I don't use my reasoning as a justification its simply me reason. I would steal a Ferrari if I could get away with it, why not its something I want to experience. Once again, what did someone who was born rich do to deserve it? like I've said before I only have so much life left I can't wait to experience things if I don't have to

I think at the end of the day a large portion of us (maybe even the majority?) need to admit that we are certainly not always thinking critically of why piracy is ethical or not when we download free stuff. When I download music or movies, such crucial arguments like the ones mentioned so far are not running through my head.

The ability to not have to care about the consequences of these matters is what drives most of our piracy actions imo. Sure, artists aren't directly getting enough of the revenue. Sure, we want to have a little bit more freedom with what we buy. Sure, maybe it's obscure and hard to find. And there are many other reasons.

But we can't get all elite and act like that is always the driving force behind our actions. Many of us don't have enough money to satisfy our overwhelming demand for entertainment (I have almost 10,000 songs in my itunes), and many of us don't want to find the time to find a store that has something that is hard to find that we found on the internet that we like.

Our generation has been spoiled by many instant-gratification technologies and we want stuff instantaneously. I agree with many of the reasons presented for stealing art, but I'd be lying if those noble arguments make up my entire decision to steal

I believe it is a matter of property rights. At the end of the day, the companies own the rights to the song/movie/game/whatever. Just because you buy a copy, it does not make it your property. What in effect is happening is you exchanging your money for a licence to use the property. So, no, I don't agree with this "I bought it, it's mine", because that simply isn't true.

That said, I don't agree with bills like SOPA and PIPA, either. Property claims should be done through the civil court, and property in terms of say, a song, is no different to property as say, your front garden. If somebody drives their car through your front garden and smashes the place up, you can take them to court on a civil matter, and attempt to sue them to gain financial compensation.

I see no reason why piracy cannot work like this. A company has reason to believe you're pirating their shiz, they take you to court and sue you (no fines), and the judge determines the damage and the amount that the defender should pay.

Piracy is a matter of property rights, and should be handled as such. Personally, I believe the record companies make terrible business decisions through things like DRM, region locking (actually there is a sound logic behind this, if they're still selling in all markets), and other activities, but as they are the property owners, it is their decision to make.

I didn't read the whole thing but it looked like a rehash of the most recent Jimquisition (or the recent Jimquitision was a rehash of that, whatever)? Pretty much saying piracy is basically alright because you're taking from money-grubbing suits and not the actual creative people who should be the rights holder?

The problem I have with that idea is that it's saying I don't like you so screwing you over is alright but since I like this other person, I shouldn't screw them over. It's saying some people are better than others and those others, well, the law just shouldn't protect them.

Actually I don't pirate, I don't want to pirate, I don't need to pirate. But I dislike SOPA.

Cause I wasn't accepted in Ninja school.... :(

And in come the self-righteous, pretending they're any better than the rest of us.

The morality of any singular instance of piracy can be answered by one question: in a world without shared copies of this item, would you buy it through legitimate channels? If yes, then what you're doing is wrong, if no, then it isn't. For you see, if you are not, in actuality, a potential paying customer, no money is lost by you simply taking the item, because you would not have given money even if the item wasn't free to take.

This is utilitarian morality at its finest, here. The "damage" done by piracy is hugely overstated, mostly by the same greedy media moguls that tried to shut down the internet because their dinosaur business models can't cope with the real world.

Piracy is merely another force of economics if you frame it like that. Piracy is trying to tell these companies that their business models are broken and that they have to fix them, but the companies, operating in a corporatist society, merely appeal to the government for help. All anti-piracy initiatives and laws are really, at their core, just like the subsidies that I know you so loathe.

The odd thing, of course, is that i favor subsidies in certain situations, but generally disagree with antipiracy legislation

At the end of the day, media should be easier to buy. I do not, like some, completely morally justify piracy, nor do i just wish everything should be free forever, but the fact of the matter is legitimate purchases should be competitive with piracy alternatives, if not in terms of price, then in terms of usability. DRM needs to die, things need to get cheaper, artists need to be able to more directly reach out to consumers without the corporate middleman getting in the way, content needs to be released faster. Piracy is an effective market pressure to guarantee that these things happen, and they will happen, so long as vigilant voters make sure that the greedy media moguls can't just turn to the government to bail them out of their bad business practices

Well I''m in the 5% ( make it 8% now that I voted) and no I can't recall ever pirating anything....

Mr. Khan I salute you, I am in total agreement with your views.