In those three cases, you're receiving a service (showing you the movie, cutting your hair and servicing your car), so yeah, you're stealing their work, which is arguably much worse than stealing objects.
In contrast, copying a copy of a movie or a game or whatever without removing the original or even a copy of it is not stealing.
And before you chime in with "but future income!", those profits are hypothetical, so even in the most uncharitable rational definition, you have stolen something that someone MIGHT have gotten.
Copying is not theft and you can't steal something that doesn't and might never exist.
The difference is that in your later two examples, a business lost something, their time / labor. If you took someones seat at the theater, there will be a disruption at the least, maybe the customer does not get their seat or you have to be kicked out or cleaned up after, but if you don't disrupt anything or make a mess, you caused no harm whatsoever.
No one looses anything when someone copies a file without permission. The FBI and other propaganda sources would have you believe that media companies would make more money if you didn't copy the file, there is no evidence of that, only evidence to the contrary, even so, if it were true, taking an action that causes someone to earn less money than if the action were not taken is not theft. If I open up a store, next to your store, and sell the kind of products you sell, you will make less money than if i don't, but no person with any self respect would ever claim that I stole anything from you, except you, the angry store owner. The reality is that these laws and their associated propaganda exist because the wealthy ruling class is terrified of making slightly less money for their investors.
Think back to the moment you learned that copying was considered theft, you knew it was ridiculous at the time, but you've seen so many FBI warnings, and so much of your favorite youtubers whining about facebook videos that belong to them with more views than theirs, steeling their precious views, even though almost no one on earth watches videos on facebook and on youtube, and no one who knows and wants to support a creator would ever watch their content in a way that would instead support someone else who provided no new value. The reality is that the youtuber was never going to get any views from the audience of the facebook video if the facebook video didn't exist, but because it did, many people followed the comment saying that the video was stolen right back to the original creator. Likewise the people who are pirating software or media are probably not going to buy it in any timeline, but now that they copied the content, they might promote it to people who will actually buy it, people who otherwise would not know about it.
Yes, Captain obvious thanks for pointing out that a service and a product are different things. After all why would I pirate porn when fucking a hooker doesn't get me anything new after?
You have a new experience after the cinema, you have a new style after a haircut, and the car service argument is so stupid I refuse to even entertain it.
No, you don’t own the movie. You own the 2 cent piece of plastic it’s on but the movie itself is licensed, not owned. The piece of plastic is basically your license key, nothing more.
Not owning it is similar to paying to go to theater or cinema and you don't own the thing either. I don't see people complaining that they cannot take video in theaters.
internet piracy? i never ever would do such a thing, it is illegal. instead i will pay for 5 streaming services and never own anything. remember, you wouldn't steal a car.
The only thing I would (totally naively and magically) wish for is some kind of really well organized and curated time capsule mainly for movies and music preservation.
I don’t want all the music and movies for myself, I wouldn’t be able to watch/hear it all but I wish for anyone from any time in the future — to have a simple/legal option to just dig anything out, public domain or whatever will work best.
Well, yes. This exist — I am really grateful for that, but.. This audio library now contains 15M positions. It is a big number, no doubt about it.
Then, Spotify has over 80M files in the library with around 4M podcasts.
Estimated existing music amount is unclear but around 90-200M and growing all the time.
And suddenly 15M is getting somehow small in terms of preserving, and this is with music only.
With movies I even remember some interviews with Tarantino and Nolan talking about how badly some movies are being mistreated, lost cuts, not even close to proper/safe long time storing, fires, accidents and so on..
Yea it's unfortunate. You can watch movies for free on a lotta shady websites though but for music I just settled for Apple Music because it's the only music streaming service that doesnt have like 5+ trackers according to Exodus and there is no free version with ads so chances of them selling ur data is less than say Spotify would be.
Yet another nonsense comparison. If you steal a car, rental or otherwise, the owner won't have it anymore. If you somehow figure out a way to make an exact duplicate of the car and then return the original, you have not stolen anything.
But you could also theoretically buy that car and own it. If you bought that car no one would say, well, you only paid for the right to drive it temporarily.
Exactly! So many authoritarians pretend that every law is sacrosanct to the same degree as the ones against murder and meanwhile we have motherfuckers outlawing water breaks in triple digit degrees weather and mandating discrimination!
Wait, uh oh, is that the sound of sirens? Are they finally coming for me? Nope, it's just the cops seizing someone's civil assets at a traffic stop. Another day on the high seas for me.
I hate DRM. Especially as an open sourcer. If all methods of buying it are DRM'ed I won't buy it. My wife has Netflix and contribute the same to OpenRightsGroup, who fight DRM, to balance out our karma. I won't watch Netflix.
But it's not just media now. A lot of modern device have anti-features and lockout the user. I won't say owner, because if it's a computer and your not admin, your not the owner. Car are terrible for this and it rubs right up against Right To Repair. They use this power imbalance to force you to use dealerships. Crazy thing is, the cars modules are also closed black boxes to car manufacturer. I've been to car industry talks where automotive engineers complain of this, and everyone is nodding, but they don't see their own closeness is no better. They want other to be open with them, but don't want to be open with others.
It's a terrible state of play. In future, today will be a digital darkage and will only be the pirated and cracked stuff that makes it through. It's so stupid, shortsighted, anticompetitive and certain amount of just evil.
One might argue that software developers deserve to be paid fairly for their work.
That argument falls flat, though, when their products include user-hostile misfeatures like performance-ruining DRM and obnoxious in-app advertising, which pirates remove. By including such misfeatures, software companies are basically punishing their customers for not pirating their products.
Why make a version without the restrictive DRM and annoying ads if you don't agree with the mechanics of restrictive DRM and annoying ads, you say? Hmm, that's a real puzzler 🤔
You shouldn't have to pay for something which there is no scarcity of. A haircut takes time and effort, so you should pay for it. Food is not unlimited, so you should pay for it. Software can be duplicated an unlimited number of times, so you should not have to pay for it. That's just giving people passive income.
Yeah no, software is made with the time and effort of the devs. And maintained with the time and effort of the devs. And good software usually reflects experience and skill of said devs and a usually a broader team as well.
Saying something isn't worth anything just because the end result of the labour can be copy/pasted is insane.
I don't think this is a great argument. While the greed of corporations is in no doubt, and engage in unethical and annoying behaviour to fleece, us the users, of as much money as possible, work was still required to produce the product.
YouTubers for example work to produce videos, can anyone really claim we shouldn't have to pay for their work? (sign up for direct support if you can afford it via things like Nebula)
I dunno, seems like a flimsy argument to me.
A better argument is that the companies are shit, fuck them, just steal it if you want to.
Yeah. Sure, people can make yotube videos for fun, code for fun erc. But if you want to do that thing you enjoy full time, it's just not feasible to not get paid for it.
In cases like this, creating artificial scarcity is very important. Without scarcity, no producer would finance new movies because there's no way to make back their initial investment. So just like with patents, we create artificial scarcity by giving the people who made the movie exclusive rights to decide who can watch it.
Even though scarcity isn't enforced upon us like with most goods, it's in literally everyone's best interest to create (and enforce) that scarcity.