I sign. These are legally binding and have been tested countless times over hundreds of cases. A company cannot take a product I have bought and paid for, the transaction of purchase confers a transfer of permanent ownership from one party to the other. While we all live in the digital world, in many developed countries there is very shaky ground on an interpretation of digital rights ownership. While it is debatable at the moment whether it is legal for game companies to remove access to games digitally, it is certainly immoral under any common sense application of the law in even the most generous sense. It is simply not reasonable to believe that a product that has been paid for can be treated as a service and removed by virtue of the developer simply pretending it is a service when it is not.
pirating games became morally acceptable once every game started being on Steam. If I buy a fricking game I want the cd, not a fricking steam code for the game.
frick steam and their always online bullshit
Coincidentally. Sure.
Thing is. Pirating would not be theft even if paying actually was owning. And the way he is making the claim, it implies otherwise.
>go to prostitutehouse >make fleshlight-mold from prostitute pussy >make mold available to your friends to make their own fleshlight
Fixed that for you.
>go to game store >you look at game you want to pirate >now you have it
No.
For the game to be available online someone has to own the game.
First guy pays, rest gets for free.
How do you think porn appears online?
Some hero has a subscription and just shares with the world.
I hate piracy because it floods games with third worlders and broke ass NEETs.
I absolutely agree with the image though. Greedy fricks threatening to take your purchases is inexcusable and they are admitting that the product cannot be technically stolen.
>Greedy fricks threatening to take your purchases is inexcusable and they are admitting that the product cannot be technically stolen.
When did this happen, exactly?
ALL video games should have demos. If a game does not have a demo and I want to try it, I will make my own demo, in the form of """piracy""". If I like a demo-- official or not-- then I will buy the game.
Yes. It's copyright infringement.
Software is intellectual property, like a song or a recipe, not a good. The "owner" of a piece of software is the rightsholder - they are the one legally entitled to modify/license/distribute the software.
"Buying software" has always legally been purchasing a limited-use license.
Pirating has always legally been copyright infringement
Piracy isn't "stealing", independently of whatever the current business model of online platforms is: Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else, which doesn't happen with online media. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb, moronic, etc.
>Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else
Actually and legally its definition requires you to subtract from the owners economic standing. A copy can still be seen as potential economic gain that you removed, thus subtracted from the economic total of the owner.
That said, the laws are worlds behind digital goods. A copy does virtually cost nothing and therefore is basically infinite profit, which is absurd in every way.
>Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else
No it doesn't. You can steal an idea, and that doesn't "subtract" anything. I'd appeal to your sense of somebody taking credit for something you did, but I doubt you ever did anything worthwhile in your life.
How can you steal an idea? Genuinely, this is a stupid argument and it is being taken to its extremes. I can't even download fricking tablature to play specific goddamn songs anymore because apparently the copyright holders have the rights to learning how to fricking play a series of notes. What are they going to do next, stop me from listening slowly and learning each note by ear? I hate this shit.
>the copyright holders have the rights to learning how to fricking play a series of notes
...yes, that is how copyright works. You need permission to legally play or perform copyrighted music.
How old are you?
That's total horseshit, that is not how copyright was intended at all. Me learning to play a song does not at all steal from a performer that created a song. It is not at all the same as copying an author's work and publishing it. Copyright-holders should NOT have the capability to block access to even learning a pattern of notes on a guitar.
No.
>works for Nintendo
Heckin cute and validarino.
LOL, that's like saying you can't own a home or car because the government can take them away at any time.
It's true, you don't really own shit.
And you will be happy.
>own something
>is taken away at anytime for any reason
Then our concept of "ownership" is incongruent with reality, isn't it?
Piracy is an attempt to restore power to consumers.
You aren't smart or intellectual by saying ownership doesn't exist. The truth is your definition of ownership is wrong.
Lies, slander, and blah. If I own something, that means it's subject to my whim alone and no one else's. If that isn't the case then it isn't ownership. Your definition is wrong.
>according to my made up definition of ownership you are wrong!
lmao moron
The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason. There are very specific circumstances when you can lose your house or car. This is a bullshit equivalence and you are the reason why this homosexualry exists. That said, taxes are theft.
>The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason. There are very specific circumstances when you can lose your house or car.
Ah, so just like videogames.
No, not just like videogames. Just like *some* videogames. There are several games whose access can be cut off at any time by the game, including those that are not multiplayer, at any time. There is no form of checks or balances to stop it, the company can simply disable access to it if they so choose. It's a major problem.
>People having property rights, owning their own servers and having the right to refuse service to you, is a big problem
It's not, you're just an entitled child
Yes, that is what happens when you pay for a product. Or would be, if I still paid for them anymore.
>taxes are theft
I dislike them as much as the next guy, but every normal human can understand that they are necessary. Someone has to keep the energy running, someone has to keep the roads in condition, someone has to defend the border.
It's not taxes you complaining about, its the shit government that wastes it and pockets it without any consequence.
And if you are really such a hardcore anarchist, i would gladly support a non-state people can go to and give up their citizenship and wallow in their utopia.
Of course. I fully acknowledge that taxes are in some form necessary to have a functioning society. In an ideal world they would be allocated effectively and only to those services which are strictly necessary. However, it is still theft. They are paid only under threat, however benevolent the source of that threat is.
>it is still theft
That it why I wrote that I support the creation of a tax-free space. If you see it as the better alternative you are free to go there without anyone stopping you.
I personally would rather have a hard-work space for every state official that wastes tax money.
A tax-free space is like a non-government space. It's impossible, without some sort of change of human nature and is always a transitional state. I wouldn't want to live in a tax-free zone, it's a state of chaos followed by the same order that any society today has. I would like to not pay taxes, but I would also like to live forever and be able to fly. It's not realistic.
>Someone has to keep the energy running
If it's tax based how are they making a profit?
Why and/or how are energy companies CEO's billionaires if the money they use to build and maintain the grid is from taxes?
>keep the roads in condition
Oh you mean that thing they never do, but if they do it's the cheapest way possible so they can "repair" it again 4 years later? And when private citizens just fix pot-holes they're arrested? Is that the thing you're talking about.
>muh border
They don't do that, so yes, RIGHT NOW and for the past 100 years taxes are most definitely theft.
>"n-no"
Yes. Theft. It used to be that every decision made was up to the citizens. If all citizens said "no thanks" to some new bill, government wouldn't get the money. You do that now you got to jail.
Tax = theft.
yes everything is shit and every government on earth pisses tax money away, doesnt mean taxes arent necessary
It is a proven fact that no tax and complete freedom for each individual creates the best communities in the world and has throughout all human history.
As long as that community is only about 200 people, of course.
>best communities
You brainfart do realize that these "communities" just use your labor and input as tax, right?
No one needs a parasite.
>use your labor
You missed the point.
"Complete freedom for each individual" means you only, for example, grow food for yourself. THEN when there is excess you share with the rest of the community. This is proven to be the most effective way to do anything.
Every single documented experiment (intentional or otherwise) through time comparing "we work for each other, or else" to "do your own thing just for you and your family" ALWAYS yields in much better results FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY from the latter.
>share with the rest of the community
And if you don't?
then people will pirate your crops. duh.
Then eat only your oats.
>Not organizing is the most efficient way to operate
God damn, new contender for the dumbest shit ever uttered on Ganker.
>still not reading what I wrote
>"dumbest shit ever uttered"
I cannot make it more clear than what I did, maybe actually pay attention before embarrassing yourself.
I read it, it's just bafflingly stupid.
Seek help.
You clearly didn't, since I need to explain it further.
I don't particularly have a horse in the race but you keep talking about examples and experiments as the basis of your argument, link those examples and experiments then
Read the first 200 years of American history.
The white kind, not the plain-monkeys.
link, now
okay, let me produce 14 nm semiconductors for myself
Mister anon, anon was saying the manufacturers make all of the 14nm products for themselves, THEN they share the rest for a fee
Those communities are tribal in nature, they are not societies they are families. It's simply not possible to have that sort of system as a civilization. You are right about everything regarding the taxes however.
Just ignore my line about the problem being the government. Oh wait, then you couldn't spew out all that bullshit.
Energy should be solely in the hands of the government / the people. And the roads. And all other vital infrastructure. But then again, the government is incompetent, corrupt and stupid.
If it weren't, no one sane would have a problem with taxes.
1. energy is private
2. roads are never fixed or take forever to fix because of poor funding, regardless of how many taxes are taken
3. the border is not being defended at all right now, and Biden is currently committing an act of treason by ignoring the problem
>The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason.
If you live in a country with an anglo-saxon legal system (the entire western world) they absolutely can,
They absolutely cannot, they have to have a reason to do so. You can argue that by abusing the system they can do so, which is true, but the government cannot legally take something from you just because they do not like you.
Your sentences are contradictory.
The original point you were trying to refute was
>you can't own a home or car because the government can take them away at any time.
In the western world, the government can take these things away at any time, legally.
Nothing about what I said is contradictory. The government cannot legally take away your house at *any* time. There are specific conditions that follow the legal process of your house being taken, at those times your house can be taken. If you are arguing that due to government corruption your house can be unjustly taken from you, that is also not a valid counterargument. It is illegal for you to be arbitrarily murdered, but anyone *can* murder you at any time for any reason. It's not legal to do so, however, which is what is being discussed. Or if it IS what is being discussed, it is utterly inane and not worth considering.
>Or if it IS what is being discussed, it is utterly inane and not worth considering.
To rephrase:
>Or if it is NOT what is being discussed...
I am not paying attention enough while typing.
>The government cannot legally take away your house at *any* time.
Yes they can. All that is required is a cop, a confidential informant (who doesn't exist save on paper) and a judge. I'm not reading the rest of your cope.
> All that is required is a cop, a confidential informant (who doesn't exist save on paper) and a judge. I'm not reading the rest of your cope.
None of that is legal. You are either too stupid or being annoying on purpose in the interest of whining for the sake of it. Either way it doesn't make you look good.
>The government cannot take either away at any given time for any given reason
this is objectively false in most developed countries
>own home in [couintry]
>government demands property taxes
>choose to no pay property taxes
>government takes house
Wow you're right.
>couintry
>coin
>country
>couintry
checks out
You can't. The government has monopoly on violence. All it takes is for the wrong person to thing that you suck, so they send the cavalry, and the cavalry are all good little slaves that just follow orders and they think they're free from any form of responsibility.
If every citizen had the potential to be Timothy McVeigh at the drop of a hat, the government would act very differently. But here you are, worrying about taking money away from billionaires.
Maybe in shithole China.
and in america, australia too, aussie government just made the laws more convoluted than others but essentially it's still the government owning the land and they can take it if you don't pay your fees
My ISP is not allowed to just cut off my internet access because I visit a website they don't like. Police can't just come into my home and take my stereo because I blast my music too loud. If you think that is at all equivalent to how property ownership works, then you either don't know your rights or you are an idiot who's willing to waive them at the slightest resistance.
>inb4 "it's just video games lol, calm down chud"
It's bigger than that and you know it.
>My ISP is not allowed to just cut off my internet access because I visit a website they don't like. Police can't just come into my home and take my stereo because I blast my music too loud.
uhhh yeah they can? your isp can cut off your connection at any time for any reason and the police can come knocking on your door if your neighbours file noise complaints
>My ISP can't just cut off my service!
Because they are government regulated and their service is considered a necessity.
>Police can't just bust into my home and steal my stereo because it's too loud!
Actually they totally could by using the noise as probable cause and then charging the stereo with being used in a crime (they do not have to prove said crime happened)
Accessing a game server hosted by a private entity is not a right any more than accessing land owned by a private entity.
You are a stupid person.
your isp can absolutely cut your service off and have done many times to people suspected of hacking or committing any other crimes, it just isn't heavily policed right now but if the government had the leisure to police the entire internet then a lot of people would get their service cut off
No. Explain why and how the frick you're okay with literally not owning your video games, you fricking mouthbreather.
>NO!
How eloquent you rat-frick moron.
>Explain!
Here you go moron:
That's like saying a cook book of recipes or a vinyl can be retroactively revoked from you past the point of purchase, to put it in your terms. Or hell, a digital copy of a movie. Which I'd pirate anyway. You advocate for something fundamentally nonsensical.
What I'm hearing right now:
>WHO CARES IF IT'S PREDATORY? THAT'S HOW IT LEGALLY IS, moron!
So, once again, you're not just okay with not owning things, you're actively claiming we have never actually "owned" video games, despite the shelf full of CDs I can play right now that work and no one can take from me. You are a strange one.
This is an incorrect analogy. What is being misunderstood in these threads is the difference between a SERVICE and a PRODUCT. A company can suspend service for anything at any time. Any contracts that I make with an ISP can be voided by either party at any time per the terms I sign. These are legally binding and have been tested countless times over hundreds of cases. A company cannot take a product I have bought and paid for, the transaction of purchase confers a transfer of permanent ownership from one party to the other. While we all live in the digital world, in many developed countries there is very shaky ground on an interpretation of digital rights ownership. While it is debatable at the moment whether it is legal for game companies to remove access to games digitally, it is certainly immoral under any common sense application of the law in even the most generous sense. It is simply not reasonable to believe that a product that has been paid for can be treated as a service and removed by virtue of the developer simply pretending it is a service when it is not.
Nice to see a sane person here, not just arguing over a bunch of dumb examples that aren't even accurate.
companies just retroactively change the terms of your lifetime license when they want to go the monthly service route
that is accurate
And that’s called theft.
It's true. Do you really own a home if you don't paying property taxes and the government can take your home?
how is copying a bunch of 1's and 0's stealing? nice logic paypiggies
pirating games became morally acceptable once every game started being on Steam. If I buy a fricking game I want the cd, not a fricking steam code for the game.
frick steam and their always online bullshit
Yes.
NPC quote
Coincidentally. Sure.
Thing is. Pirating would not be theft even if paying actually was owning. And the way he is making the claim, it implies otherwise.
>go to prostitutehouse
>frick prostitute
>leave without paying
not paying for services is still stealing
>go to prostitutehouse
>make fleshlight-mold from prostitute pussy
>make mold available to your friends to make their own fleshlight
Fixed that for you.
The roastie would definitely seethe and demand them all to pay her despite her not deserving that money. Just like with real pirates.
>go to game store
>you look at game you want to pirate
>now you have it
No.
For the game to be available online someone has to own the game.
First guy pays, rest gets for free.
How do you think porn appears online?
Some hero has a subscription and just shares with the world.
last time i checked your mother doesn't charge
BTFO, holy shit
He never said or wrote that. Somebody superimposed that onto the whiteboard
I hate piracy because it floods games with third worlders and broke ass NEETs.
I absolutely agree with the image though. Greedy fricks threatening to take your purchases is inexcusable and they are admitting that the product cannot be technically stolen.
>Greedy fricks threatening to take your purchases is inexcusable and they are admitting that the product cannot be technically stolen.
When did this happen, exactly?
Anyone who purchased minecraft and didn't log in with their old email/ migrate it to microBlack person servers no longer has that account
ALL video games should have demos. If a game does not have a demo and I want to try it, I will make my own demo, in the form of """piracy""". If I like a demo-- official or not-- then I will buy the game.
Pirating was never stealing, it was always pirating. False equivalence.
This
if it was stealing it'd be called stealing, not pirating.
Yes. It's copyright infringement.
Software is intellectual property, like a song or a recipe, not a good. The "owner" of a piece of software is the rightsholder - they are the one legally entitled to modify/license/distribute the software.
"Buying software" has always legally been purchasing a limited-use license.
Pirating has always legally been copyright infringement
Read a book.
Piracy isn't "stealing", independently of whatever the current business model of online platforms is: Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else, which doesn't happen with online media. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb, moronic, etc.
>Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else
Actually and legally its definition requires you to subtract from the owners economic standing. A copy can still be seen as potential economic gain that you removed, thus subtracted from the economic total of the owner.
That said, the laws are worlds behind digital goods. A copy does virtually cost nothing and therefore is basically infinite profit, which is absurd in every way.
>Stealing necessarily means subtracting the object from someone else
No it doesn't. You can steal an idea, and that doesn't "subtract" anything. I'd appeal to your sense of somebody taking credit for something you did, but I doubt you ever did anything worthwhile in your life.
>You can steal an idea
No, you can't
You can infringe on a copyright
How can you steal an idea? Genuinely, this is a stupid argument and it is being taken to its extremes. I can't even download fricking tablature to play specific goddamn songs anymore because apparently the copyright holders have the rights to learning how to fricking play a series of notes. What are they going to do next, stop me from listening slowly and learning each note by ear? I hate this shit.
>the copyright holders have the rights to learning how to fricking play a series of notes
...yes, that is how copyright works. You need permission to legally play or perform copyrighted music.
How old are you?
or you could just make your own arrangement of someone else's work and call it "fair use".
>...yes, that is how copyright works
And it's moronic. Any more questions?
That's total horseshit, that is not how copyright was intended at all. Me learning to play a song does not at all steal from a performer that created a song. It is not at all the same as copying an author's work and publishing it. Copyright-holders should NOT have the capability to block access to even learning a pattern of notes on a guitar.
"If I can conceptualize what I'm doing as it not being *stealing* then it's not a crime!"
- Black folk
It's more insidious than that, anon.
>if games are a service
>then pirating them is LITERALLY slavery
>pay Black person prostitute
>i now own a black girl lusting over my bwc
I need more cute negress dixie chicks. Feed me, and great fortune may come to you.
anyone who uses this shitty office meme to try and make a point automatically ruins their own argument because the office is gay
>i don't like [thing] so you're argument is invalid
cope, seethe, dilate, etc.
>WHAT? YOU DON'T LIKE THE OFFICE?
>THAT IS TOTALLY NOT WHOLESOME BIG CHUNGUS!
that's what you sound like.
by pirating games you enjoy you are making it less likely for good games to be made
you are digging your own grave
tl;dr enjoy your suicide squad
piracy has never hurt sales
>two half sentences
>le tldr (for some reason this means summary in reddit)
go back
A lot of you guys are boring and need new material.
Goods and ________.
100% right.
it's not stealing a bike if it's a rental
Supposedly this gets spammed on piracy subreddits and people pirating lose their shit about a pro-pirating meme
Property rights were always a joke anyways. Embrace national socialism.
If national socialism gets put in practice do I get a bf I can give blowjobs to?
he's half right. Piracy isn't stealing, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the first part of his argument.
so you believe that buying a game license = owning said game?