Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
        144·
        11 months ago

        You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
            134·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
              42·
              11 months ago

              It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be paid if their work doesn’t create something physical.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
                22·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
                    2·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

              • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
                42·
                11 months ago

                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.

                  • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
                    31·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
        64·
        11 months ago

        I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.

        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.

      • aylex@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        “Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.”

        Just telling on yourself 😂

      • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        23·
        11 months ago

        Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It’s an idea

        Ah, it’s an idea, not a thought. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up.

        Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time.

        Who the fuck cares? Dinner also takes a great deal of time to make.

        Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.

        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.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
          32·
          11 months ago

          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.