whitepeopletwitter

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Bigtiddygothgrany, in Crunchyroll

If buying isn’t ownership then pirating isn’t stealing

Mango,

AHHHH I love seeing my own meme spread!!!

irmoz,

👆

null,

Licensing isn’t ownership, and pirating isn’t stealing, it’s copyright infringement.

BarrelAgedBoredom,

Infringe me harder daddy ©👄©

dpkonofa,

It is stealing. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics here. You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.

helenslunch,

LOL they know it’s stealing. Some of them will even blatantly admit it with no guilt.

Here’s the question though: if you click the button that says “buy” and give them money, but you don’t actually own it, have they stolen from you?

If you “bought” a printer and then like a year later the company comes back and says “actually no” and takes your printer back, is that stealing? And if you go back to that company’s warehouse and take it back from them, is that also stealing? 🤔

dpkonofa,

Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).

Digital media should be bought the same way as physical media.

If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.

Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

veniasilente,

Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

Are you saying that if I pirate a movie from 2019, the actors have not been paid for their screentime yet and won’t be paid until I buy the movie in, like, 2028?

refurbishedrefurbisher,

Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and I have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

Would make sense if the artist was independent, but corporations pay either a wage or a salary. It is rare for an artist to be paid a percentage of revenue for that product, so the only ones who would be affected by piracy are the corporations who did not directly create the art.

If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.

That would be great, but that is not the case for the vast majority of media. Generally-speaking, media is encumbered with DRM, which prevents the consumer from being able to copy the data or watch it in any way they deem fit (see: streaming services requiring hardware DRM for 4K streaming, even when they charge extra for it)

Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).

So, given that this is not an option for the vast majority of content, the only alternative where consumers maintain full control over their own media-playing devices is to download a DRM-free copy.

As Gabe Newell famously said, piracy is a service issue. Steam also has the same problem of lack of ownership and DRM, though, so its users are at the mercy of Valve to not revoke access to purchases.

GOG is one company who does it right, IMO. Sell only DRM-free copies of games, and allow people to download their copy and back it up to whatever media they want to put it on. This type of practice is rare in the media world, though. Most media companies require DRM on their product in order to license it out.

Also on the first point, independent producers of content generally don’t put DRM on their work anyway, so no reason not to buy their work.

dpkonofa,

This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument. I’m not arguing anything related to DRM or the structure of the market that creates some content.

refurbishedrefurbisher,

This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument.

My point about DRM is highly relevant in this case, because a consumer cannot own something that is encumbered with DRM. They are renting a license for that product, even if the button they click on says “purchase”, since, hidden in the EULA somewhere, the company decided to redefine the word “purchase”. The company will always be able to revoke that license without notice or permission from the consumer, let alone a refund or any kind of compensation.

Relevant Louis Rossmann video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GZUCwVRLs

dpkonofa,

Again, it is not relevant because I’m not arguing against the OP. I am only arguing against the dishonesty and mischaracterization of piracy as being something other than stealing.

refurbishedrefurbisher,

If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.

dpkonofa,

And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.

This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as “I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don’t need eggs.” without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.

refurbishedrefurbisher,

And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.

Then why are companies who have clones made of their products still in business?

dpkonofa,

You’re only unintentionally (I think) proving my point, not yours.

Companies who make clones of things are still in business because people are paying for the clones. You’re not paying for the cloned movie you’re pirating.

Also, in your example and using your logic, someone would have to recreate the production of the content. If someone decided to remake a movie (and get actors, crew, production, marketing, etc.) and then decided to release that for free, not only would it not be stealing but it also wouldn’t be copyright infringement because it would be covered by fair use since its a recreation. Copyright infringement doesn’t apply simply to an idea of something. It applies to the manifestation of that idea.

refurbishedrefurbisher,

I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not talking about the clone companies; I’m talking about the original company who designed the product that was cloned.

I don’t necessarilly agree with people making money off of unoriginal ideas, but that falls into the camp of copyright infringment instead of stealing since copyright law protects the intellectual property of the company who created the original design. Whether it is considered reverse engineering or not is a whole other legal argument, since reverse engineering is legal in the US.

Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.

dpkonofa,

I think you misunderstood my point.

Maybe? If you’re asking how the original companies stay in business when a clone comes along, the answer to that is that many times they don’t. And, as mentioned elsewhere (and maybe even here), if we’re talking about tangible goods, then, in most cases, there are clear differences between the clones and the non-clones. If enough people buy the items from the original maker, then they stay in business. There are plenty of examples where clones popped up in a market and forced the original creator out of business. We’re not talking about “clones” in the sense that they’re close enough. We’re talking about exact duplications. If someone can make an exact copy for less, then the original company would go out of business if no one paid for that product. I don’t know how you could view that as anything but theft.

Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.

No, you don’t need the second part. Stealing it would be stealing the design of the other company and selling it. Recreating something is not the same thing as stealing it, as I’ve already stated.

Psychodelic,

LOL they know it’s stealing. Some of them will even blatantly admit it with no guilt.

Wait, do you think people that pirate things all have the same beliefs or something? Such a weird way to logic. 😅 Truly, that’s a new one.

helenslunch,

No I just think some of them are more honest about it than others.

Psychodelic,

Well that’s certainly a convenient way to validate your own beliefs. lol

“Everyone that disagrees with my worldview just isn’t being honest!”

Stay scientific, friend

helenslunch,

Well that’s certainly a good way to misrepresent someone else’s beliefs. LOL

“I’ll just make up some bullshit they didn’t even say or imply and put it in quotes like they did!”

refurbishedrefurbisher,

How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with? Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money. This is especially the case if the consumer has previously purchased a license to consume the product, and then the company decides to take (or steal) it away. No moral qualms with pirating the same content then.

It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact. It’s not like a physical BluRay, where if you steal it from a store, you are making that store lose money due to that physical stock being stolen.

And lastly, how is the company not stealing from consumers when they pull shit like this?

helenslunch,

How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with?

Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.

Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.

They are if you take something they created.

It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact.

I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.

I don’t know how these justifications can be described as anything other than “mental gymnastics” because they obviously make zero sense and personally benefit you.

dpkonofa,

You hit the nail on the head. That’s why they’re downvoting and arguing. It personally benefits them to steal.

I’ve said it several times here…I don’t care if people pirate stuff. There are a myriad of reasons to do so. My issue is with the dishonesty of pretending it’s not stealing. Keep doing it, I don’t care, but own up to what you’re doing and admit it’s stealing.

It’s mental gymnastics because they need to be able to continue stealing but don’t want to feel bad about it.

refurbishedrefurbisher,

I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.

Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?

Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.

The definition of theft according to MW: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

If you do not deprive the original owner of the property (such as: copying), it is not definitionally theft. Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.

helenslunch,

Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?

No one. The person who did the work did so with the intention of generating income.

Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.

Does it really matter? What’s the important differentiation there?

dpkonofa,

Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.

Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).

Taking away licenses is wrong. I’m not disputing that. But that doesn’t magically make stealing something that actual people created right.

archomrade,

Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).

Are you making an ethical, moral, or legal statement here?

Ownership of intangibles in this context exists only as a means to support a particular political arrangement. I think you may be assuming others here share your politics; there is no objective moral standard for exclusive ownership of intangibles.

dpkonofa,

By that argument, there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value. If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not. If you don’t agree to that premise, then there’s no point in discussing this with you.

archomrade,

there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value.

You’re right, there is no moral imperative for people to create (or share) intangibles, but nobody is claiming they have no value.

If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not.

Again, is this a ethical, moral, or legal statement? It strikes me as a uniquely ideological statement, but you’ve not elaborated.

dpkonofa,

Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.

Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one. I’m not disputing the legality of anything here (since I believe that the subject of the OP is also illegal - “Buying” something denotes ownership and, therefore, taking it away is also stealing).

Additionally, I do not have objections against piracy and think there are many legitimate reasons for it. I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing.

archomrade,

Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.

Are you trying to conflate ‘value’ with ‘extractive market value’? There are lots of things that have innate value but have no or very little market value.

Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one.

It matters if anyone cares to understand what you’re actually asserting, since you’ve again claimed ‘I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing’. How can anyone understand what you mean without knowing what you take ‘stealing’ to mean, and why it matters?

Most people here would argue that a system that relies on exclusive ownership of ideas/digitally reproducible data in order to support those who do that labor (that we all benefit from) is one that is broken. In which case ‘stealing’ would be misplacing both to whom the harm being done and the party doing the harm, because it isn’t the fault of the artist or the consumer that the system withholds the means of living from those who are unable to justify their existence through labor.

dpkonofa,

That’s all irrelevant. I’m not making some hypothetical point. Whether you agree with “the system” or not, it is the system within which we live and operate and within which people need to make a living. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created. If we accept that and attempt to justify as anything other than theft, then those people will cease to create themselves or will have to work further into the system that you’re arguing against as they will be unable to sustain themselves by creating things within that system.

If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things. All the straw man arguments about DRM and corporations that attempt to justify piracy only further reinforce the current system rather than some imagined system.

Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone. If you can’t understand ‘stealing’ in its most basic form, then there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.

archomrade,

It doesn’t matter whose fault it is.

‘Piracy is stealing’ certainly seems to be a statement of fault, doesn’t it?

What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created.

No, that someone is being deprived of something in the first instance by being made to justify their existence through their labor. That someone isn’t willing to pay for that labor is only depriving them in the second instance, and there are innumerable examples where essential labor is uncompensated in our market system.

If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things.

That is not a given. I happen to think that by returning the time that was stolen from us (or some portion thereof) by coercing us into labor, we can all be free to create what we want. Forcing art to abide by the rules of the free market only serves to corrupt it, not enable it to sustain itself.

Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone.

Stealing actually has a bunch of definitions, and most of them depend upon the abstract concept of ‘property’.

there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.

Finally something we can agree on.

dpkonofa,

I was saying that it doesn’t matter whose fault it is to your assertion that “it’s not the creators or the consumers” fault. Piracy does have a person that’s at fault and, logically, it’s the person getting something for free that is not being offered for free.

I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, “justify their existence”, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.

Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do. Of course I’d be happy if we lived in a Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter anymore but we don’t and pirating content that people make isn’t going to change that.

All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it. That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.

archomrade,

I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, ‘justify their existence’, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.

Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do.

Except it isn’t, because you’re arguing they deserve to be paid because otherwise they can’t afford to pay their bills. You’ve made it explicitly relevant.

All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it.

And i’m saying it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is stealing when the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.

That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.

Where to start with this one…

  • ‘watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
  • ’using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?
  • ‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?
  • ‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)
dpkonofa,

No, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that they deserve to be paid because they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free. Their reasons for wanting to get paid are irrelevant. They are not offering the product of their labor for free. Full stop. Why they’re doing that doesn’t matter.

the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.

I’m not talking about copyright, though! Copyright is a legal concept defined by lawmakers. I’m not focusing on the legality of piracy at all. I don’t care if it’s legal or not and I don’t care about the copyright. I’m simply arguing that people create things and expect to get paid for them. They don’t create them to give them away for free unless they’ve explicitly decided to do that.

watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying

watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying

Libraries have to get permission from creators to carry intangible goods. Libraries do not and cannot just buy media and offer it for consumption without permission, especially for digital media that is intangible. Sharing a DVD with a friend is a tangible good and therefore has physical limitations that intangible media does not so it is not the same. And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.

‘using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?

Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).

‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?

Why is that a weird and/or grotesque example? Sex workers are people and provide a service. So, yes…stiffing a contractor.

‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)

Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.

Yes, that does matter. That would be the whole point of the idiom.

For example if I tried to argue a king can command the tide, and then used King Canute and the tide to prove my point, I would not only be not making my point stand but also confusing the crap out of everyone.

dpkonofa,

You seemed to grasp the point so, no, it doesn’t really matter.

archomrade,

they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free

If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid, am i justified in asking to be paid for you looking at it? Am I justified in accusing you of theft if you take a picture of it as I drive by? If you share it with all your friends? If I post an elaborate tiktok and say, ‘if you viewed this please pay me $5’, can I accuse you of theft if you don’t?

At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it? By what natural law is a creator granted exclusive right to the consumption and distribution of that intangible work?

Them expecting to be paid has no bearing on the moral or ethical obligation for me to do so. They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable. That doesn’t make something theft, especially not legally (which I now understand is not your point)

The most you could argue is for a social obligation (i.e. you ought to pay for things you benefit from), but that wouldn’t amount to fucking theft. If that’s the point you’re making, then it’s disingenuous to refer to piracy as stealing.

And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.

Great, that simplifies things.

Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).

You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours. A better example is if I pay you for your time to make me a website, and then someone else copies the HTML from the site after I publish it (as with most piracy, the person you’re hurting isn’t the creator but the IP owner, which is usually not the creator). Your time has been paid for already, and trying to limit access to that work after the fact is simply an abuse of some abstract ownership over something that can’t really be stolen. Anyone is free to support the work they enjoy, but saying that it’s an ethical obligation that amounts to theft if ignored is simply not a given.

It’s the same with the sex worker, except there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does that’s infinitely reproducible… that example seems to have been included specifically for the emotional weight that work elicits, since it doesn’t appear to be relevant to your point.

The problem is that in our current system, absent being paid for your labor or exclusive ownership to goods or capital needed by others, you can’t sustain yourself. That’s a relevant condition to what I think about someone copying the work I produce, not an irrelevant deflection. Additionally, the motivation to do the work changes how someone might feel about it being shared: if you only have to do work you like to do and believe in, and not for any financial obligation, doesn’t it change the emotional appeal you’re making from the point of view of the creator? And the collective benefit for making those creations freely available would outweigh any concern about obligatory compensation or abstract ownership.

Absent those conditions, the ethical conclusion you’re trying to make wouldn’t be applicable by any stretch of the imagination.

dpkonofa,

This is all a nonsense argument.

If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid

You cannot force someone to pay for something that is displayed in public. If you took that car that you intricately painted and locked it in a garage and charged an admission fee to look at it, then, yes, you are justified. If you are driving it in public, everything else about what you say is invalidated - no, you are not justified in accusing someone of theft regardless of what happens after that. You gave up the right to that when you drove it publicly.

At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it?

At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.

They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable.

This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.

You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours.

Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?

there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does

This is not true. The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you. To borrow from your descriptions of pirated content, her product is infinitely reproducible and freely available (so long as she’s been paid for it, right?).

The problem is that in our current system

…and then you continue to make a claim for a situation that is not possible in our current system which makes it irrelevant.

Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.

archomrade,

At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.

Nope, i’m making the argument that ownership ends when a work is shared publicly, not when it’s created.

This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.

By it’s nature, digital media is unrestricted, it costs nothing to reproduce and so cannot be ‘stolen’ from someone because doing so doesn’t take it away from them. That was Thomas Jefferson’s point; ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time. Digital media is only restricted as an artificial means of extracting value from that limitation. But even then, there’s no reasonable expectation of control once that work is shared publicly because there are no physical boundaries that encapsulate it, no means to control its propagation once it departs from its origin. That’s what I mean by ‘it’s nature is freely accessible and infinitely reproducible’.

Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?

As a matter of principle, absolutely. I don’t blame someone from reusing my creative work, I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place, and I blame the people who take ownership of that creative work and restrict access to it in order to produce a profit that they withhold from me and those that labor to produce it. It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work. It is exactly the concept of ownership that limits creative work, not piracy.

The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you.

THAT ISN’T TRUE. They loose their TIME and that time is finite and discrete. The work they do in that time isn’t something that can be copied. You’re intentionally conflating labor and ownership and copyright (I am very explicitly using copyright here because that is what we are discussing, which is the RIGHT TO RESTRICT COPIES of a given work by the owner of the copyright). I paint a piece of art; the act of painting is the labor, the piece of art is the product. A prostitute is a service worker, they don’t produce a tangible product, THEIR LABOR IS THE PRODUCT. Every time the work is copied their time and effort are lost. Once digital media is produced, that media can be copied indefinitely at NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.

Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.

UBI isn’t a star trek fantasy. Public domain isn’t fantasy. You can close your eyes to what already exists all you want, but you can’t insist ‘piracy is stealing’ without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.

dpkonofa,

is shared publicly

Here’s the flaw in this. It’s not shared publicly. It’s only shared to the people who have paid for it. That’s why we have these stupid situations where distributors fall back on “licenses”.

ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost.

This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea. It took real people real time and real work to create it. Just because it’s intangible doesn’t mean that it is an idea.

Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time.

If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea. The fact that the time of the creators is finite and has value is what transfers that value to the end product.

that work is shared publicly

Again, a misrepresentation of how it is being shared. The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork. They shouldn’t release their content online, they should only allow access to it in a limited fashion where people have to go to a physical location to view it so as to ensure that they get paid for their work.

I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place

So your argument is basically that we should live in a fantasy world where this isn’t the case?

It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work.

It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.

Once digital media is produced,

Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.

NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.

…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.

without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.

It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it. Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.

archomrade,

This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea.

Digital media has no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. An idea is also manifested when it is divulged, and it requires mental labor the same as digital media.

If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea

Wrong. There is the labor, and there is the media. The one is limited and the other is not. I didn’t take you for a proponent of the labor theory of value.

The creation of new media requires labor, but the product of that labor is infinite.

The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork

No, i’m saying it is the nature of the work that it requires no additional labor to copy a digital work. A limited digital stream is a copy of a work. That it expires is an arbitrary limitation that is imposed by the distributor (be it a corporation or the artists themselves) to extract a price, one that does not reflect an actual limit to the supply. That there is no other way you can think of to compensate people who produce media is really a reflection of your own lack of understanding than a reflection of ‘reality’.

It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.

“It is the way it is”. Doesn’t make piracy theft, it just serves as further proof that our system needs changing.

Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.

It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. Conversely, if we consider every new work of media as singularly owned and distributed, the value of a corpus of media will grow indefinitely (e.g. a corporation that owns an exclusive library of work can charge whatever they want for that work, then produce and buy more exclusive work, and charge more for that work, ad infinitum; see Disney). The market as it is cannot continue indefinitely and will lead to the outcome you’re whining about here (artists not being being paid enough to eat). That is why there are dwindling production houses in media because exclusive ownership begets more exclusive ownership.

The only way to ensure artists are paid is to distribute surplus universally so they are free to produce art for its own sake (and not for the sake of the market leaders’ profit).

…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.

I’m not ignoring it, i’m assigning that value to the work itself and not the product of that work. Don’t be dense.

It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it.

It most certainly does rely on ownership, if you’re advocating for artists to be paid via ownership of the rights to access the work. It may be true that the people who consume physical goods deserve to pay for those goods (because their consuming it lessens the supply for others), it does not follow that people who ‘consume’ copies of digital works ‘deserve’ to pay for that consumption. Once again, a copy of a work does not make any the less by the act of copying.

Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.

Right, so… you’re in favor of pirating then, since you can only pirate works that have already been created…?

null,

It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.

You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.

It’s just as much “stealing” as me not watching it at all.

I’m infringing on their copyright, absolutely, but I’m not taking anything away from them that they could otherwise profit from.

dpkonofa,

No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.

null,

That’s a valid opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.

dpkonofa,

I’m not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I’m arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You’re stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don’t care if people pirate things but admit that it’s stealing and move on.

null,

Piracy is stealing.

No it is not. By any definition.

You can think it’s morally wrong, that’s fine. But it simply, factually is not stealing.

That’s the only point I’m making.

dpkonofa,

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. It doesn’t matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you’re gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.

null,

You’re welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that’s your prerogative.

dpkonofa,

Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they’ve demanded in return, it’s stealing.

null,

To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.

That’s not how piracy works.

dpkonofa,

No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it’s a different term, I don’t care. You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).

null,

If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them.

Nope, you’ve potentially violated a contract, but you haven’t stolen anything.

By your definition, if I lend my friend a DVD movie and they watch it, they’ve now stolen that movie.

dpkonofa,

More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You’ve stolen the product that they created for you because you haven’t paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.

And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.

null,

More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty.

Fuck off with that. I’m being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.

And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.

“You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).”

The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.

dpkonofa,

I’m being no more dishonest than you.

Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.

They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.

This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.

null,

I’ve made several arguments and you’ve returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that’s what a debate is?

Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are.

You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?

dpkonofa,

I’ve made several arguments

You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.

You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?

Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.

Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.

null,

Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.

Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.

The friend can either:

  1. Purchase a copy of or license for that movie (digital or physical), compensating the creator.
  2. Borrow my copy of the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
  3. Torrent the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.

Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.

dpkonofa,

Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.

It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.

If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.

Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.

I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.

null,

You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you

They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.

If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession.

I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.

Don’t move the goalposts.

dpkonofa,

They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.

Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you’re ignoring it.

I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.

Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.

Don’t move the goalposts.

I’m not. You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.

null,

Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD.

But that’s not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.

Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes.

Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.

Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good.

The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.

You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.

I’m not ignoring it, you’ve just failed to demonstrate it for this example.

dpkonofa,

The limited physical good is the plastic circle.

This is just dishonest, yet again. Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely. The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.

null,

Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely.

Ridiculous, of course you can. You just copy it to another DVD, or a flash drive, or stream it over the internet. If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

The content is not the physical medium for digital goods.

I can rip that DVD to my laptop, backup the file to my laptop, and I’d be in the clear legally, morally, or however else you want to look at it.

If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.

The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.

No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.

dpkonofa,

If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method. That’s the entire distinction between this physical media and the intangible product on the disc. You’re continuing to be dishonest.

If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.

I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.

Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

null,

This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method.

Again, ridiculous. The file is on the distribution company’s sever. A copy of that file has been destroyed. Extremely key distinction.

I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file, and the physical medium you got it on is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.

Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too. That’s gotta make things hard.

dpkonofa,

Nonsense. You’re just continuing to be dishonest. You do not have access to their server. You destroyed the product you have. This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.

Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file

No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.

I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too.

Ok, well… bye.

null,

You do not have access to their server.

Doesn’t matter, the file still exists and has not been destroyed.

You destroyed the product you have.

I destroyed the disc. But if I made a backup, which you agreed is perfectly fine to do, then I still have a copy of the file.

This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.

Ridiculous. I can’t make a digital backup of a TV. Those scenarios are not comparable at all.

No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.

Can’t refute the argument? Just call it a strawman!

You said that borrowing a DVD and consuming the content isn’t stealing, while downloading a copy of it and consuming it is. I proved that to be logically inconsistent. Nothing about that is a strawman.

Ok, well… bye.

Better luck next time!

the_post_of_tom_joad,

If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.

Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.

dpkonofa,

Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.

the_post_of_tom_joad,

An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please

dpkonofa,

You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.

Stop being dishonest.

the_post_of_tom_joad,

Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.

(That was ad-hominem)

dpkonofa,

I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.

the_post_of_tom_joad,

Youre getting angry now i think. Whatever fruit this may have borne has withered. Last salvo and ill be finished:

I honestly want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don’t want to (and frankly, i don’t blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you’ll read it later?

(Spoiler: ‘false premises’ don’t necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There’s a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It’s real. Go check it out.

Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending this point in the future. Youre gonna all the tools available if youre going with this stance, and that’s what you want, right? You’re not just coming on this forum to run your mouth, right? Your comments have purpose, yes? You will need tools to convince, and you are in dire need of a toolbox

dpkonofa,

I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.

I’m not doing anything you ask me to because I know what a false premise is, I know what ad hominem is, and I know what a straw man is. You haven’t actually provided any kind of argument against what I said so I know you’re not being honest. Since you’re not willing to be honest, there is no point in continuing discussion with you.

the_post_of_tom_joad,

I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.

This might be the finest, most delicious dessert ive ever eaten

dpkonofa,

Again, I don’t care. You’re still starving.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Again, I don’t care. You’re still starving.

Ha, This was a lot of keystrokes to not care. And yes, this is delicious dessert after my morning coffee.

dpkonofa,

Not really. I’m a fast typer. Still don’t care.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Not really. I’m a fast typer. Still don’t care.

Not sure what is funnier, that you think this is a counterpoint or that you care that people think you don’t care about a topic you have made the greatest amount of comments in.

dpkonofa,

I don’t care what’s funnier. I’m just glad you’re having a laugh in an otherwise dreary life that you lead.

PS. There’s an actual ad-hominem.

NoIWontPickaName,

This fucker is a troll, quit feeding him Tom

dpkonofa,

I am not a troll. I am a creator that thinks your mental gymnastics attempting to justify theft is bullshit.

NoIWontPickaName,

K troll

dpkonofa,

Oh no! You got me! 🤣

Btw, the “troll” name-calling in response to an argument that these are ad-hominem attacks is hilarious.

Psychodelic,

Saying your argument is stupid isn’t attacking you, dude.

dpkonofa,

That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.

Psychodelic,

ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Why did I have to look this up for you?

Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be “why is it stupid?” or what’s wrong with my way of thinking?", not “stop attacking me, I’m under attack!” At the very least, don’t misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.

dpkonofa,

He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

The point is that he didn’t provide any counter to the argument. He’s done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don’t need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I’m making.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

I agree.

You should also take your own advice and address the actual argument and points made.

dpkonofa,

I did and I have. Several times.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

True, if you count each and every time you stopped typing…

No, that is a bit mean and untrue. You have replied to many points, some of them even without calling the person “dishonest” or saying their point is “irreverent”

refurbishedrefurbisher,

Then why is digital piracy legally considered to be copyright infringement instead of theft?

dpkonofa,

That’s irrelevant. I’m not arguing the legality of it.

veniasilente,

No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it.

A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?

JustEnoughDucks, (edited )
@JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl avatar

You can’t reason with him. He is an anti-piracy troll.

For him, any comparison made to help him understand is a logical fallacy and any evidence presented against his argument is “irrelevant” as he puts it.

It is like arguing with a trump-like narcissist lol. “My argument counts and yours is wrong, but if yours is right then it is irrelevant, made up, and/or a straw man. If I don’t understand something then it is an attack and I will insult you and instantly label you inferior.”

It’s sad honestly and just like them all he is all “think of the poor artists who created the media you love” while conveniently ignoring that in the music industry, many/most artists don’t even get royalties because the record labels swindled then forced them to sign their lives and works away getting a couple pennies on the dollar.

Video game industry is salaried. All profits go to the corporations outside of indie games. Movies, outside of the big name stars, earn almost poverty wages and absolutely 0.00% of what gets sold because the studios are so incredibly corrupt.

Not to mention dead artists where unless they were extremely smart, their families are likely earning 0% of sold media.

Also not getting into the fact that copyright used to be very short until large corporations bribed lawmakers constantly and for so much corrupt money that they changed copyright to extend an extreme amount of time, otherwise things from the 90s would already be public domain if there wasn’t so much blatant bribery and corruption done by the people you are “stealing” from.

Unless you are pirating things from Dolly Parton or someone who was business savvy enough to not get cheated by the studios, you are not stealing from the artists in any crazy mental gymnastic stretch of the imagination.

Piracy, at the very worst, is stealing from long time hard criminals. There is not a single big record corporation that has not committed a multitude of thefts, blackmail, drug dealing, bribery of government officials, and worse. That isn’t even getting into the crimes of porn studios and movie studios. Disney mass murdered animals on camera for views as one example.

Wogi,

The previous comment is more like shorthand, rather than literal truth.

It’s faster to say piracy isn’t stealing if purchasing isn’t ownership than it is to say “if a company can simply reverse a permanent access license at any time then pirating media from them is perfectly ethical and should not be considered a crime”

null,

It’s bad shorthand though. In this context, there was never any “buying content” happening, nor was piracy ever “stealing”. It’s just misrepresentation of both sides.

Wogi,

Come up with something better then.

null,

Why?

Wogi,

Because you’re bitching about it. Either there’s a better way to express the precise picture you’re describing, or your central argument is fundamentally flawed, and it’s an effective shorthand.

Sure, there’s nuance. Shorthand is used to convey a nuanced thought quickly. That’s literally the point.

null,

Lol “bitching” about it.

Weird logic. Pointing out something that isn’t accurate but gets parroted anyways means I need to come up with a better thing to parrot.

dpkonofa,

There’s no logic here. You’re right and they’re just throwing a tantrum because it means they’re wrong.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

I am not sure of all the posters here, you would want to mention “throwing a tantrum” in regards to being wrong. But hey I for one am a fan of your posts, it has been fun reading.

dpkonofa,

I don’t see anywhere that I’ve thrown a tantrum. I’ve been civil and respectful of all the people replying to me, even when they haven’t returned that in kind, and even attempted to bring some replies back to civility when I felt like the person was arguing in earnest. My point stands and no one has really argued the actual point without contradicting themselves.

M0oP0o, (edited )
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Yeah, I am going to have to disagree after reading though your over 50 posts here. You point is in tatters, you are grasping at straws and the funniest part is you seem to flat out ignore anything that does not help your argument. You have many times been semantic and then when proven wrong on semantics proceeded to say you are not arguing semantics. Same deal with legality, and when asked if you have a moral argument, you deflect or ignore.

Like I said, I am a fan of your posts here. I get a chuckle when people double down over and over.

dpkonofa,

You are free and welcome to disagree but that doesn’t invalidate my point or my argument. I haven’t ignored anything unless it was irrelevant to the point (like the DRM arguments or the arguments about media that’s no longer available for purchase) and I’m not arguing the semantics of the words being used to describe the situation unless the person arguing against my point focuses on the semantics of those words as opposed to the actual crux of my argument. I’m not arguing against the legality of anything so that is also irrelevant. I haven’t deflected or ignored whether I have a moral argument or not, I’ve simply stated that it is also irrelevant to my point because, in an exchange, both parties have to gain something and agree to the exchange. That’s neither a moral nor a legal argument.

I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.

Oh nice ad-hominem. That would be the correct way of doing ad-hominem by the way.

Oh and since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?

dpkonofa,

I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.

It’s not irrelevant because it’s an objective statement followed by a question about that statement. The morals, semantics, or legality of it isn’t what I’m arguing about (although I might concede that it could be argued as an ethical question which may converge slightly with morals).

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.

Yes, “telling” as if people can not understand basic veiled implications.

dpkonofa,

What was the implication then, if there was in fact one?

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.

Sorry I take it back, this is not even veiled. Oh and mind addressing the basis of your argument? I want to know the not moral, legal or semantic argument.

dpkonofa,

If I thought you were being anything other than disingenuous, I’d answer you. As it stands, you’re neither honest nor actually interested in what my point is. If you were, you’d have said even something about the point and not about whether it’s a moral, legal, or semantic argument.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Nice try dodging, my point is you have said anything you don’t like is “irreverent” to this argument as you are not making a moral, legal, or semantic argument. So if not one of these 3 what is your point based on other then a wordy version of “nuh uh”

dpkonofa,

That’s not true. I haven’t said anything is irrelevant simply because I don’t like it. I’ve said it’s irrelevant because it’s not relevant to the point I’ve made. Whether something is legal or not is irrelevant because my argument is not taking a position on the legality of something. It’s also irrelevant if the point deals only with the semantics of what a specific word means because my argument is not about the definition of the word, it’s about the deprivation of a gain in an exchange. It’s also not relevant if it’s a moral argument because I’m not against piracy and don’t care about the morality of it. I’m only arguing about the justification people are using to pretend that piracy is not depriving someone of the value of their work. My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.

But, sure… It’s just a wordy version of “nuh uh”. Now keep telling me you’re not a dishonest person.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.

And here is the fun part, you have been soundly and completely shown that piracy (software) is not stealing or theft in the semantic, legal and even moral sense. You even help others arguments with your “irrelevant” approach to any counterpoint by stating that is not the argument you are making. Then you also call anyone who engages with you “dishonest” without the slightest indication or example of dishonesty.

dpkonofa,

Ignoring and misrepresenting my argument to argue another one is dishonest. You can claim it’s not but that just gives me more reason not to engage with you.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Who said I ignored or misrepresented your argument? This is the first time you have brought this particular accusation and I am somewhat interested in how you came to such a conclusion. I am clearly not ignoring you or your argument (I am still waiting for you to finish defining it after all) and other then quotes from you I have hardly even started to represent, let alone misrepresent you.

I think once again we can look at the many people you call dishonest as a form of projection.

TWeaK,

They’re not ignoring your argument, your argument is simply flawed.

My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something.

Stealing is different to pirating. You can say that both are wrong, but you can’t claim that both are the same.

dpkonofa,

They are ignoring my argument. My argument is not flawed. We don’t accept it in any other context with any other intangible items so I don’t understand why it’s acceptable here.

Stealing is different to pirating. You can say that both are wrong, but you can’t claim that both are the same.

Yes, I can… and I am. They’re both wrong because, whatever you call them, they’re theft of something. Anything else is just a semantic argument. You’re taking something and gaining a benefit from it without compensating the creator for it. We don’t accept that in any other context, whether tangible or intangible.

TWeaK,

Your argument is flawed, because piracy is different to theft. You say they are the same, when they are not.

There is a potential loss with piracy, but that isn’t theft. Theft requires actual loss. This isn’t a semantic argument, it is a core principle of the definition of theft.

dpkonofa,

Your argument is flawed, because piracy is different to theft.

No, my argument is specifically that piracy and theft are not different. My argument can’t be flawed because they’re different if the argument is that they’re different. That’s circular reasoning. You can’t just say that they are different without pointing out how they are materially different in a way that a creator is properly compensated for the content that they created since that is the entire crux of my argument. If a creator isn’t getting paid for someone consuming their work, then that’s theft. We don’t allow people to consume anything else they haven’t paid for in any other context so, unless you can make a meaningful distinction for a creator, you haven’t actually addressed the central premise of my argument.

There is a potential loss with piracy, but that isn’t theft.

It is not a potential loss, though. If someone consumes that media then it is a real, tangible loss. They consumed the media without paying for it. The idea that they may not have paid for it anyways is unresolvable with the idea that, if they hadn’t paid for it and piracy wasn’t an option, then they wouldn’t have been able to consume that media.

TWeaK,

You can’t just say that they are different without pointing out how they are materially different

I have pointed out how they’re different, from my first comment to my last.

Theft involves taking a tangible asset from someone. It may also involve a potential loss in income.

Copyright infringement only involves the potential loss in income.

Your claim is that the producer has lost out with copyright infringement because of the time and effort and cost they put into making that thing. That cost would happen regardless of copyright infringement occurring. Thus you cannot assign the potential loss against the cost - it would have occurred either way.

If someone consumes that media then it is a real, tangible loss.

No, it isn’t.

They consumed the media without paying for it.

Yes, they did.

The idea that they may not have paid for it anyways is unresolvable with the idea that, if they hadn’t paid for it and piracy wasn’t an option, then they wouldn’t have been able to consume that media.

Sure. But what you’re ignoring is the idea of whether or not they would have bought instead of pirating.

If they would have paid, and didn’t because they pirated, then there was a loss. If the wouldn’t have paid but only consumed the material because it was free, then there is no loss. Thus, the loss is only potential.

The reality is that most of the content people pirate is not content they would have paid for, even if piracy was not an option. Thus, for the most part, piracy does not indicate any tangible loss.

dpkonofa,

I have pointed out how they’re different, from my first comment to my last.

I said materially different. You’ve pointed out ways they are different that have no bearing on my point and aren’t relevant to it. You’ve mostly focused on the legal aspects of copyright infringement vs. physical theft which has nothing to do with my argument.

And now you’ve done it again. You’re arguing the legality of copyright infringement and how it differs from physical theft which has no bearing on my position.

But what you’re ignoring is the idea of whether or not they would have bought instead of pirating.

I’m not ignoring it. I’ve literally stated the argument against that statement several times - if they didn’t buy it, they couldn’t consume it if piracy didn’t exist.

only consumed the material because it was free

It wasn’t free. That’s why it’s stealing.

The reality is that most of the content people pirate is not content they would have paid for,

Then they shouldn’t be able to consume it! There’s no issue if they wouldn’t have paid for it if they don’t consume it. The whole argument that they wouldn’t have bought it becomes bullshit as soon as they do consume it because, without piracy, they would not have been able to consume it.

TWeaK,

I’m not arguing the legality of it. I’m arguing the key definitions. Said definitions line up with law, because the law was established hundreds of years ago. Your definition is new and false. For some reason, you cannot accept that.

if they didn’t buy it, they couldn’t consume it if piracy didn’t exist.

Would vs could. You’re conflating the two. If they didn’t buy it, and piracy was not an option, they most likely would not have consumed it. They most likely would not have paid you for it.

A pirated copy is not equal to a sale. If piracy was not an option, you wouldn’t have had many more sales.

You keep touting this principle of yours as if it were fact. Frankly, you should accept that your business was a flop and move on, rather than blame people who did not want to pay you for your own failure.

T0RB1T,
@T0RB1T@sh.itjust.works avatar

That’s fair, but I feel like the point is that many people go through a process where

  1. You pay money
  2. The buttons on your screen say “buy” “purchase” “check-out” or something else to that effect

That feels like buying media, so according to the common “consumer” (hate that word) brain, you are spending money to buy content.

At the same time, media corps have been trying to teach us for years that piracy is exactly the same as stealing.

The whole point of the shorthand is to explain that these are not facts, they’re misconceptions, AND both of these misconceptions exist for the same reason, corporate propaganda.

helenslunch,

That feels like buying media

It doesn’t just feel like it, it says it. What it is is false advertising. If you don’t get to keep it forever, the button should say something along the lines of “rent until we decide to stop hosting it”.

Quexotic,
@Quexotic@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m starting to think that everybody’s thinking about this the wrong way. But I think really needs to happen is they need to be sued to oblivion with a class action lawsuit. They can say whatever they want in their user agreement and do their best to get away with it but if it’s not enforceable in court then it needs to be shot down and shot down completely. This needs a class action lawsuit. There need to be several class action lawsuits. One against them, one against Sony and so on.

They have a lot of money and they might win in court maybe but they should at least be challenged in that venue.

Syndic,

Oh but it’s not buying! The big “Buy” or “Purchase” button might have said so, but if you’d have careful read through 35 pages of user agreements, you’d see that you only rent the license to stream it.

Which obviously is total bullshit and the whole fucking system should be burned to the ground.

jacksilver,

This is where the law needs to step in, it should be illegal to call it “Buy” if you are just leasing it. It’s absolutely misleading to most consumers.

ApathyTree,

This is precisely why I refuse to buy digital games. (And it extends to other media, but games are where I actually spend money)

I’ll pay for a rental service designed to be a rental service (ps+, for example) but will not buy individual games digitally. Who knows when they will become unavailable for some reason, and I can no longer download a copy. It’s bad enough when servers are shut down within 2 years of launch, but when the whole game gets pulled, then what?

I’ve decided I’m not even bothering with the next generation of consoles. So few things are even released on disc, with half the consoles being digital only, that it’s not even worth it. I’ll pirate instead.

TWeaK,

Pirating isn’t stealing either way.

Also, copyright infringement never even used to ever be a crime, although now there is a form of criminal copyright infringement, if it’s done for money or if the value is above a certain amount. Thanks to lobbying from wealthy industries. Most copyright infringement still is not a crime, though.

The reason industries lobby for harsher copyright laws is because they know they can make more money if people can’t pirate. They take the piss with their pricing, but they’re acutely aware that if they take the piss too much then people will turn to piracy. By prohibiting piracy and levying harsh penalties they can get away with even more unfair pricing, and maybe even profit from piracy through punitive damages (which is mainly a US thing, most sensible nations only allow you to sue for actual damages).

dpkonofa,

It is. You’re stealing income from the person that created the thing you took and didn’t pay for.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

By this logic, everything you don’t buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you’re denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend’s house for free?

dpkonofa,

No, it’s not. If you are just walking past that item, you’re not consuming the value of that item. If you’re being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn’t be watching the movies that you’re not paying for. The entire issue is that you’re not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you’re eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you’re now able to gain the value of that magazine’s content without paying for it. That’s still stealing. You can either pretend it’s not or you can say “Yeah, it’s stealing but I’m ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways”.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they’ve already consumed it.

dpkonofa,

That’s not a better example. You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you’re reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It’s not bound by that scarcity.

It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing. We’re discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing.

That is literally the situation I’m discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn’t have the rights to it, don’t pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there’s also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.

The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don’t think that’s morally consistent. You’ve been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that’s exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.

dpkonofa,

That’s not true. It is not “literally the situation you’re discussing”. You don’t “lose” money if you’re paying for access to something. Paying for a ticket to a museum to see artwork isn’t you “losing” money just because you don’t walk out of the museum with something tangible.

You’re just arguing semantics about the word “creator” now. The other options you’ve provided are still basing your choice on a tangible good which is not the situation here. You can’t buy a “used” version of an intangible good so the rest of your argument is irrelevant to the situation actually being argued.

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Now we’re arguing semantics and I’m not going to do this. I PAID money. I GAVE SOMEONE money. I HAVE LESS money. If you can’t engage with the actual ideas behind what I’m saying, then what are you even doing?

I see no distinction between the tangible and intangible goods here. They are all methods for displaying a show on my screen for the express purpose of me seeing it with my eyes. What difference does it make if that method involves a tangible object? The moral argument you’ve been making this entire time is that by pirating a show, I consume it without the people who made it getting compensated.

In another thread, you said

At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.

If this is why you believe piracy is theft, then you must necessarily believe that buying used copies, borrowing discs from friends, and renting from video stores are all also theft, because the statements you’ve made regarding why piracy is theft applies to all of those situations.

dpkonofa,

You gave someone money who had permission to sell that thing to you. You have less money and, in exchange, you have access to consume the media/intangible good in question. This is not semantics. This is the literal situation that you were arguing.

The fact that you don’t see a distinction between tangible and intangible goods is exactly why you keep making arguments that make no sense and don’t logically hold up against the point I’m making. The difference matters because, even in your other irrelevant examples of buying used copies, borrowing discs, or renting, someone had to pay for that physical item or you would not have access to it. Intangible and tangible matters here because you can’t buy a used copy of an intangible item!

So… no. I don’t have to believe any of the other things you’ve mentioned because, in every single one of those cases, there is a tangible good that someone paid for which the author/creator was compensated that is physically limited that doesn’t exist for an intangible good. Your argument is still fundamentally flawed and, therefore, not a valid argument against my point.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

The logic just doesn’t flow. If the problem with illegally streaming content is that the creators don’t get paid for my consumption of their product, then buying a used copy is just as bad, because I’m still consuming the product without the creators being compensated. You can say it’s different because I’m using physical media that can’t be copied rather than using a copy of a digital file, but the end result remains the same: I consume the media, the creators don’t get paid. You can say it’s different because the physical media only allows one person to consume it, but… The original owner already did. I suppose they can’t rewatch it after they sell the disc to me, but they have definitely already consumed it.

It also brings up a complicated question: what if the original buyer of that disc rips the disc onto their computer before selling it to me? Is that immoral? I mean, they already watched the show. They might not have a legal right to keep that digital copy of the contents of that disc, but it seems weird to me to suggest that it’s immoral to keep a copy of a show you’ve already seen.

Finally, if buying a used copy is fine because the original owner of that copy already paid for it, then my illegal consumption doesn’t matter at all–the person who bought the disc was going to buy the disc anyway. They already paid for it, regardless of whether I would come and buy it from them in the future.

TWeaK,

You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.

And you’re ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.

If it wasn’t for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn’t an option then there would be nothing holding them back.

dpkonofa,

Neither of those things are true. I’m not ignoring that at all. In fact, I haven’t argued anything about the price of media at all. If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.

Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products. You’ve provided a false dichotomy. A third option is that people simply don’t find the price being asked worth that amount and simply don’t ingest that. Piracy is not the only other option and the idea that not having piracy would mean that things are more expensive is nonsense. People would simply not watch those movies or consume that media and creators/distributors would be forced to lower prices or not make any money and cease to exist.

TWeaK, (edited )

You said it was different for someone to download something rather than only buy used, simply because that is a physical good of tangible scarcity. The implication clearly is that the good is more valuable because it is scarce, thus the producer doesn’t lose out with used sales.

How is it not valid for me to point out that digital goods have no scarcity, and thus should be priced far lower than physical goods which have an inherent cost to produce and distribute, one which digital goods completely avoid?

How are the two situations different in any practical purpose for the producer? With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer. With used goods, they’ve experienced no extra cost, but someone else gets to use it who didn’t pay the producer.

Yes, the original owner can no longer view the product, but how is it any different for the producer - the one you claim is suffering a loss?


Your second statement also is not true unless you believe the flawed idea that people are entitled to those products.

I put it to you that people are entitled to view art. Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience. Nothing is created in isolation, we all stand on the shoulders of people that come before us. Claiming that you deserve “all teh moneys” without fairly paying every one of those who got you there is the root cause of a lot of problems in the world. Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.

In any case, I didn’t even argue that! All I said was that producers are charging too much for their goods, and that if piracy wasn’t a thing they’d charge even more. You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.


At this stage, I think it’s abundantly clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith, you’re just full of shit and parroting a narrative incessantly. There’s no reasoning with you because you are inherently unreasonable.

Edit: I’m withdrawing the last statement, because I do think there is some reasoning to be had here.

dpkonofa,

thus should be priced far lower than physical goods

This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid. I’m not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don’t think it’s worth that price, then they shouldn’t buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn’t consume/ingest it.

With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost…you claim is suffering a loss?

One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that’s not the point that I’m arguing so it’s irrelevant to the argument.

Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.

You’re advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you’d be supportive of, then you’d just be advocating for exactly the situation you’re in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a “place”. It’s just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.

viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience

This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.

Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.

Again, a different argument from the one I’m making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they’re the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.

You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.

No, I’m not. I’m not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.

Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason… 🧐

TWeaK, (edited )

This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid.

It’s not a separate argument, though. I’ve provided justification for why piracy should exist - to limit the price of goods and services, which are currently excessive, but would be even more so if piracy wasn’t an option. That is a very valid point in this discussion.

One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters.

EXACTLY!! EXACTLY. The scope of the loss is different.

If you are the victim of theft, you’ve not only lost a potential sale, you’ve also lost a tangible good that you have paid to produce. If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you’ve only lost the potential sale.

The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not.

You’re on the cusp of recognising this.

Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason…

I own up to my mistakes. I think you were a little bit hostile in your defense, understandably, as a result of the hostility you’ve received - along with all the downvotes. I know that can have an effect even when you know it doesn’t matter. I certainly did myself, I saw the single downvotes to my replies and concluded that was from you. I may have been wrong, it doesn’t really matter, but I can see you are engaging at least.

You’re still in the wrong position, though. While it would be right to say copyright infringement is wrong, it is not theft. Stealing is the act of committing theft. Theft is defined differently to copyright infringement (piracy).

dpkonofa,

It’s not a separate argument, though.

It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost. Both of those things are irrelevant to the point that I made and are distinctly different from the argument I made. The cost of something doesn’t determine whether piracy is justified and my argument isn’t whether piracy can or should be justified.

If you are the victim of copyright infringement, you’ve only lost the potential sale.

This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.

The two ideas are distinctly different. You claim they are the same. They are not. You’re on the cusp of recognising this.

I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different. You need to recognize that those are merely legal terms to differentiate how the legal system treats them. I am not arguing anything about the legality of the two nor am I arguing anything about copyright infringement. I am only talking about ingesting/consuming something without paying for it, regardless of how the law treats it (and that’s not even considering that laws are different depending on where they are defined).

TWeaK,

It absolutely is. I have not argued that piracy shouldn’t exist nor have I made any argument about how much goods and/or services should cost.

No, you’ve argued that piracy and theft are the same thing. I’ve explained how they are not. They are distinctly different.

This is not true. While the loss would not be equal to a physical good, claiming nothing is lost assumes that people’s time/effort/labor have no value and are free. They are not.

That isn’t a loss related to piracy. That’s something that happened regardless of whether or not piracy had occurred.

You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.

I do not claim they are the same. I already recognize they are different.

You haven’t though. You keep saying piracy is theft. Theft has a very clear definition - not just a legal definition, but a definition that has been around for far longer than you or I have been alive.

If, 500 years ago, a monk picked up a book and copied it, he would not be accused of theft. He’s not paying the author - regardless of how recently the book was written - but he is diluting the author’s work and their ability to sell it by producing his copy or copies. But that’s not theft.

Copyright has only existed for a little over 100 years. Since that time, rightsholders have tried to argue that infringing on their copyright was theft, and deserving of similar punishment - all so that they could (they hope) profit more. They put their effort in already, now they feel they deserve money with no further effort (I can’t help but draw back to your argument that people don’t “deserve to view art”, and note the irony). However the argument is just as false then as it is today. You are pushing a false narrative.

Copyright infringement is not theft. The two concepts are distinctly different.

dpkonofa, (edited )

I’ve explained how they are not.

You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating they’re different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.

You are claiming that a potential revenue is akin to a loss. That is a flasehood.

It is not. If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”. In the same way that a “potential” theft of a physical good isn’t the same as the realized theft, the only situation where there is no loss is one where the person didn’t pay for the good and didn’t make use of/get the benefit of the good.

You haven’t though.

Yes, I have. You said “copyright infringement” which is a legal term only. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same. Piracy and theft are. You can’t conflate copyright infringement and piracy because that only is meaningful in a legal sense.

Again, you’re just making a semantic distinction and yet my distinction and argument are far more foundational than that.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

You have not. I brought up a foundational argument that you have yet to refuse. You just keep repeating their different as if it’s a factual statement, completely ignoring that I’ve pointed out a fundamental way in which they are not that is outside of any legal or semantic meaning.

We have, over and over. Software piracy is not theft in the legal, semantic, or moral sense. You have done nothing to prove it is fundamentally theft other then repeatably say it is. Hell you don’t even define what it is you are arguing, you talk about potential loss of creators but then just gloss over all the insane implications that train of logic has. You say its theft but not willing to argue over the legal, literal or moral meaning of the word.

Please provide some foundational argument, because I have not seen anything that would not make our world even more of a laughably absurd corporate hellscape then it already is.

TWeaK,

You just keep repeating their different as if it’s a factual statement

Let’s go for some language definitions then:

We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.

Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of anything. They still have the possession, they can still continue to sell it without any loss. Your argument is entirely centred around the potential lost sale and the cost the owner has in aquiring the possession. That cost occurs either way, and the sale probably would not have happened if no piracy occurred.

Your argument has 2 holes, the one you look at it through and the one in the bottom through which it falls out.

If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”.

Wrong. You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it. This is a false assumption.

You’re not poor because people didn’t pay for your work. You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.

dpkonofa,

We can summarise all of these by saying “theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession”.

Yes… and as I’ve pointed out to you repeatedly, we’re disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that it’s not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.

You’re assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it.

No, I’m not. I’m not assuming anything. I’m flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.

You’re poor because people didn’t want to buy it.

If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.

TWeaK,

I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income.

And, as I have said time and time again, the income you claim would most likely not have been yours if the pirate hadn’t committed copyright infringement. Just because they consumed your media does not mean you are owed money. If they couldn’t have pirated your media, they still would not have paid you. Thus, you are owed nothing. You have lost nothing. No one wanted to buy your thing to begin with.

They were happy to consume it when it was free, they would not have consumed it at the price you were asking.

Edit:

If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.

Sure, they weren’t entitled to it. Copyright infringement/piracy is wrong. They shouldn’t have done that.

But it’s not the same as you writing a physical manuscript and them taking it from you. You still have the game, you’re still selling it, you haven’t lost anything. It’s just that no one wants to buy it.

AhismaMiasma,

“If you don’t agree that the value of the product is worth what someone is charging for it, don’t buy it.”

Good idea, I’ll pirate it instead.

dpkonofa,

Why should you be entitled to consume something that you haven’t paid for?

M0oP0o, (edited )
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

Because that is how markets work. You would not buy a doughnut if you had access to them for free (say in a workplace). By this logic you are stealing every time you don’t pay for something making literally every interaction or lack of interaction a monetary transaction or theft.

Mango,

I didn’t convince them to make that shit. I’m in no contract.

sneezycat,
@sneezycat@sopuli.xyz avatar

I wish piracy was stealing income, I need some of that income.

dpkonofa,

It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.

Zirconium,

The workers already got paid. It’s executives that are being “stolen from.” ( I’m too broke to buy it anyways)

dpkonofa,

That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.

Riven,
@Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.

I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.

Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.

vox.com/…/anime-industry-japan-artists-pay-labor-…

dpkonofa,

It’s not factually untrue. You can’t make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.

Everything else you’ve said is pointless because you’re only arguing about a subset of content. I’m arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don’t pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren’t going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It’s literally as simple as that.

You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.

Zirconium,

The same disturbers that regularly drop content that people pay for and the same disturbers that claim you own something?

dpkonofa,

Not at all what I’m arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don’t own something that they position as “buying” is stealing too. I’m not arguing that and have not said what you’re claiming anywhere. You’re arguing a straw man.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Zirconium,

Bro you’ve left 140 comments on this thread alone? Do you need help or is piracy such an issue that the world collectively needs to get together to fix this.

M0oP0o,
@M0oP0o@mander.xyz avatar

You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.

The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.

Riven,
@Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they’re popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.

Of course they deserve to be paid but I’m arguing that pirating doesn’t cut into their pay because they’ve already been paid before the anime even comes out.

If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.