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.

I mean, "theft" implies depriving someone of something, to me. But I don't want to bicker about definitions if your position is more about morality of taking something for free than about the definition of theft. For myself, I'll happily pay for things that provide fair value and a fair agreement / relationship. That includes donating to stuff that *is* offered for free - there are a handful of content creators and other services (Internet Archive, Signal, etc.) that I directly support, every month. And by the same token, I don't feel bad at all about enjoying something, for free and against their wishes, from a company or publisher that only offers unacceptable (to me) terms. To me those are perfectly consistent. My dollars go to individuals and publishers that produce the kind of media ecosystem I think is good for us. Because - we must be clear - it's not a level playing field, and the shift away from consumer ownership is a plague of exploitation inflicted upon us. It's now metastasizing away from strictly digital domains, now to physical *hardware*, which is outrageous. Roku, for instance, can update your streaming device overnight and force you to accept their new terms, in order to keep using your device. This is not hypothetical, it happened (may have gotten company wrong). Do you think the companies enacting policies, particularly ones prohibiting ownership outright, are operating from an ethical or moral framework? I promise they don't believe in anything like that. They screw us precisely as hard as the courts, and the court of public opinion, allow. And they're always trying to move that line in their favor. Why do you care about pirating? Who or what are you standing up for, I guess I'm asking?

The problem is you're using the rational part of your brain rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find justification for your actions.

[This may help](https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/)

It never was.

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.

Grant me the serenity to pirate the things from big corpos that need pirating, the courage to pay for indie work, and the wisdom to know the difference.

> 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.

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

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.

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

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.**

> 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.

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

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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

Again, you need to actually read things before replying to comments. No one has said they were deceived. Where do you think you are right now?