Literally no one thinks that. But you know that already, don’t you?
It’s theft of intellectual property…
Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months agoOne of the great modern scams, was to convince society that unauthorized copying of data is somehow equivalent to taking away a physical object.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
There is no such thing as intellectual property - you can not own a thought.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Once again with the strawman.
Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It’s an idea or digital creation. Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time. Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.
I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 months ago
I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.
I love how you bootlickers always deny that anyone could possibly have a principled objection to modern intellectual property laws. I don’t need to “justify” at all. I rarely even pirate anything, but I don’t believe I’m doing anything wrong when I do.
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It’s an idea
Ah, it’s an idea, not a thought. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up.
Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time.
Who the fuck cares? Dinner also takes a great deal of time to make.
Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.
That’s not true. People have been telling stories and creating art since humanity climbed down from the trees. Compensation might encourage more people to do it, but there was never a time that people weren’t creating, regardless of compensation. In addition, copyright, patents and trademarks are only one way of trying to get compensation. The Sistine chapel ceiling was painted not by an artist who was protected by copyright, but by an artist who had rich patrons who paid him to work.
Maybe “Meg 2: The Trench” wouldn’t have been made unless Warner Brothers knew it would be protected by copyright until 2143. But… maybe it’s not actually necessary to give that level of protection to the expression of ideas for people to be motivated to make them. In addition, maybe the harms of copyright aren’t balanced by the fact that people in 2143 will finally be able to have “Meg 2: The Trench” in the public domain.
aylex@lemm.ee 11 months ago
“Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.”
Just telling on yourself 😂
schmidtster@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Than why are there “marketing” campaigns that use that slogan to denounce piracy?
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Honestly that’s only because people are intimidated by big words.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Never heard of it.
schmidtster@lemmy.world 11 months ago
youtu.be/HmZm8vNHBSU?si=wlEnYZKREf8L_E-o
It’s not even that old of a campaign lmfao.
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Intellectual property is a scam, the term was invented to convince dumb people that a government-granted monopoly on the expression of an idea is the same thing as “property”.
You can’t “steal” intellectual property, you can only infringe on someone’s monopoly rights.
Katana314@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This feels like an easy statement to make when it applies to Disney putting out new Avatar movies. Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took, instead of re-printing it without your permission.
“InfORMaTioN wANts tO Be FrEe, yO.”
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took
That’s a pretty specific example. Probably because in many cases photographers are paid in advance. A wedding photographer doesn’t show up at the wedding, take a lot of pictures, then try to work out a deal with the couple getting married. They negotiate a fee before the wedding, and when the wedding is over they turn over the pictures in exchange for the money. Other photographers work on a salary.
Besides, even with your convoluted, overly-specific example, even without a copyright, a magazine would probably pay for the photo. Even if they didn’t get to control the copying of the photo, they could still get the scoop and have the picture out before other people. In your world, how would they “reprint” it without your permission? Would they break into your house and sneakily download it from your phone or camera?
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
That is absolutely 100% a completely insane position. The fact that you feel entitled to literally everything someone else creates it’s fucking horrific and you are a sad person.
TootGuitar@reddthat.com 11 months ago
For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.
Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”
What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 months ago
If no one thinks that, why are you saying it right now?
Actual theft of intellectual property would involve somehow tricking the world into thinking you hold the copyright to something that someone else owns.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
If no one thinks that, why are you saying it right now?
…huh?
Actual theft of intellectual property would involve somehow tricking the world into thinking you hold the copyright to something that someone else owns.
…no? What are you talking about? All it involves is illegally copying someone else’s work.
50_centavos@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Isn’t ‘theft of intellectual property’ taking someone else’s work and try to pass it off as your own?
psud@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Nah, if I stole their IP, they wouldn’t have it anymore
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
That’s not how that works.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 months ago
So you also believe people shouldn’t need a ticket for a concert, for example?
Cypher@aussie.zone 11 months ago
The performers time is not infinitely reproducible so your argument is apples and oranges.
ominouslemon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
But the time to create a novel, a videogame, or a news story is not infinitely reproducible, either. So when you are pirsting one of those things, you are actively reaping the benefits of someone’s time for free, like going to a concert without a ticket
veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 months ago
There’s a difference between the performer’s time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user’s time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.
Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I’m actually paying for something to be made.
Chobbes@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah, this is the real issue. That said it is a shame and a waste for the results of these efforts to be artificially restricted. I do really hope that one day we can find a way to keep people fed and happy while fully utilizing the incredible technology we have for copying and redistributing data.
Coasting0942@reddthat.com 11 months ago
But it is though: via the power of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_television?wprov…
Though you could charge for the experience of other sweaty humans, bad ventilation in some cases, and the thrill of potentially being trampled
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
I don’t see anything wrong with paying for software or music or digital media. I don’t think that not doing so is theft - like I also don’t think that getting into a concert without paying is theft. By the way a concert is also not digital data, at least an irl one.
snooggums@kbin.social 11 months ago
Why do you hate libraries?
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A library card is your ticket there and libraries are paid via taxes, which is why they’re free at point of use.
Attending a free concert is not stealing. Breaking into the Eras tour is.
snooggums@kbin.social 11 months ago
The library buys once and allows multiple people to read/watch each item without each person needing to individually purchase. Just like one person buying something and sharing it with others.
The main point is that digitization distribution is not a concert
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 months ago
Libraries get money via tax. What people here are arguing for is that others should work for them or free. Because game studios, for example, are overwhelmingly not paid via tax money. They are depending on people buying their software.
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 11 months ago
Do you think I should be forced to pay for a ticket if I’m standing next to the concert venue on the sidewalk but can still hear the performance?
psud@aussie.zone 11 months ago
I have never had a problem with people taking a tape recorder to a concert, even if it’s against terms of service
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 months ago
But you do understand that if nobody would buy a ticket, there wouldn’t be concerts?
dpkonofa@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not a scam. It is equivalent to it in some ways and not in others. In a capitalist and globalist society (like the one we’re in), goods have a price and a value. Copying data can be done without a price but it can’t be done without value. If someone created something of value and our society rewards that value with money and people need that money to survive, pay their bills, and support their families, then it’s not possible to copy that data without depriving the creator of its value.
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
Still not theft.
dpkonofa@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It is theft. It’s theft of value and income rather than theft of a good, though. If you can’t admit that then you’re not here to have a good faith discussion of the topic. You’re just here to bloviate and validate your own opinion.
schmidtster@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So it’s theft if a lend a book to someone since they didnt pay for it…?
AeroLemming@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Not a lawyer, but most of what you said is true, except:
then it’s not possible to copy that data without depriving the creator of its value.
We’re talking about the theoretical value the creator might get if you decide to pay for something. If you never had any intention of paying to access something if you couldn’t find a pirated copy, no value has been lost by the creator due to copying the data and therefore no harm has been done. The requirement for criminal liability should be that a harm has been inflicted by you beyond any reasonable doubt. Piracy as a deprivation of monetary value can not ever meet this requirement. Of course, the actual requirement is that you have committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt, so if corrupt legislators make piracy a crime, the justice system can obviously charge you with it despite it being victimless, hence the scam.
dpkonofa@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What you just highlighted is still true, even if you disagree with it. The social contract of goods and services that underpins our entire economic system globally is that, in order to ingest a good (in this case, media), you’re agreeing to pay someone for the time that it took them to create that good in exchange for the value and enjoyment you get in ingesting it. If you never had an intention of paying and wouldn’t access it if you couldn’t find a pirated copy, then you’d move on and ingest something else, if that social contract was being upheld. The point being that, if you didn’t pay for it, you wouldn’t get to read/watch/listen to it. You can’t definitively say that no harm has been done because you can’t definitively say that you wouldn’t pay for it if that was an option. If piracy wasn’t an option but all your friends bought whatever and were constantly talking about it, you’d likely end up paying for it to be able to partake in those discussions. Game of Thrones, for example, was both the most-watched show on HBO and the most pirated show. If it wasn’t available to pirate, it’s dishonest to say that none of the people that did pirate it wouldn’t have paid for it and wouldn’t have watched it.
Coasting0942@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Jesus didn’t ask for permission to copy bread and fish. It’s a clear moral precedent that if you can copy you should.
What would the Jesus do?
Checkmate Atheists!
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
Jesus was the first pirate.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Nah, that would be Prometheus.
diannetea@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Wasn’t the idea and origin story of Jesus stolen from previous texts and religions lol
odium@programming.dev 11 months ago
They forked Judaism
gapbetweenus@feddit.de 11 months ago
Pretty sure it was Marvel or something.
LemmysMum@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Athiests don’t have a problem with Middle-Eastern Socialist Jews, the ‘Christians’ sure do.