▲ 1274 ▼ When corporations scrape academic papers, it's justified. When individuals do it, it's inexcusable. (lemmy.ml) submitted 2 years ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] What_Religion_R_They@hexbear.net 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] doctortran@lemm.ee -13 points 2 years ago (3 children) Find me any charitable, non-profit, or community organization that wouldn't call the cops if someone was breaking into their networking closet to install data harvesting hardware. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not disproving their point, though. If anything, if the opposition is like this, it makes them seem all the more credible... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago There was no meaningful point made, just a bad faith demand in defense of corporations. it makes them seem all the more credible... To a credulous rube like yourself, sure. Keep licking that boot! Maybe one day you can wear it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago why are you on here if you're this much of a bootlicker? go pay for digital media like an idiot if you feel this way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] weker01@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I know of a case in a German university where something like that was dealt with quietly and internally. But your argumentation structure is flawed. It would be better to argue what an organization ought to do and how that is legally and ethically justified than to argue that every organization would call the cops. I mean your argumentation boils down to your own ignorance (I don't know of any case ergo it is impossible/improbable) or hand waving that it is obvious. That is not convincing Argument imho even if what you are arguing for is correct. Which I don't believe just to be clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] doctortran@lemm.ee -13 points 2 years ago (3 children) Find me any charitable, non-profit, or community organization that wouldn't call the cops if someone was breaking into their networking closet to install data harvesting hardware. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not disproving their point, though. If anything, if the opposition is like this, it makes them seem all the more credible... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago There was no meaningful point made, just a bad faith demand in defense of corporations. it makes them seem all the more credible... To a credulous rube like yourself, sure. Keep licking that boot! Maybe one day you can wear it! permalink fedilink source parent [–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago why are you on here if you're this much of a bootlicker? go pay for digital media like an idiot if you feel this way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] weker01@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I know of a case in a German university where something like that was dealt with quietly and internally. But your argumentation structure is flawed. It would be better to argue what an organization ought to do and how that is legally and ethically justified than to argue that every organization would call the cops. I mean your argumentation boils down to your own ignorance (I don't know of any case ergo it is impossible/improbable) or hand waving that it is obvious. That is not convincing Argument imho even if what you are arguing for is correct. Which I don't believe just to be clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not disproving their point, though. If anything, if the opposition is like this, it makes them seem all the more credible... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago There was no meaningful point made, just a bad faith demand in defense of corporations. it makes them seem all the more credible... To a credulous rube like yourself, sure. Keep licking that boot! Maybe one day you can wear it! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not disproving their point, though. If anything, if the opposition is like this, it makes them seem all the more credible... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago There was no meaningful point made, just a bad faith demand in defense of corporations. it makes them seem all the more credible... To a credulous rube like yourself, sure. Keep licking that boot! Maybe one day you can wear it! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago There was no meaningful point made, just a bad faith demand in defense of corporations. it makes them seem all the more credible... To a credulous rube like yourself, sure. Keep licking that boot! Maybe one day you can wear it! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago why are you on here if you're this much of a bootlicker? go pay for digital media like an idiot if you feel this way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] weker01@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I know of a case in a German university where something like that was dealt with quietly and internally. But your argumentation structure is flawed. It would be better to argue what an organization ought to do and how that is legally and ethically justified than to argue that every organization would call the cops. I mean your argumentation boils down to your own ignorance (I don't know of any case ergo it is impossible/improbable) or hand waving that it is obvious. That is not convincing Argument imho even if what you are arguing for is correct. Which I don't believe just to be clear. permalink fedilink source parent
