The answer is no, you are not entitled to do that. Whether or not you agree with them, laws were brought in that stop you from doing that for the sole purpose of protecting the copyright owners.

The laws were brought in, because people were abusing the ability to copy digital media and profiting off of it. Essentially making money off of someone else's hard work. That is what the laws are there to stop.

The unfortunate side effect is that even legitimate copying of digital media is being restricted, and while that is a bummer, it also isn't the end of the world.

But in some ways, you are just trying to shift the entitlement from the person wanting a free ride back onto yourself, suggesting that you should be able to do whatever you want with someone else's work (which it still is, even though you have a copy of it). That simply isn't true.

It is no different to Intellectual Property. If you started photo copying and distributing Pokemon cards, you and others would be benefiting from someone elses work, without them getting compensation for it. Even if you're not profiting monetarily, those other people are certainly profiting in some way.

I am in no way a copyright evangelist, but the argument that just because you didn't deprive them of it means that it is okay just doesn't reside in reality. I agree that in most cases, torrenting or streaming something for free when you should be paying is not a big deal. But to pretend it's ethical is a stretch.

What kind of profit do i get giving my copy of something to my parents to watch?

I don't think there is anything wrong with that and I don't think that is what we are discussing here. Maybe I read the parent post wrong, but my argument is against distribution of many copies not just handing the one copy around.

The laws you are referring to were basically just Autodesk enforcing a monopoly position, and these laws directly harmed consumers.

The big elephant in the room is that distribution and maybe even production do not require publishers anymore...and so instead of changing to adapt to the market they are out cracking down on supposed pirates.

It takes a lot of ignorance of the business model of publishers to defend their status as on par with artists.

I wasn't defending publishers, I was defending the artists. The publishers are the (often unfair and exploitive) proxy to the artists. I wish they weren't and I wish publishing would catch up with the digital world too. That doesn't change anything about my post though.

Are you not depriving HBO of the money from the subscription you would presumably buy if not for the free copy you obtained?

What about identity theft ?

The victim of identity theft is deprived of their credit rating, reputation, etc. Credit is a resource that gets used up as you use more of it or take out loans and don't pay them back. Making a copy of a digital file has no similar effect on the original owner of the file.

Even if, you leave the original in a pristine state, the fact that multiple copies are available and can be used (for good or nefarious purpose), dilutes or erodes the value of the original.

And this is true for both digital content or something as intangible as an identity.

So I am not really convinced by the simple argument that since the original still exists untouched, everything is fine. Yes, this is surely convenient and better for the original author/owner/creator, but not enough to say nothing harmful happened.

There are multiple copies of the Mona Lisa. Many, many millions of reproductions. Is the value of the original Mona Lisa diminished because of it?

Time and labor are resources that get used up too.

You're paying for the creator's time and labor. Taking the product of that time and labor without compensation is theft.

That is the common rebuttal, but if someone illegally downloads a film he or she never intended to purchase or rent anyway, then that argument does not hold. Even if the choice is between buying something legally and downloading it for free illegally, that word does not apply.

Loss of income does not equal theft.

Whether you have then been wronged or not is another discussion with valid arguments on both sides.

If you did not want "to purchase or rent " legally why is it ok to do it illegally? Is it that you did not purchase or rent it because you knew that you could simply steal it?

I am neither condemning nor condoning illegal downloading when you had no intention of paying for it — merely stating that it is not theft; the differences are just too great due to the nature of digital content (i.e., being able to effortlessly copy an item without incurring more than trivial costs).

Why not call it copyright infringement if you want a more neutral term?

Your identity may be intangible, but you can certainly be deprived of its proper use by someone successfully impersonating you. So unlike digital piracy (for want of a better term) something is taken from you in a manner that precludes your own use of it.

More to the point though, labelling the act of downloading the latest film as theft is not conductive to a discussion about the moral justification of piracy, because you are using loaded language to condemn it even before presenting an argument. That is, there appears to be no strong consensus that piracy falls under what is commonly referred to as theft.

(I am under the impression that the term digital piracy did stick regardless of one's position in that debate.)

> What about identity theft ?

This is also a inconvenient word, though for different reasons.

There really is no such thing as identity theft. Rather, some organizations occasionally fail at authenticating people (that is: they fail to correctly determine the identity of people). Usually because they use obviously unreliable methods for doing so (like, asking for information that is semi-public, like date of birth or SSNs, which obviously cannot be used to reliably determine your identity). Then, after they failed at that, and believed some random person's unsubstantiated claim that they were you, and as a result gave that person access to something that they shouldn't have, they try to deflect their responsibility for that failure by claiming some bullshit about "identity theft".

> After I purchase something, am I not entitled to do what I wish with it, including giving it away?

There is clear precedent that you are not.

In this case, HBO is a business trying to make profit. It spends enormous amounts of money producing shows. Giving away a copy of their product for free arguably reduces their ability to stay solvent. Thus, theft.

So if I start a pizza place across the street from another pizza place I'm a thief? Or even worse gave away free pizza!? The horror. Didn't realize it was a basic human right for a business to make a profit. Nor did I realize it was the governments responsibility to ensure a business makes a profit. Enlightening stuff I'm learning today.

Sarcasm aside, I think you missed the point of my statement.

If you illegally take away income from a business, it can be classified as theft. If you do something else illegal that doesn't take away income, it would be hard to classify it as theft. Apologies if I was cryptic.

Reducing a business's ability to remain solvent does not constitute theft. If a competitor emerged and offered better shows for less money, that would also reduce HBO's ability to remain solvent, but is obviously not theft. HBO does not "own" expected profits from their business.

Spending an enormous amount of money does not entitle anyone to a profit, just ask Webvan.

>Theft deprives the owner of something. Making a copy leaves the original intact.

When you create that original you estimate that you have to sell X-number of copies to get back your money that you put into creating the original. If you want to watch/listen to/read that work you at least partially agree with the author that it's worth something. It may be in your opinion worth less then the price, but it's not up to you to set that price, as you have no idea how much work and resources did the author put into creating it. You have only one right - agree or disagree with the author and either pay him for this work or look for something else that was priced in your range.

I don't have the right to punch someone in the face, but that doesn't make it stealing. Reusing that word is just attempting emotional manipulation, in my opinion.