1781
Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
(pluralistic.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
1781 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
73698 readers
3202 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally no one thinks that. But you know that already, don't you?
It's theft of intellectual property...
There is no such thing as intellectual property - you can not own a thought.
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.
You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.
You seem to not understand what "theft" means.
I have a thing and than someone takes it away, so I can't use it anymore. If somebody copies that thing - it's not really theft.
My point is more - concepts from physical world don't nessessary apply to digital world.
Yes, it absolutely is, by any standard. Ask the dictionary, ask the law, ask literally any authority on literacy and they all come up with the same verdict.
You're just lying to yourself to justify doing whatever you want.
If you want to argue when piracy is and is not ethical, that is a different discussion we can have, and we'd likely largely agree. But saying that anything that is digital doesn't belong to anyone is pure nonsense.
Sure buddy what ever makes you happy.
None of this makes me happy
That's strange, ignorance is supposed to be bliss.
Sorry to hear.
You say “ask the dictionary” — multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question, which obviously doesn’t apply to copyright infringement of digital works.
You say “ask the law” — copyright infringement is not stealing, they are literally two completely different statutes, at least in the US.
So, what the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is not theft.
Like many words, "theft" has several different definitions, that being one of them.
Congratulations, that's the 4th strawman in this thread. No one is talking about copyrights.
So what the hell are you talking about?
My brother/sister in Christ, everyone in this discussion is talking about copyright infringement. That is the actual legal name for what we colloquially refer to as “piracy,” according to, you know, the law, which you previously referenced as something we should look to.
It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn't be paid if their work doesn't create something physical.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I just make a difference between copying, stealing, physical goods, digital goods and immaterial things. They are not the same.
Easy examples: original and copy does not really apply to digital works or two people on opposite sides of world can have the same thought but not have the same physical object at the same time, etc.
Please name for me something someone could create on a computer, that you would agree they should be paid for; even if they show a demonstration copy to someone.
What ever they can find someone to pay for. I my self pay or use legally free software for my work. I just do t think that if someone pirates a copy of adobe cs it's equivalent to theft of a physical good. Completely ok in my book for private use a bit shady for commercial use - but adobe subscription model is shady in my book anyway.
So…say you like to use Sublime Text. And you pay for a premium license. How do you know the person you paid is the person who wrote Sublime Text?
In fact, let’s suppose one day you go online and it seems there are hundreds of excellent open source IDEs, all of which look a lot like Sublime Text, with different names. Who deserves the credit? It could be theorized that each of the authors you’re looking at DID pay for their initial copy; and since software is free to use in any way you like, it’s free to sell its use, right?
The above is not a problem in our world where the code of the application in question is the intellectual property of its original author - that even when he makes it open source, he retains the rights to put a donation/premium button in the help menu.
I’d still like a direct answer; what goods can most normal people produce on a computer that, absent intellectual property laws, they could still commonly sell? I’d also question what would be the path for highly niche specializations where, currently their work sells for high prices due to the constrain on supply. If everyone worked off of a FOSS donation model, they likely would not have so many four-digit donators.
Dude are you really that dense? I say that digital goods are not the same as physical goods and the concept of ownership or theft which applies to physical goods does not apply in the same way to non physical goods. Humans created different frameworks to be able to make money and integrate non material goods into economy. But that does not change the nature of things: unlimited number of people can have the same thought at the same time in different physical locations - that is not possible with physical objects; if someone copies an digital objects it's still there for others to use, not so much if someone steals an objects.
If we are talking about copyright infringement, sure - but don't equate copyright infringement to theft. And we can talk about use of immaterial goods, but no-one really owns them. Again - you can not own an idea, even if you create a legal framework that pretends that it's possible - at any given time at any given place someone can come up with the same idea even as complex as say - periodic system of elements.
That’s a lot of words. So, what’s the answer to the question?
If copying is an action open to everyone, what can a person create on a computer, that they could expect other people to pay them for? What could they make that doesn’t have equal value simply to copy, than to buy from its creator?
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.
Wow look that's 3 strawman in a row, you guys are exceptional at fabricating fictional arguments to tear down.
If you're going to use that word you should at least know what it means so you don't sound stupid.
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.
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.
Why are you making up a story about an artist not getting paid?
People who are not human fucking garbage care. If your position is that you simply 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.
It's abundantly clear at this point that you don't think people are entitled to compensation for work performed or the products they create so it makes perfect sense that you feel that way.
Honestly that's only because people are intimidated by big words.
Don't know, never heard of it.
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.
...huh?
...no? What are you talking about? All it involves is illegally copying someone else's work.
Isn't 'theft of intellectual property' taking someone else's work and try to pass it off as your own?
No.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
No, you have it wrong, one is part of a strategy to confuse the public into thinking it's not, because it justifies doing whatever they want.
But they don't feel that copyright infringement is wrong. How closely did you read the previous statements?
They literally said "Intellectual property is a scam". I don't know how else you could possibly interpret that
I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?
Exactly, "intellectual property" doesn't exist. It's a term that was created to try to lump together various unrelated government-granted rights: trademark, copyright, patents, etc. They're all different, and the only thing they have in common is that they're all rights granted by the government. None of them is property though. That was just a clever term made up by a clever lobbyist to convince people to think of them as property, rather than government-granted rights related to the copying of ideas. Property is well-understood, limited government-granted rights to control the copying of ideas is less well understood. If the lobbyists can get people to think of "intellectual property" they've won the framing of the issue.
So it's just a classic case of someone saying something entirely unrepresentative of what they actually mean, then arguing it to death...?
Nah, if I stole their IP, they wouldn't have it anymore
Nah, that's not how that works.