4848
preach (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
408 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

Fair enough. By what authority do you assert intellectual property belongs to a private entity and not the public?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    That isn't something I claimed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    You certainly asserted such by arguing piracy is morally wrong. If IP belonged to the public (id est there's no patent or copyright) then everything would be in the public domain. Media piracy would not be a thing.

    But you assert not only is it a thing but it is morally wrong.

    So please, by what authority are you asserting puts IP in the hands of private interests, thus making piracy a moral wrongdoing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    You certainly asserted such by arguing piracy is morally.

    No I didn't. You are either ignoring or misunderstanding what I'm saying. My claim is that certain arguments don't justify why piracy is permissible. Not that piracy is morally wrong.

    If IP belonged to the public ...

    I'm not making any claims about who IP belongs to.

    So please, by what authority are you asserting puts IP in the hands of private interests, thus making piracy a moral wrongdoing.

    I can't give you any authority on this because if you reread what I actually said, I'm not claiming piracy is morally wrong and I'm not claiming anything about IP ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    You revised your text to change its wording. No footnotes.

    And then you accuse me of ignoring or misunderstanding without acknowledgement that you've altered the thread.

    I can no longer assume that you're arguing in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    You revised your text to change its wording. No footnotes.

    I'm pretty new to lemmy, but in the web interface comments which have been edited show a little pencil icon with their edit time where the post time used to be. If you look through our comment exchange you'll notice, none of my comments to you have that icon. I did edit a comment to somebody else, in that comment I added a footnote asking for more details about a point they were making, this had nothing to do with our exchange.

    Notice also, in my original message (which has not been edited), my point was "I don’t think this particular line of thought makes for a very good argument without more info", this is exactly what I have been telling you my point was this whole time, whether or not I edited any comments.

    I can no longer assume that you’re arguing in good faith.

    It's pretty ironic to assume the other person is not acting in good faith while you continually respond to a misrepresentation of their position. This is very literally a strawman fallacy. If you aren't intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying, then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent