If you pay for the circus and they take away the circus so you can’t see it, and then replace it for Circus2, did own a ticket for the circus?
Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
Normally people pay to see the circus, but you could just sneak in though. It’s not exactly stalling, so what do you call that? The circus is still there, but you didn’t pay for it. If lots of people start doing that, the circus probably won’t have enough money to keep on performing. Maybe they’ll get rid of the more expensive bits and just keep the cheaper ones in the future.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
poopkins@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That would depend on the terms of sale.
amzd@kbin.social 6 months ago
Unlikely as what you’re implying sounds like a get-out clause in favor of the trader which is not valid.
poopkins@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Without details of the hypothetical scenario made here, we cannot know if that’s the case. If the ticket purchaser was unable to see the circus because their flight home was delayed, the circus has no obligation to refund them. If attendance of “Circus 2” is offered to the purchaser due to the cancellation of “Circus 1” under the conditions of the original ticket purchase, then it’s unlikely to be an unfair contact.
There are all kinds of details missing here that we can freely speculate about.
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
I’m legit unsure whether your argument is purposely bad or you just don’t know that it is.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 months ago
It’s thousand times better than this empty garbage.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 6 months ago
Why is the argument bad? Please elaborate.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Because the issue at hand is more like if you bought tickets to the circus, but when you went to go see it you were told the circus isn’t there anymore and you don’t get a refund.
That I would definately call stealing.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 6 months ago
A more honest analogy for the situation was that there are very few incidents of circuses doing that and now people demand it’s morally justified to get free entrance to every circus, concert, fair, museum, …
jimbo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s like you bought a circus membership to watch the circus at a particular venue as many times as you want. You watched the circus a few dozen times, then one day the circus announces they won’t be going to that venue anymore and you can’t watch it anymore.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 6 months ago
Not enough workers exploitation.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 6 months ago
That’s a bad analogy because there’s finite space for people to watch the circus, meaning that seating for the show they conforms to fire codes, etc. is finite.
It’s also a bad analogy because someone who sneaks into a circus trespassing, not stealing.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
I agree that the analogy isn’t perfect. As you pointed out, people sneaking in are taking space from people who would be willing pay for the service.
If you could somehow sneak into Netflix and take some of their bandwidth or their ability to provide the service to paying customers, then the analogy would work. In reality though, people pirate Netflix shows and movies by torrenting, and that has no impact on Netflix’s bandwidth.
The way I see it, circus and digital videos are a service. You are supposed to pay for both, but you can easily see both of them for free. Comparing these two with stealing just doesn’t work IMO.
You could also compare it with watching a football match from the other side of the fence. Although, in reality, you wouldn’t get a very good view of the game, whereas torrenting movies gives you a great view. Interestingly, the football example doesn’t involve trespassing, but you still get to enjoy a part of the service. All analogies break at some point.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
What would you call it if you buy a piece of art and hang it on your wall, then a couple months later the company that sold you the art comes into your home, takes the art away, and says you don’t own it anymore?
If enough companies do that people are going to stop paying for art.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 6 months ago
People are pirating products that can be purchased and owned.
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
People are also “buying” products that are being taken away from them by the license holders of the purchased work.
AVengefulAxolotl@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Of course they do, there will always be people who pirate. Most people dont mind paying for stuff and services if it respects them.
There is Baldurs Gate 3 for example, you can buy it on GOG without DRM, and I highly doubt it made a dent in their sales.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 6 months ago
Because the majority of people do not pirate because they truly believe they are doing something morally good. That’s laughable.
The majority of people pirates stuff because they feel entitled to it and are greedy and because it works and is easy to do. They do not respect those who put the work into the music or the movies or the games.
What makes me so angry about it is the hypocrisy. Since these are often the same people who are virtue signalling about how capitalism is bad since employers are too greedy to pay good wages.
The irony is quite strong in this.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
People are also shoplifting from stores. That’s irrelevant to what is being discussed here
jimbo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Then the example about the painting is also irrelevant.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
If that was a normal purchase, then that’s clearly theft.
If it was art leasing, there’s probably a long contract with details about a situation like this. No matter what the contract says, the local law might still disagree with that, so it can get complicated. The art company might be violating their own contract, although it is unlikely. The company might be within the rights outlined in the contract, but they might still be breaking the law. You need a lawyer to figure it out.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Well it was sure we fuck presented as a normal purchase. Adding legal text to where you sign the cheque saying “you may come to my house and take this away at any time” doesn’t make it less bullshit.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
The world is full of bad contracts. It’s truly sad that we decided to accept them without making numerous alterations here and there.
jimbo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That company is also going to show you the agreement you signed that says they can do that, which is the current situation with digital goods. People are still buying them.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Nobody said otherwise. The argument isn’t “this is illegal”, it’s “this is bullshit.”
And the argument being put forward is that people shouldn’t be.