this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
memes
9948 readers
1313 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I fully agree with the general message, but this particular anecdote doesn't really make sense to me and can easily be waved off by anyone who disagrees with it.
If buying isn't owning, that means it's renting or borrowing.
If you pirate it, they get no money and therefore cannot rent it out to you. You cannot just steal a movie from the movie rental store or a car from a car rental place. That's stealing.
Sure, it's infinitely reproducible but that's not what this meme says. That's an unrelated argument for piracy. It draws a direct connection between the 2 relationships of buying + owning and pirating + stealing. However, one has nothing to do with the other.
When someone owns something, they are allowed to rent it out. It's always been that way and that's valid.
The real argument should be "if there was no intention to buy in the first place, then piracy isn't stealing" or something like that.
Let me rephrase. I agree that piracy isn't stealing, but the fact that buying isn't owning does NOT prove that at all, nor does it have anything to do with it. It's a reason people pirate, sure, but it in no way proves that piracy isn't stealing.
Am I completely missing the point or is this analogy completely nonsensical?
On a side note, I condone piracy and nobody should ever give money to large media corporations. But if we use stupid arguments like this it makes us easier to dismiss.
It's about them missrepresenting the transaction. If you go to the store and rent a movie then it's an agreement that it's temporary. If you buy it then they can't take it back, what they are doing is fraud and complaining that we don't want to deal with them.
I agree with everything you said, however that has nothing to do with piracy. It's a shitty thing they're doing that we should be mad at, but it in no way sets the definition of piracy, which is what they're going to try to defend against in any argument.
What we should demand is that they properly define buying, owning, and renting so that we own our products. Piracy is piracy no matter what the definition of owning is. Only the reasons change. One reason is that they treat buying as renting, but it does not change the definition of piracy, no matter what we think the definition is.
I agree with you here, piracy isn't theft for reasons unrelated to buying and owning. The reason lies with the infinite reproducibility of the product. While I may agree with the sentiment behind the post, it's not technically a sound argument.
Okay, I can copy anyone's painting, or art, or make a model of their sculpture and make copies. What does the infinite reproducibility have to do with anything?
Why should both the original creator and I be allowed to sell those pieces?
Jumping the gun a little there, aren't you? Nobody said anything about selling the pirated content. With art that's considered forgery, and that's a different crime.
If you steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is then gone. Nobody else gets to have it or see it. That's theft. If I pirate your software, you won't even know I've done it, and any person with a copy of that software keeps it, including you. That's piracy. You see the difference?
Okay I'll take your example. I replace the Mona Lisa with an exact copy and steal the original. Stealing or not?
Apparently the argument is that as long as a copy is left behind, it's not theft, right?
Well, not exactly; you're comparing apples and oranges because the original Mona Lisa has value inherent to it being the original, which the copy does not retain. But say you show up and exact copy the Mona Lisa and then take your copy home, that's not only not theft, it's perfectly legal. People take photographs of it all the time.
In software there's no difference between a master copy and the one you've downloaded, there is no additional value inherent to being the "original file" so this comparison doesn't really work.
If you can't tell the Mona Lisa isnt real because its a perfect copy then there is no value lost. The one thats on display in the museum is very likely not the real one, and yet people still feel all of the feelings of seeing an original.
If noone knew I made the copy and swapped it, noone would ever be harmed by it, right?
I don't see why not I suppose.
Well, I'd still call it stealing much the same as I do piracy.
Well, then you'd be incorrect. Have you been paying attention at all? Even your own argument illustrates why this is. Think about why theft is illegal and it should be immediately apparent why they are different.
You have a cow, I take the cow from you, you starve and die and I make money. That's theft.
You have a cow, I create a perfect copy of that cow and take it home, we both get milk and beef, we both survive in our post-scarcity Star Trek like utopia. The fundamental definition of theft, the taking away of something that belongs to someone else, is impossible here.
If you steal a piece of art that devalues that art for everyone, which then deprives the producers of the art of income, they then starve, and I get to have a bit of fun that I could have gotten elsewhere for free, real free.
That seems to fit your parameters there, no?
Look, the point here isn't that piracy is some magical guilt-free action that gets everyone free stuff for no downside. I'm not arguing that it should be legal. I'm not arguing that it's moral. But it is a fundamentally different crime than theft. We've been talking in circles about this for two days and it's pretty clear that neither of us is going to move off our opinions on the matter. Agree to disagree, then?
I actually didnt know how you felt about it until this last post, and I mostly agree. Ive been seeing an aversion here from people to acknowledge the downsides of it though and thats been frustrating. And I even pirate stuff myself.
But this is an even more easily defeated argument. It’s suggesting that anything that can be copy-pasted through File Explorer should never have a monetary compensation for its existence. Given the immense hours devoted to making video games, most people would inherently disagree with that. I think the only people who’d lend any credence to the idea would be cheapskates wanting free entertainment.
It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that it isn't theft. It's software piracy. When you're finished downloading your software, everyone who had a copy of that software still has it. So you haven't stolen anything. You haven't taken resources from anyone. You aren't depriving someone else of this object and using it yourself instead. You've simply made a copy of an infinitely copiable medium. Sure you did so without paying for it, that's why piracy is a crime. But it isn't theft. You haven't taken anything away from anyone. In fact you've done the opposite, and increased the total amount of ordered data in the world, but I won't try to spin that as something chivalrous for this argument, that's a different discussion.
Point is, say what you want about piracy and its dubious legality, it factually is not theft.
This is like saying that pointing a loaded gun at a puppy isn’t technically murder or assault. You’re still admitting it’s a harmful and illegal act, and are fussing over the terminology used.
It’s also ignoring how labels and word usage shift for the sake of modern convenience. Words like “insane”, “sick”, generally weren’t used positively in history. If I said a game “technically doesn’t have loot boxes” you’d be pretty upset if you found it still had paid randomized loot, even if they were not technically contained in a six-sided “box”. You’re being overly specific about the words when much of the world agrees you’re taking something you’re not entitled to.
The difference between what you call theft and copyright infringement doesn’t have effective benefit to the seller, especially since even in physical retail, the supply of an item is often largely irrelevant for a store’s financials. As such, I am okay with referring to both as the same thing, even if you’d currently find dictionaries that separate them.
fun fact: you can sell gpl-licensed software, but anyone who receives the software can distribute it for free
And, fun fact, in order for GPL software to operate commercially, they sell “licenses” - yes, foregoing the antipirating software, but still pursuing people with lawyers.
And guess what Oracle has to spend so much time doing?…Because, as it turns out, even businesses are cheapskates.
conflating the gpl license with the license to use software you buy? don't understand