I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to - small creators - literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)" The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.

It still may be. Is it theft to take a rentable car without renting it? You are getting a good without enabling it's production. Just because the additional cost from you doing this is extremely low does not mean it ain't theft. Just means it ain't such a terrible thing to do.

Does the rental company now have one less car they can rent? Does the developer now have one less license they can lease?

> literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) You can not steal something that it is impossible to own. It is possible to purchase and own a house or a car, someone choosing to lease or rent instead does not change that. It is _impossible_ to purchase or own a copy of The Crew, so it cannot be stolen. You also cannot steal a hotel room, trespassing is a different crime than theft.

Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.

Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn, or if you see it as someone depriving someone else of their property, or both of them count. I'd argue both qualify as theft, and pirating is the first case. Just because you can replicate something for free (which is not the case with software) does not mean you are entitled to it.

> Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn't pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well. > does not mean you are entitled to it. I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I'm just saying it's not theft.

Maybe read the post before replying to comments: >The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” **Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.**

Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say "no shit idiot" and slap my future self. If you were deceived that's on you.

You can't steal from nature. Parks are provided for the public, its literally the whole point. Any more gotchas?

So you don't define theft as "someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn" then. Glad we agree.

> Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it. >Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say “no shit idiot” and slap my future self. If you were deceived that’s on you. Which is it? Pick a lane.

I was being sarcastic, my bad. How does this convince me people who bought the crew were deceived?

If someone's part of the "public" then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won't limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them. Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.

Does the rental company now have one less car they can rent? Does the developer now have one less license they can lease?

No they don't, because I returned it before a shortage occured. They just lost the profit from rent. No he doesn't. In both cases the additional cost caused by your actions is very low. Damage was still fine to the provider. If the additional cost per user is very low people should not be priced out, still.