Piracy. Found this on my friend's FB. Sorry if repost . Piracy is not Theft, It' ? irage a handy little guide) Than . h. .. kfi Finney when UAW,. Well, no. It's theft because the people who sell stuff are not getting money, while you are still getting a product. Imagine you are selling cars, and you sell  Piracy Found this on my friend's FB Sorry if repost is not Theft It' ? irage a handy little guide) Than h kfi Finney when UAW Well no It's theft because the people who sell stuff are getting money while you still product Imagine selling cars and
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (259)
[ 259 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #31 - Crusader
Reply +100 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Well, no.
It's theft because the people who sell stuff are not getting money, while you are still getting a product.
Imagine you are selling cars, and you sell one, but then, that person just makes 50 copies of it, gives it out for free, and therefore, you don't get paid, even though there are 51 of your cars out on the street.
User avatar #34 to #31 - demandsgayversion
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Imagine that person giving cars to people who either cannot afford a car or would not have bought that car in the first place?
User avatar #44 to #34 - jarelk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Yes, because I'm sure everyone who pirates does so because they can't afford it.
User avatar #58 to #44 - demandsgayversion
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
If I can afford something, I buy it. I just saw the hobbit in theater last week, when I could've downloaded a bootleg.
#54 to #34 - anon id: 852e80cb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
That's the lamest argument ever. If you can't afford it then save up until you are able to.
There are tons of stuff that I can't afford. Why don't people just give them to me then?
User avatar #57 to #54 - demandsgayversion
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
"Why don't people just give them to me", piracy isn't taking anything from anyone. It's a copy. If you don't have something you can afford, why don't you just build one? Not quite the same as piracy, I know, but it's closer than your dumbass metaphor.
User avatar #286 to #57 - lasmamoe
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I just want to say you're right.
#36 to #34 - hermanmachine
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Even if that person is offering said cars for that reason, anyone can still take them.
User avatar #35 to #31 - Lainge
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
Don't worry. I agree with what you are saying.
Not everyone on this site is pigheaded.
#37 to #31 - anon id: 06ed5ed4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
he bought the car so it is HIS car. he should be able to make all copies of his car he wants. it is HIS. he payed for it.
#91 to #37 - moofinbanana
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
You have no idea what Copyright is, do you...
#276 to #31 - crayonsnorter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
#285 to #31 - lasmamoe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Im not saying piracy is okay.
However, "Losing a potential sale" is not the same as having your product stolen.
Piracy is illegal, but it is not stealing. It can never be stealing when a product is never "taken".

Piracy is not acceptable, but it should be illegal for what it is .. Copying Products.

When an artist uses the argument "He downloaded 10 of my songs, so i lost $20" they're wrong. If the money was never yours, they can not have been stolen from you.
Who's to say the person would have bought the songs if the had not downloaded them?

Tl;dr: Losing potential money is not the same as having actual money stolen.
User avatar #33 to #31 - stinkypinky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
It's not theft at all, at least in the US as far as I know. You never get charged for theft if you are caught pirating. It is copyright infringement. Theft is stealing the original, as shown in the content. Infringement is just copying the original, and giving the copies out is illegal distribution. It is still a crime, but it's not theft.
User avatar #236 to #33 - RipperMan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
why did you get thumbed down for being correct?
User avatar #265 to #236 - stinkypinky
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I think it's because FJ just hates people who correct other people; because they think they are pretentious asses. In this case they are right. I am very much a pretentious ass.
I try to have good intentions most of the time, though.
User avatar #107 to #31 - luismamontes
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
You wouldn't download a car.
User avatar #108 to #107 - Crusader
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Depends, if it's a field car, then **** yes, because those are normally trash anyways. But still.
User avatar #2 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +71 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
>Get piece of bread
>Pirate bread
>Two pieces of bread
>Pirate for infite food
>Solve world hunger
User avatar #52 to #2 - ismet
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Piracy is the cure for world hunger.
#277 to #2 - thundagawd
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
So Jesus is a pirate?
#279 to #277 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Pretty much.
User avatar #3 to #2 - dabronydude
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
sounds like internet Jesus...
User avatar #4 to #3 - quitethedelicacy
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
He got deleted for your sins and got reuploaded after 3 days.
#17 to #2 - kridane
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/17/2012) [-]
#40 - jarelk
Reply +50 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
No.

Stop using this faulty logic to justify your pirating.
User avatar #55 - jouten
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Imagine you buy a brandnew Mercedes for half a million. Then people come and copy that car infinitely and on the next day it's only worth 10 bucks.

I'm not condescending about pirating, but denying that pirating does damage is stupid
#61 to #55 - filwit
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Not really, you're missing a fundamental concept. If we had the ability to freely copy cars, then none of them would be worth half a million any more, and they would be freely available to all.

We have the technology to freely duplicated and share ideas and media with each other, and currently that's offsetting some peoples paychecks... but the potential is much greater than these peoples paychecks. Eventually- when every technical, industrial, and governmental design is open-souce -we will collaboratively share ideas and resources more freely and efficiently, and that will only be possible because of digital copy.
User avatar #66 to #61 - jouten
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
And you're forgetting that if there was noone who'd pay that much money for a good car it wouldn't exist in the first place. No company would put years and millions of dollars into the development of a luxury car if in the end you copy it and give it away for free.

#77 to #66 - filwit
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
We don't need a single company to spend millions on cars. We can create a distribution manager which allocates resources much more efficiently to those interested in building these projects openly... are you suggesting that there's no one in the world interested in working on and building cars outside of making a personal buck? I think you'll have a hard time justifying peoples hobbies then.

I work on and contribute to open-source software for mostly non-profit motives, and there are many thousands of others like me. OpenSource is growing and gaining popularity in every industrial sector... it has to, it's almost imposible for a single private-interest corporations to compete with collaborative development and still turn a profit. This is why over the last decad, Microsoft has gone from 90% consumer electronic market-share, to 20%... mostly offset by Linux (remember, Android is Linux).

This isn't me being a happy hippy hoping everyone plays nice with each other. It's simply a reality that open-source solutions are slowly taking over. So the question then becomes, how will we all survive once everything we use is governed by non-profit parties?
User avatar #83 to #77 - jouten
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Of course cars won't cease to exist. But there wouldn't be any luxury and quality cars anymore.
I'm all for Open Source and free software, but only if the developer wants it too. If he specifically wants money for his work, it is stealing if you pirate it and don't pay for it. An easy example:
Gimp is a free open source program for editing images. It's good enough for most people and it's good that you don't have to pay for it. Photoshop for example is a very expensive editing program, but has many more features than Gimp has and professionals pay the money for it because it's worth it. However if the creators knew that people are just going to pirate it and not pay a cent for it, they wouldn't have created in the first place and everybody would have to stick to Gimp which just isn't enough for some people.
#96 to #83 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Remember, I'm not talking about todays technologies, but tomorrows. It's true Gimp/Inkscape are behind Photoshop/Illustrator in many ways, but that's changing as more interest is drawn to them. Trust me, I've used both very often. Half of the images on my resume ( You need to login to view this link are made with Gimp/Inkscape and Blender.

Blender's a completely different story. As someone who's used Maya/Max and Blender extensively, I can confidently say Blender is superior to it's $4,000 cousins in many ways. There are still many more external plugins written for Maya/Max, because those are industry standards, and there's more interest, but that's changing.

Take a look at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MlUcmOul8
It was made using Blender Gimp/Inkscape/MyPaint/Krita on Linux.

It's still young, but the question still remains... what happens when these things are so good that no one cares about the alternatives?

Also, who says there wont be fancy cars? You'll probably just have to have an interest in them and join a fancy-car group (instead of finding a loophole in the system which allows you to make others give them to you, aka, makes tons and tons of money for little direct contribution).
User avatar #99 to #96 - jouten
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Even if the free Software of tomorrow can keep up with propietary software of today, propietary software of tomorrow would outclass open source (in the case that every piece of software was open source, of course only if it existed). Why should it be different in the future? There is clearly a difference if you put money and payment into a development of something instead of just doing it without any payment. Usually this shows in the development time. Sure every software that exists now can be replaced by open source programs one day, but why wait 10 ears for something that you could have now?
#104 to #99 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
because there's an even more efficient way that proprietary. Like I said in a previous message (maybe it wasn't to you, I'm talking to 3 people here), at a certain point, things have to go open, it's simple to much for a single corporation to handle.

If you give people their general survival needs (food, shelter, activities) and set up design and educational groups, then there's no need to restrict the development of goods and services to the scope of a single corporation. People will still work, and love working. Work just won't be something that a lot of people do only for money. This falls back to what motivates people.

Most of the jobs people work today (McDonalds, customer service, contract management) are will eventually be automated and there will mundane work left for people to do... if these people aren't educated or provide oppertunity to do anything, things will fail... but if we set things up right and help people into groups that work on interesting projects (without cost or social status involved), then many will go on to help with important tasks.
User avatar #106 to #104 - jouten
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
You may believe that, but imo that's just an ideal world that probably won't exist
#111 to #106 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Not that my experiences are comparable to yours, but I used to beleive the same thing. I encourage you to do some research into the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project, but more important, try and think of a way such a thing would be possible.. It's at least worth a try.

Fair warning, the members of the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project are just people.. many of which are confused. I'm not suggesting that everything there is right, only that the basic idea holds truth.
User avatar #81 to #77 - critality
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
that linux-android thing isn't something to be bragging about. Androids are so ******* glitchy you'd be better off trying to call your friend with a rock.
#87 to #81 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Modern Androids are much better than old ones, but it's true they had problems in the past (due to Java, not Linux). That said, the only way Android became so popular in the market so fast, was because it was open-source, and didn't put any restrictions on hardware manufactures. Today, Android 4.1 is very comparable in features and performance to anything Apple is putting out.
User avatar #90 to #87 - critality
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
please, convince my phone that that's how it is, because apparently it's behind on the times.
#98 to #90 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
The problem with Android is currently not it's design, it's the hardware manufactures themself. Right now, manufactures don't have a lot of interest in updating their Android devices to the latest versions... cause then there's less interest in the new phone devices... if you check your phone's kernel version, it will most likely say 2.35.xx, which is years old.

This issue will eventually be resolved by a higher consumer awareness, but ultimately it's a problem with companies trying to pull a fast-on on their consumers to make a buck. It's exactly the sort of problem that illustrates what I'm talking about.

Eventually there will be an open-source solution all the way to the hardware and manufacturing, and it will be massively more efficient that what we use today. Projects like this are already starting up, see RasberiPi & Parallella boards. They're early, and not entirely open-source, but they're pushing in the right direction.
User avatar #63 to #61 - gammajk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
But then no new cars would be designed and we'd all be stuck with the exact same model of car.
Same ****, if producing content is no longer profitable, people will stop doing it.
User avatar #287 to #63 - lasmamoe
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
The idea that people will have no desire to create new things just because they wont profit from it, is so utterly wrong.

Do you think scientists who love science more than anything in the world will say: "Well, if im not getting paid for this, then i dont want to do it anymore". ?

And Musicians who actually LIKE to play music, will stop because they dont get any money?

Open-Source technology is incredibly efficient, and it is truly the future.
#74 to #63 - filwit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Motivation is much more complicated than monetary profit. You don't work for slips of paper, you work for social status, accomplishment, and personal interest. If we all only worked for money, we'd be layers or doctors (those who make the most). Saying "people aren't motivated without money" is a bit like saying "people aren't good without god". It simply isn't true. Think about it, would you date someone who sat around all day and didn't aspire to do anything?

Almost every exist open-source project today, including Linux (the OS that runs 90% of the web, and 9 out of ten super computers, including the ones that render Pixar movies and predicted the weather, run nuclear power-plants, ect..) is proof that people aren't motivated by money (alone). Most of the projects are made by people who have a general designer to contribute to community driven technology, and for that fact alone.
User avatar #288 to #74 - lasmamoe
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Linux is a great example.

People always complain about how Apple and Microsoft are robbing customers with their high prices, when truth is, These companies are just doing what you're supposed to do in a monetary system.

But when the issue is Piracy, then everyone all of a sudden hates the idea of Open Source technology, which Linux basically is.

Open Source is the future. Some people just cant accept this.
User avatar #76 to #74 - gammajk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I get what you're saying, but the music industry and ESPECIALLY the movie industry are MUCH harder to actually earn a living off of, and they require much more devotion than something such as developing an OS. You used Linux as your example - it's different because linux isn't just one "product" produced by one group of people, it's the result of years upon years of development throughout the course of years for entirely different purposes, because it isn't just ONE thing. Music, on the other hand, is entirely up to the individual groups to create, and it's much harder to get noticed if there are no longer any big companies looking for good groups, and if nobody is building stadiums for them any more, etc etc.
Money isn't the sole driving factor, but it sure as **** is a good portion of it.
#85 to #76 - filwit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Actually, much of Art and Music is beginning to become open and collaborative as well, and there's no reason even large hollywood films couldn't adopts this strategy (if profit wasn't a motive). I would also like to point out that Linux (and software like it) are usually extremely complex peices of design work that take thousands of contributes to manifest. It's true that currently the entertainment industry is taking a hit because of digital sharing, sure... but this is like saying we should shut down the internet blogs because those that work at the Newspaper plant are loosing their jobs.. things evolve and advance, there's no stopping it.

Watch this digital short: www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6MlUcmOul8
It was made 100% collaboratively, on open-source software solutions.
User avatar #95 to #85 - gammajk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
"I would also like to point out that Linux (and software like it) are usually extremely complex peices of design work that take thousands of contributes to manifest"

Exactly. MUSIC ISN'T. Movies aren't. Linux wasn't created with profit in mind, it had a FUNCTION, it had a purpose.
The news industry is different - news companies just report what happened, they don't actually create any new content, and blogs are often hugely biased with a fraction of the things that newspapers have.
I don't really understand why you linked me that video, the acting was pretty bad and the CGI was just.... distracting.

You can't really keep coming up with metaphors and similes for what is happening in the entertainment industry - it is a unique case and there isn't anything else out there that can accurately describe it.
#100 to #95 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I acknowledged your point in my previous message. It's true that today movies and music require the dedication of a small(ish), tight-nit group of people. I also gave an example of how that can change.

The acting aside, that short-film was made by a very small team over a short period of time. Of course it's not going to be hollywood quality. If you take a look at the production, it's actually pretty impressive, and was acknowledge as so by some of the top hollywood film producers in a special screening.

I don't see how you can think movies (and even music) can't be a collaborative effort.. it's not like movies are made by a single person today. It takes hundreds of people.. most are probably doing what they love by working on those projects. Give them what their money already buys today, and I doubt they would suddenly stop... even if you lost some, you would gain thousands more through open contribution.
User avatar #103 to #100 - gammajk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Yeah, but a lot of vital people who work on movies are just your regular, ******, low-wage jobs that nobody really wants, plus the fact those hundreds of people are working full-time for what would be literally no pay if piracy took it over. I doubt many people are willing to work 8 hour days for no pay, even if it IS what they love doing, because it sure as hell isn't what half the other people there love to do.
#109 to #103 - filwit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
"low ******" jobs are jobs that hold no interest to anyone... meaning they're very mundane by nature.. the beautiful thing about mundane things, is that they're easy to automate.

Image for a minute, there there where no "obviously boring" jobs.. all those where automated. Do you think people would still work together to make exciting movies? If yes, the question now becomes: Is is possible to automate all the mundane things. This is the question we should be asking.

Did you know.. Today, China can build a 20 story building in 2-3 months with very little human involvement? There's a guy who's make an House Printer (yes, a machine that prints a house, wireing and all) that, in theory, can finish a house in 24hr with only 40% of the building materials currently used. (I'll look up the links, just give me a sec)

My point, this type of automation is happening today.. what happens when all of the mundane things are automated and the poor can't afford education and have now work to do? I'm generally curious to hear your solution to that question.
User avatar #118 to #109 - gammajk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Sure, I don't disagree with automation, in fact I think it's pretty neat if we really do have the technology to design things like that. I'm interested in the links though, if you have them.

The answer to your last question, of course, is the fact that right now we desperately need our education system completely reformed, it's broken beyond belief and is producing sub-par results (US is behind in sciences, math, literacy, etc etc), but I guess I believe in a more socialist view of education, where it's much cheaper if not completely free. Plus, we're not nearly at the stage where we can automate ALL these tasks, so people will still have to do that - and who is going to maintain and repair the machines that are doing these jobs now? Developing new technology and utilizing it in the real world creates an entirely new line of work people can do (think of job opportunities that opened up after the car or train was invented), but that's just adaptation and the people who aren't willing to adapt won't survive.
#135 to #118 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Well I agree with everything you've just said. Especially the education and it's cost. I actually have a lot of technical ideas about that (use a "Rosetta Stone" type software to eliminated tests & "teachers" and directly track each students individual needs), but I won't bore you with the details.

You say that now everything today can be completely automated, and you're completely right. We can't just switch over to some new system without things actually implemented, it would totally fail. The idea is to start a website where people plug in open technical methods to accomplish known tasks, and donate resources. Then users (you and I) simply tell the website what we most want and need, and it uses that information to distribute it's allocated resources to the methods and projects of demonstrably best worth. So you don't have to take over everything at once, people can just start donating more resources as more methods are added, and, since everything is open, only the methods that are best suited and most needed will get the resources automatically.

There are a lot of details to the design, and still some open questions, like: Who/What defines the constitutional directives of the distributions software itself, but the idea is functioning. Mostly, it's core is demonstrability (the core of all scientific endeavors).. if something works better, use that.

Anyways, I really must be getting off to do other things. It was nice talking with you. I appreciate your openness to constructive conversion. Here are some links:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyOgDlUWfFE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehnzfGP6sq4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FynWETakS9U

There are many more, and many more exciting automation technologies in the not-so-distant horizon. We usually don't notice technological advancement because it happens gradually, but our smartphones are more powerful than the most expensive floor-sized super-computers of the 80s.
#136 to #135 - filwit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Typo:

"You say that now everything today can't be completely automated, and you're completely right...."
User avatar #86 to #74 - critality
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I don't know about you but I work for slips of paper that get me things that make me happy.
#89 to #86 - filwit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Ahh, so all you really want is "things that make you happy". That's true, but what if you didn't need "slips of paper" to get those things? What if most of those things where so cheap, they where freely available (because they where made through 100% automation)? What would fill your time then?
User avatar #92 to #89 - critality
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
well, the aforementioned things that make me happy would fill my time of course, like they already do.
#69 to #61 - anon id: d8596057
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
yeah and then **** the people who are trying to make a living off of it
#78 to #69 - filwit
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
No. You have misconceptions about the idea of a open-souce economy if you think it doesn't account for the people. Please question a thing before you dismiss it. These are concrete ideas, with much technical depth.
User avatar #140 - noblexfenrir
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
It's stealing....in reality it is, because you are removing profit that could have been made. Now don't get me wrong, I pirate games, and if I like them then I buy them because I'd rather find out what I like, then buy it to support future projects like it. It just makes sense to test drive a car before you buy it.

We need to get the mentality that this isn't stealing out of peoples heads, it is BUT the gaming/music/movie industry needs to realize that the entertainment media is changing and they need to adapt of else they will be left in the dust. We can't have people selling music for $.99 when people generally have hundreds of songs, we can't have games costing $60 on release purely because they are afraid of not reaching revenue equal to expenditures (However, we do need to start finding an equilibrium because if we do not buy games, then the company will assume we do not want those kinds of games, and the only thing left is what sells the most. So no games like lollipop chainsaw, dead space, borderlands, will be made because these games were all "risks" in the gaming world. Instead it will just be sports games and generic no-plot fps's) and even movie companies need to follow suit with HULU and Netflix, the days of buying single movies for $15 is outdated (I'm perfectly fine with theater prices), it needs to be sold in bulk and an accessible streaming (or downloadable) format.

Just my 2 cents.
#161 to #140 - theshwedda
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
im glad funnyjunk is growing up. i commented basically this same argument when this image was posted like 6 months ago, and i got downvoted to hell.
User avatar #185 to #140 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I think that for the most part, the reason a lot of the activists have toned down, is that they realize that it's free advertising.
Imagine you want to play custom zombies on WaW. You torrent the game and everything, but you want to play with your friend, now you have to buy the game to access servers and such.
Not to mention people see it at the top of pirate bay's download list, they torrent it, they see an ad on it saying "BO2 comes out NOV 13" or whatever and suddenly, you want to get that game.
User avatar #232 to #140 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Not a bad summary, in most respects.
User avatar #73 - biggrand
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
imagine if you could copy money with a copy machine, everyone would do it, it's value would be nothing, and we would essentially lead ourselves into communism/ anarchy. Consider why we do things, why some of us are creative, and what things like video games that take large teams of people to make are made? **** man.
User avatar #233 to #73 - gorginhanson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I agree with the anon that said he wouldn't have bought the game anyhow.

Is it stealing if you eat a free sample knowing there is literally 0 percent chance you will buy the product afterwards?
User avatar #263 - Sethorein
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
imagine you're trying to sell your car but everyone keeps making free copies of it without your permission...
User avatar #267 to #263 - annogram
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
but how would it affect you, you still have a car?
#272 to #267 - anon id: fe1a55a4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
You can't sell your car, which was the goal. Are you medically retarded, or just dumb?
User avatar #271 to #267 - adunsaveme
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Because you don't make any money off it because you're trying to sell it but nobody is buying it because they already have a free copy of aforesaid car for sale.
User avatar #243 - wanicochil
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
But what if they have no intention on buying the game anyway, but then they pirate it, technically no revenue loss there, because no revenue was going to be made anyway

And I know many people who pirate games to actually test it out, then buy it if they enjoy it enough, which is what I wish I could do (I don't understand torrenting)
User avatar #250 to #243 - toosexyforyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Torrenting was pretty confusing for me at first but I am so glad I figured it out. I've only torrented maybe 4 games at the most. 2 of them were virtual villagers and I bought one of the virtual villagers for $20 and just didn't think it was worth buying any more for that price because I would only play it for a couple days. Another game was Dungeon Siege that I played as a kid. Honestly just take the time to figure it out and try it. Go on help forums and such.
User avatar #134 - sexyin
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Then you have unlimited cars. The companies that sell the cars go bankrupt. Big bailouts. Ruined economy. Nuff said.
#162 to #134 - theshwedda
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
im glad funnyjunk is growing up. i commented basically this same argument when this image was posted like 6 months ago, and i got downvoted to hell.
#180 to #134 - anon id: 2970c35a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Yea that would be the case with actual cars, but no it doesnt go like that does it. With music, movies and such the musicians, actors and producer etc still all get paid really ******* well.

Like it matters if someone dowloads a Lil Wayne or Justin Bieber song from the Internet for free, they still get more money in a few weeks/months than most people will get in their whole lifetime.
#199 to #180 - anon id: 5f81eedb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I disagree, less than 0.01% of musicians earn that kind of money, it's like saying stealing from any store is okay because big companies like Walmart have heaps of money.

the only reason you should ever pirate/torrent content is if you can't afford it, it doesn't make it right but I'm sure a lot of people would agree that they would rather you have their content for free until you can afford it. than not have it at all.
#139 to #134 - internetzsoviet
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
Shhhh. Dont let them know that.
#102 - graknab
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/18/2012) [-]
I don't think you understand how capitalism works