this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1210 points (96.6% liked)

memes

9948 readers
3458 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's about them missrepresenting the transaction. If you go to the store and rent a movie then it's an agreement that it's temporary. If you buy it then they can't take it back, what they are doing is fraud and complaining that we don't want to deal with them.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you said, however that has nothing to do with piracy. It's a shitty thing they're doing that we should be mad at, but it in no way sets the definition of piracy, which is what they're going to try to defend against in any argument.

What we should demand is that they properly define buying, owning, and renting so that we own our products. Piracy is piracy no matter what the definition of owning is. Only the reasons change. One reason is that they treat buying as renting, but it does not change the definition of piracy, no matter what we think the definition is.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I agree with you here, piracy isn't theft for reasons unrelated to buying and owning. The reason lies with the infinite reproducibility of the product. While I may agree with the sentiment behind the post, it's not technically a sound argument.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Okay, I can copy anyone's painting, or art, or make a model of their sculpture and make copies. What does the infinite reproducibility have to do with anything?

Why should both the original creator and I be allowed to sell those pieces?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Jumping the gun a little there, aren't you? Nobody said anything about selling the pirated content. With art that's considered forgery, and that's a different crime.

If you steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is then gone. Nobody else gets to have it or see it. That's theft. If I pirate your software, you won't even know I've done it, and any person with a copy of that software keeps it, including you. That's piracy. You see the difference?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Okay I'll take your example. I replace the Mona Lisa with an exact copy and steal the original. Stealing or not?

Apparently the argument is that as long as a copy is left behind, it's not theft, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, not exactly; you're comparing apples and oranges because the original Mona Lisa has value inherent to it being the original, which the copy does not retain. But say you show up and exact copy the Mona Lisa and then take your copy home, that's not only not theft, it's perfectly legal. People take photographs of it all the time.

In software there's no difference between a master copy and the one you've downloaded, there is no additional value inherent to being the "original file" so this comparison doesn't really work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you can't tell the Mona Lisa isnt real because its a perfect copy then there is no value lost. The one thats on display in the museum is very likely not the real one, and yet people still feel all of the feelings of seeing an original.

If noone knew I made the copy and swapped it, noone would ever be harmed by it, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't see why not I suppose.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, I'd still call it stealing much the same as I do piracy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, then you'd be incorrect. Have you been paying attention at all? Even your own argument illustrates why this is. Think about why theft is illegal and it should be immediately apparent why they are different.

You have a cow, I take the cow from you, you starve and die and I make money. That's theft.

You have a cow, I create a perfect copy of that cow and take it home, we both get milk and beef, we both survive in our post-scarcity Star Trek like utopia. The fundamental definition of theft, the taking away of something that belongs to someone else, is impossible here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you steal a piece of art that devalues that art for everyone, which then deprives the producers of the art of income, they then starve, and I get to have a bit of fun that I could have gotten elsewhere for free, real free.

That seems to fit your parameters there, no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Look, the point here isn't that piracy is some magical guilt-free action that gets everyone free stuff for no downside. I'm not arguing that it should be legal. I'm not arguing that it's moral. But it is a fundamentally different crime than theft. We've been talking in circles about this for two days and it's pretty clear that neither of us is going to move off our opinions on the matter. Agree to disagree, then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I actually didnt know how you felt about it until this last post, and I mostly agree. Ive been seeing an aversion here from people to acknowledge the downsides of it though and thats been frustrating. And I even pirate stuff myself.