This argument never held up. By taking it, you admit it has value to you. Whether or not you agree with the asking price is incidental: you have to acknowledge you are taking something with some value and not paying for it.
I've pirated my fair share of software and media, and had my own software pirated. I'm not judging anybody for pirating software, but I am calling out specious self-justifications about doing so. You pirate it because it's cheaper and easier than paying for it.
It's not a matter of convenience, and it's not just because it's cheaper either -- piracy is the only way to actually get access to it for some people. Otherwise, it's just prohibitively expensive for them.
Sure, you could argue that that still falls under "because it's cheaper", but there's a difference between someone pirating because they just want to save money and someone pirating because they literally can't afford to get it legally no matter what.
And this doesn't cover stuff like software just being plain unavailable in some regions; I literally cannot get some software I use in university legally.
I hate it when people say that to dismiss things. Semantics is all about meaning. Without it we can't have a discussion. It's what's important about the words we say.
> You are acquiring a thing which has value to you, and has value to its owner, and which the owner has asked you to pay for.
Right, which means it had enough value for you to copy it, but says nothing about whether or not it was valuable enough to pay money for it. And if it wasn't valuable enough to pay money for it, the author loses nothing in that particular instance of piracy.
Of course, that doesn't mean all piracy falls under this case, but it does seem important to distinguish between these things.
I always avoid ever saying anything like "that's [just] semantics", and I try to discourage others to, too, but in many of the situations where it shows up (including this one), there's nothing wrong with the complaint itself. When you hear someone swipe, "I'm not going to argue semantics with you", it generally carries an implicit accusation of an attempted change in subject. Consider:
Sara: "Nathan ate the clementines I bought from Oliver this morning!"
Oliver, Nate's friend: "I didn't sell her any clementines. The only fruit I've even touched today are these. They're not clementines. They're small mandarin oranges."
Does it matter that Sara can't distinguish clementines from ordinary mandarins? If there's a law that punishes you differently depending on whether you stole true clementines or not, then sure, what they actually are is materially relevant. Absent that, though, does Sara care what the definition is right now? No, and neither should anyone else. To even bring it up just distracts from Sara's actual complaint.
That is to say: if the argument starts as a semantic one, then semantic quibbles are relevant. ("The law says this about subcategory Y. Does what's at issue satisfy the definition of Y, or is it merely Z?") If it's not, though, then it's appropriate to call someone out on DOSing the conversation with a semantic rabbit hole (instead of being able to concede, "You say 'photocopier', while I say 'Xerox'", and then moving the fuck on).
Of course it's semantics - we're discussing the meaning of the word "theft", and deciding whether it applies to this situation! By denying the relevance of semantics you beg the question, assuming that the words must mean to everyone precisely what they mean to you.
"Owner", for example: your statement presumes the idea of software copyright, that someone who is neither party to the copying scenario can "own" the pattern of bits being copied, and have a right to demand payment for it. Well, that is the question, and the Russians clearly have a different point of view than yours.
Of course I share their skepticism: the idea of intellectual property seems to have brought about rather more harm than benefit, and I generally follow Proudhon's view on the subject of property.
It's similar to arguing ice cream is not fresh because it is made of frozen milk. You're trying to form a bad association that is completely illogical.
If Joe is selling cherries he grew on his cherry tree, and I start selling some cherries from my cherry tree for cheaper (or just giving away cherries), this does deprive Joe from some of the profit he would get from selling his cherries, because some people who would have bought some cherries from Joe instead of from me, but I am by no means stealing profits from Joe. I'm not taking his cherries. He still has his cherries. That's not to say that he isn't worse off. He is, of course, worse off. But (except if some other conditions hold) I haven't wronged him, and I certainly haven't stolen from him.
(Ftr, I don't actually have a cherry tree, and do not grow any food.)
Now, if Joe is selling copies of a file, and I am giving away copies of the same file, well, it seems like a similar situation. One difference is that in the case of the cherry tree, both Joe and I are putting in the work to create the product, namely, by raising and maintaining our respective cherry trees, and harvesting the cherries,
while in the case of the computer file, it may be that Joe put in a lot of work into creating that file in the first place, and I did not, and so if I were to sell copies of the file, that would seem quite questionable.
Now, if I were to distribute the file Joe made and is selling, the reason this would be bad is probably a combination of "This makes Joe worse off, and he should be rewarded for the benefit he provided others, and also society decided on that basis that I shouldn't do that, and unless there is an overriding moral obligation to do otherwise, I morally ought to follow the ethical rules that society has established."
This is, I'll admit, somewhat similar to at least some of the reason it would be bad for me to steal some of Joe's cherries and give them away (though with less of the reason being "because of the ethics society decided" part than in the case with distributing the file.)
Though, one difference in this case is, Joe could do other things with the cherries other than sell them, and by stealing them, I am depriving him also of that option. This doesn't happen in the case of distributing the file. Nor would it happen if I had a magical duplication beam which I used to make duplicates of his cherries.
I think this difference is an important part of the concept of theft.
The concept of theft, I expect, arose substantially before money, and I imagine also before significant trade.
The concept of "Hey, that's mine! I need that!" is fairly basic, and is based on "If another person takes it from you, you don't have it anymore." .
Now, of course, socially we could agree to use the word "theft" to also include software/media piracy, but I personally don't think we should. I think it is best to use different words for them, because I think it makes sense to keep the concepts separate (though related).
Do you personally feel that wage theft isn't theft?
Same hypothetical, except the cherries Joe picks aren't actually Joe's—they're Jill's. Jill owns some farmland where cherries grow, and she lets people pick them. They do so on the premise that cherry pickers get paid by Jill on Tuesdays. Joe moves to town and picks cherries there all week and then hands them over. Jill says "thanks" and then slams the door in Joe's face. Does this fail to meet the threshold for the appropriate use of the word "theft"? Joe has not had anything taken from him[1]—certainly not any physical property[2] he could do anything else with or ever plausibly argue "That's mine" to anyone willing to lend a sympathetic ear—because the cherries were never his.[3]
1. 30e7f23b81e476dd7afc8f4e23401aed004567526f8dc58ca97fc3339fe5d2bf
2. d38b2ef315ebb47a44a28abf7884c7fecf05b11f0d34a875fffc89ce4f955e81
3. 188e9eee6f835b8a6bd2f927de75006cd87215d10dee9a0225e320f3ee6d4b65
P.S.: What's with the hashes?
¹. It seems to also be used in Spanish, but mostly in an American context as a calque from English.
Property being about land and geographical boundaries is one of the most common misconceptions that gets shattered in the first few weeks of a first-year course on the subject in law school.
> Artificial scarcity is not something we should allow.
Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity so that people can produce things that are valuable but not physically scarce so that they can buy those things that actually are scarce.
(Emphasis mine.) Who said that? Certainly not me.
Acts of charity happen all the time, and we are doubtless better off for them. But those are a choice. It doesn't mean it should be the only choice.
> Unfortunately, unless we're all going back to a society in which people can only produce things that are physically scarce, like food, we need artificial scarcity
You said that unless we have artificial scarcity, we are all going back to a society where people only produce physically scarce things.
Err, nope. If I steal a bicycle from the shop around the corner there is one less bicycle the owner can sell.
If I copy a digital asset the loss is hypothetical. It only exists if the condition holds true that I would have purchased the item if I hadn't been able to just copy it.
This condition is simply not true in the majority of cases of piracy of digital items.
I worked in third world countries, I have a friend who is a single mother on a low wage job.
These are just /some/ examples where a sale of many digital items, software, media, etc. would provably not happen. There is no 'theft' because there was no income withheld from the creator. [1]
Proof: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/09/21/eu-buried-own-400000-stu...
[1] Whether they should be allowed to do that is a different matter – one detached from theft/economy. It's a philosophical/ethical issue and I agree with parent that the view we hold on these things is recent and shaped by conditions that frequently no longer apply (physical item vs digital one resp. cost of making a copy).