Whether or not something is illegal doesn't make it unethical or morally corrupt.
In any case, I do not consider copying or sharing information to be "stealing" and "disgusting". Whether or not it hurts the livelihood of programmers, artists, or anybody else is immaterial. They were are not in fact, deprived of anything except potential revenue.
If society do not see musics as valuable enough to fund, than so be it. Men have no obligation to fund anything that they do not see fit to be produced.
You have not addressed why is it the right of producers to make a living making despite of the fact that other men do not saw fit to patronize the producers.
The consumers are in fact patronizing the producers by consuming the product the producers create. Not paying what the producer asks in exchange is the "wrong" part.
The free market says that the producer can ask what it wants in exchange for the product. If the consumer doesn't want to pay it, the consumer should not consume it. Consumption without paying does not mean the consumer does not believe the product has no value. Obviously it has value if the consumer consumes it.
Patronizing required paying the producers, which did not happen. They did not found it valuable enough to pay for expensive goods. They just happens to find an unofficial illict source of goods.
That's just tough luck for producer on the free market. The producers did not produce enough justification for the consumers to sponsor them.
It is one thing to ask for people to pay for your product that you sold from your online store, it is quite another to demand payment on the whole supply chain of which you have no part in creating beyond being the source of the materials.(seeding, listing, describing, etc)
I'm not kiba, but I share those sentiments. Nevertheless, I do pay for things in some cases. I paid for OS X, for example. Long ago, I paid for copies of SuSE and RedHat.
The principle that sharing is not theft is much deeper and more important than whether I downloaded from iTunes or thepiratebay. If we don't get past this, the future will be mostly reinvention of the past, in the manner of GNU reimplementing Unix.
We need to move to a culture where content creators understand that it's up to them to charge for content directly, and that they cannot control what people do with that content once they've sold it.
If the users of BitTorrent created products of equal value to the products they steal with BitTorrent, then perhaps it may be considered sharing, however, the vast majority of BitTorrent users create nothing and consume everything.
That is not sharing. That is stealing.
Consumers should reward producers for production. Any other system is doomed to failure and BitTorrent creates those in any market for digital products.
It's really super simple. The fact that this community would down vote me for expressing such logic is all the more reason to believe that "hackers" need not be rational.
Theft is the depriviation of men's property, not of potential profit.
The copying and digital distribution of work cannot qualified as stealing because there is no property being stolen. Nobody is depriving anyone of their ability to watch, copy, sell, and modify these movies.
This is very simple logic. The fact that you wish to deflate these actions of copying and distribution with stealing is disingenuous.
It has been established so many times on this board that copyright infringement is NOT stealing that I would recommend against even bothering to have this argument. You're right, the other argument is disingenuous.
You are talking about messing up a tool that is used to perform economic calculation. Intentionally introducing calculation chaos into the economic system is a far different issue from who should have the right to copy, modify, and distribute digital goods.
It is obvious I would condemn counterfeiting as abusing the monetary system.
Yes, but a currency system based on intrinsic value would solve that problem, and have other beneficial effects as well, such as curbing runaway inflation (well, except that that's really the same problem, just official instead of unofficial counterfeiting).
In any case, I do not consider copying or sharing information to be "stealing" and "disgusting". Whether or not it hurts the livelihood of programmers, artists, or anybody else is immaterial. They were are not in fact, deprived of anything except potential revenue.
If society do not see musics as valuable enough to fund, than so be it. Men have no obligation to fund anything that they do not see fit to be produced.