I'll sidestep the tired but true arguments about why copyright infringement isn't stealing, and take a more pragmatic approach:
First off, even if your assumption is true, it would only mean there would be no more movies created in the way Hollywood creates movies today. There would still be movies created by passionate filmmakers. Secondly, I think your assumption is wrong anyway. Hollywood could make movies that would get people in theaters. It would require better movies and probably better theaters. Pirates will have a hard time competing with a good theater experience.
Remember, home video was not an original part of Hollywood's business model. Cinemas were. In fact, they have fought every new form of home media, heralding it as the end of their business, and then eventually adapting and making tons of money from that new media. It takes time, and they haven't quite managed to pull it off yet with today's new home media: high speed Internet access.
Could you please explain exactly why copyright infringement isn't stealing? I really don't understand any of the past arguments. Someone places a price on something that they paid money to create. Instead of paying that price (fair or not), you choose to obtain that something for free. That is, by definition, stealing. You are taking something that belongs to the creator of that something without the right to do so. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
I am not saying that Hollywood is going to be completely killed - I was just speculating as to a possible (albeit unlikely) future scenario. The reason for my doing this is that TPB's statement gave me the feeling that they didn't want the traditional Hollywood to exist anymore.
Sorry - what exactly are you getting at with the comment about them being so hypocritical about everything?
I reject that notion that you can own an idea. The arguments for physical property simply don't apply to ideas, and I've never heard a sound and compelling argument for why ideas should be ownable. This is especially true for software and digital media, since they are literally integers. Owning a piece of software is equivalent to owning an integer, something that I claim is ludicrous.
When you talk about "obtaining something" for free, what you're really doing is creating a copy of something. Everyone on both ends of the copying gives their consent: e.g. for Bittorrent, uploaders and downloaders are both freely offering the bandwidth they have paid for. Unless the original uploader
Basing an entire industry on the faulty analogy of creative works as property is, in my opinion, foolish and unworthy of legal support.
Let's go with a movie as an example. I agree with you - you cannot own an idea, but a movie that took a hell of a lot of time and money to make is not an idea. And if you want to have further justification for this, a movie is a physical thing. It actually exists, albeit in the form of ones and zeroes on a hard drive, but it does actually exist. If you are obtaining these ones and zeroes that someone invested a lot of capital to make without paying for them, you are stealing! Those ones and zeroes belong to the company and you have to pay the company to get a copy of the ones and zeroes. This isn't my definition of stealing; it's in the dictionary.
It doesn't make a difference at all whether or not you are copying something or actually removing it from its original place. If you are going with your argument, any company that makes software should only be able to sell that software once and after that, anyone should be able to copy it. Every person that uses the software is getting the value of the software that the original person put capital into creating and you should have to pay for that, not get it for free.
> Those ones and zeroes belong to the company and you have to pay the company to get a copy of the ones and zeroes.
They certainly own the ones and zeroes on their own hard drives, but they don't suddenly own the bits on my hard drive if they happen to fall into the same arrangement.
What I always resort to arguing is that ideas and creative works are not property and it doesn't make sense to apply property rights to them. Think back to why physical theft is immoral: it's not because the owner put time and effort into making or earning the property, it's because you can't take the property without depriving the owner of it. That isn't the case for an arrangement of bits on a hard drive, and that's why I don't think copying is immoral.
> If you are going with your argument, any company that makes software should only be able to sell that software once and after that, anyone should be able to copy it.
Any company that relies on selling something that can be effortlessly copied and obtained for free on the Internet, and then lobbies the government to create and enforce increasingly strict rules specifically designed to prop up your business model that is not profitable on its own, does not have any "right" to profit. Note that this is not a dismissal of software-for-profit: there are plenty of profitable software companies that either avoid piracy by providing non-copyable value or by thriving despite piracy.
The key word here is not "stealing" but "right" as in "the right to do so".
See also: "makes a copy" vs "removes original"
Creators need to be paid, and I see lots of passionate creators being paid despite, or even with the help of this "stealing" (SEO guys and gals call it "free PR".)
What do you mean by your first sentence? Didn't really understand.
Regardless of whether you make a copy or remove the original, you are taking the property of another party without its permission to do so. That, by definition, is stealing. (see first entry in dictionary.com link)
Free PR makes up for lost sales, but would you choose 100 sales or 100 people that got your product for free, but might go tell other people about it?
icebraining: You copy something. You have taken it. It still exists where it originally did, but you still took it because you now have it in your possession. You can't keep justifying taking something without paying for it (stealing) with semantics.
Here's another argument for you. When a producer sells a piece of content, it is selling you a copy. You are paying for a copy. If you choose to not pay for a copy, you are effectively stealing a copy from the producer.
First off, even if your assumption is true, it would only mean there would be no more movies created in the way Hollywood creates movies today. There would still be movies created by passionate filmmakers. Secondly, I think your assumption is wrong anyway. Hollywood could make movies that would get people in theaters. It would require better movies and probably better theaters. Pirates will have a hard time competing with a good theater experience.
Remember, home video was not an original part of Hollywood's business model. Cinemas were. In fact, they have fought every new form of home media, heralding it as the end of their business, and then eventually adapting and making tons of money from that new media. It takes time, and they haven't quite managed to pull it off yet with today's new home media: high speed Internet access.