1388
Crunchyroll
(lemy.lol)
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 08 Feb 2024
1388 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
7821 readers
1762 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.
It's just as much "stealing" as me not watching it at all.
I'm infringing on their copyright, absolutely, but I'm not taking anything away from them that they could otherwise profit from.
You can't reason with him. He is an anti-piracy troll.
For him, any comparison made to help him understand is a logical fallacy and any evidence presented against his argument is "irrelevant" as he puts it.
It is like arguing with a trump-like narcissist lol. "My argument counts and yours is wrong, but if yours is right then it is irrelevant, made up, and/or a straw man. If I don't understand something then it is an attack and I will insult you and instantly label you inferior."
It's sad honestly and just like them all he is all "think of the poor artists who created the media you love" while conveniently ignoring that in the music industry, many/most artists don't even get royalties because the record labels swindled then forced them to sign their lives and works away getting a couple pennies on the dollar.
Video game industry is salaried. All profits go to the corporations outside of indie games. Movies, outside of the big name stars, earn almost poverty wages and absolutely 0.00% of what gets sold because the studios are so incredibly corrupt.
Not to mention dead artists where unless they were extremely smart, their families are likely earning 0% of sold media.
Also not getting into the fact that copyright used to be very short until large corporations bribed lawmakers constantly and for so much corrupt money that they changed copyright to extend an extreme amount of time, otherwise things from the 90s would already be public domain if there wasn't so much blatant bribery and corruption done by the people you are "stealing" from.
Unless you are pirating things from Dolly Parton or someone who was business savvy enough to not get cheated by the studios, you are not stealing from the artists in any crazy mental gymnastic stretch of the imagination.
Piracy, at the very worst, is stealing from long time hard criminals. There is not a single big record corporation that has not committed a multitude of thefts, blackmail, drug dealing, bribery of government officials, and worse. That isn't even getting into the crimes of porn studios and movie studios. Disney mass murdered animals on camera for views as one example.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.
Then why is digital piracy legally considered to be copyright infringement instead of theft?
That’s irrelevant. I’m not arguing the legality of it.
Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.
You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.
Stop being dishonest.
Saying your argument is stupid isn't attacking you, dude.
That's a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.
I'm not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I'm arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You're stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don't care if people pirate things but admit that it's stealing and move on.
No it is not. By any definition.
You can think it's morally wrong, that's fine. But it simply, factually is not stealing.
That's the only point I'm making.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you're gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.
You're welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that's your prerogative.
Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they've demanded in return, it's stealing.
To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.
That's not how piracy works.
No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don't pay them after they've created it, you're stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it's a different term, I don't care. You're stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they're asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).
Nope, you've potentially violated a contract, but you haven't stolen anything.
By your definition, if I lend my friend a DVD movie and they watch it, they've now stolen that movie.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You've stolen the product that they created for you because you haven't paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.
And no... by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they've stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
Fuck off with that. I'm being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.
"You're stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they're asking to be compensated in exchange for that work)."
The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven't stolen from me, but they've stolen from the creator, according to you.
Yes, you are. You're pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I've already given several examples of why that's not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you're being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you're giving do not apply to the situation I'm arguing.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
I've made several arguments and you've returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that's what a debate is?
You haven't demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
You've made several arguments that don't address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren't relevant because you're ignoring fundamental differences. I'm not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I've said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a "used" intangible item or "lend" (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
The friend can either:
Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.
It's not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You've moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.
If we're talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don't need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you've made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you're lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else's effort without compensating them for that.
I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can't watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn't mean it's not worth compensation.
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
I've already "ingested" the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has "gained something from their work without compensating them".
Don't move the goalposts.
Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you're ignoring it.
Yes... of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can't all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.
I'm not. You're still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
But that's not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.
I'm not ignoring it, you've just failed to demonstrate it for this example.
This is just dishonest, yet again. Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely. The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.
Ridiculous, of course you can. You just copy it to another DVD, or a flash drive, or stream it over the internet. If I snap the that disc, I've done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.
The content is not the physical medium for digital goods.
I can rip that DVD to my laptop, backup the file to my laptop, and I'd be in the clear legally, morally, or however else you want to look at it.
If you want to be consistent, then you'd have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I'm stealing.
No, it's the red herring you keep pushing.
A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?