Than why are there “marketing” campaigns that use that slogan to denounce piracy?
Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months agoLiterally no one thinks that. But you know that already, don’t you?
It’s theft of intellectual property…
schmidtster@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
My guy I think maybe you don’t realize how old you are because that campaign is 25+ years old 🤣
That is just typical corporate disinformation and not reflective of modern opinions held by real people.
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?
Katana314@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is the kind of situation I’m citing:
arstechnica.com/…/one-mans-endless-hopeless-strug…
A lot of photography is not based on planning ahead before being paid (a person requests Photo X, and then pays on delivery). Nature photographers, and in fact many other forms of artists, produce a work before people know/feel they want it, and then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website, and then requests use of that work themselves.
The struggles of the above insect photographer are even with the existing IP laws - they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into, and VERY MANY media outlets don’t bother; to say nothing of giving a charitable donation.
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.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”
But they don’t feel that copyright infringement is wrong. How closely did you read the previous statements?
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?
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
No.
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.
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.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
You seem to not understand what “theft” means.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 months ago
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.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Wow look that’s 3 strawman in a row, you guys are exceptional at fabricating fictional arguments to tear down.
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Ah, it’s an idea, not a thought. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up.
Who the fuck cares? Dinner also takes a great deal of time to make.
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.
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 11 months ago
Why should an artist not be paid but a gardener or someone who build your house is supposed to be paid?
After all, humans build stuff and make stuff with plants without compensation all the time.
You just sound like a Boomer who thinks work is only work when the product isn’t entertaining or art.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
People who are not human fucking garbage care. If you don’t care about stealing from someone else what they spent years of time and money to create, you’re just a trash person and this conversation is moot.
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 😂
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
What is that supposed to mean?