• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    9 months ago

    It is stealing. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics here. You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.

    • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with? Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money. This is especially the case if the consumer has previously purchased a license to consume the product, and then the company decides to take (or steal) it away. No moral qualms with pirating the same content then.

      It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact. It’s not like a physical BluRay, where if you steal it from a store, you are making that store lose money due to that physical stock being stolen.

      And lastly, how is the company not stealing from consumers when they pull shit like this?

        • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.

          Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?

          Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.

          The definition of theft according to MW: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

          If you do not deprive the original owner of the property (such as: copying), it is not definitionally theft. Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          You hit the nail on the head. That’s why they’re downvoting and arguing. It personally benefits them to steal.

          I’ve said it several times here…I don’t care if people pirate stuff. There are a myriad of reasons to do so. My issue is with the dishonesty of pretending it’s not stealing. Keep doing it, I don’t care, but own up to what you’re doing and admit it’s stealing.

          It’s mental gymnastics because they need to be able to continue stealing but don’t want to feel bad about it.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.

        Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).

        Taking away licenses is wrong. I’m not disputing that. But that doesn’t magically make stealing something that actual people created right.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).

          Are you making an ethical, moral, or legal statement here?

          Ownership of intangibles in this context exists only as a means to support a particular political arrangement. I think you may be assuming others here share your politics; there is no objective moral standard for exclusive ownership of intangibles.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            By that argument, there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value. If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not. If you don’t agree to that premise, then there’s no point in discussing this with you.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value.

              You’re right, there is no moral imperative for people to create (or share) intangibles, but nobody is claiming they have no value.

              If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not.

              Again, is this a ethical, moral, or legal statement? It strikes me as a uniquely ideological statement, but you’ve not elaborated.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.

                Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one. I’m not disputing the legality of anything here (since I believe that the subject of the OP is also illegal - “Buying” something denotes ownership and, therefore, taking it away is also stealing).

                Additionally, I do not have objections against piracy and think there are many legitimate reasons for it. I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.

                  Are you trying to conflate ‘value’ with ‘extractive market value’? There are lots of things that have innate value but have no or very little market value.

                  Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one.

                  It matters if anyone cares to understand what you’re actually asserting, since you’ve again claimed ‘I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing’. How can anyone understand what you mean without knowing what you take ‘stealing’ to mean, and why it matters?

                  Most people here would argue that a system that relies on exclusive ownership of ideas/digitally reproducible data in order to support those who do that labor (that we all benefit from) is one that is broken. In which case ‘stealing’ would be misplacing both to whom the harm being done and the party doing the harm, because it isn’t the fault of the artist or the consumer that the system withholds the means of living from those who are unable to justify their existence through labor.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    That’s all irrelevant. I’m not making some hypothetical point. Whether you agree with “the system” or not, it is the system within which we live and operate and within which people need to make a living. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created. If we accept that and attempt to justify as anything other than theft, then those people will cease to create themselves or will have to work further into the system that you’re arguing against as they will be unable to sustain themselves by creating things within that system.

                    If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things. All the straw man arguments about DRM and corporations that attempt to justify piracy only further reinforce the current system rather than some imagined system.

                    Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone. If you can’t understand ‘stealing’ in its most basic form, then there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.

    • null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.

      You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.

      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.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.

          Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            9 months ago

            Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

                • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.

                  (That was ad-hominem)

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.

                • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

                  Why did I have to look this up for you?

                  Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be “why is it stupid?” or what’s wrong with my way of thinking?", not “stop attacking me, I’m under attack!” At the very least, don’t misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

                    The point is that he didn’t provide any counter to the argument. He’s done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don’t need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I’m making.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s a valid opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Piracy is stealing.

              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.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

                • null@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You’re welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that’s your prerogative.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    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.

        • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it.

          A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?

      • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        LOL they know it’s stealing. Some of them will even blatantly admit it with no guilt.

        Wait, do you think people that pirate things all have the same beliefs or something? Such a weird way to logic. 😅 Truly, that’s a new one.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).

        Digital media should be bought the same way as physical media.

        If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.

        Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

        • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and I have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

          Would make sense if the artist was independent, but corporations pay either a wage or a salary. It is rare for an artist to be paid a percentage of revenue for that product, so the only ones who would be affected by piracy are the corporations who did not directly create the art.

          If I had my way, you’d be able to watch media first and then decide to pay for it. Better yet, you pay for it in advance, watch whatever you want, and then decide how your payment got divided up amongst the artists and creators that you feel deserve your money for their work.

          That would be great, but that is not the case for the vast majority of media. Generally-speaking, media is encumbered with DRM, which prevents the consumer from being able to copy the data or watch it in any way they deem fit (see: streaming services requiring hardware DRM for 4K streaming, even when they charge extra for it)

          Well, that’s a different argument. I believe it is also dishonest to have a “Buy” button for something you don’t actually get to own (that’s bullshit).

          So, given that this is not an option for the vast majority of content, the only alternative where consumers maintain full control over their own media-playing devices is to download a DRM-free copy.

          As Gabe Newell famously said, piracy is a service issue. Steam also has the same problem of lack of ownership and DRM, though, so its users are at the mercy of Valve to not revoke access to purchases.

          GOG is one company who does it right, IMO. Sell only DRM-free copies of games, and allow people to download their copy and back it up to whatever media they want to put it on. This type of practice is rare in the media world, though. Most media companies require DRM on their product in order to license it out.

          Also on the first point, independent producers of content generally don’t put DRM on their work anyway, so no reason not to buy their work.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument. I’m not arguing anything related to DRM or the structure of the market that creates some content.

            • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              This is an entirely separate and dishonest argument.

              My point about DRM is highly relevant in this case, because a consumer cannot own something that is encumbered with DRM. They are renting a license for that product, even if the button they click on says “purchase”, since, hidden in the EULA somewhere, the company decided to redefine the word “purchase”. The company will always be able to revoke that license without notice or permission from the consumer, let alone a refund or any kind of compensation.

              Relevant Louis Rossmann video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GZUCwVRLs

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                Again, it is not relevant because I’m not arguing against the OP. I am only arguing against the dishonesty and mischaracterization of piracy as being something other than stealing.

                • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  If you go up to someone riding their bike and you steal their bike, that is stealing; if you stop someone on their bike in order to 3D scan it, so that you can then 3D print a new one, that is copying, and the bike owner still has their original bike.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    And if everyone just scanned that one person’s bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can’t make bikes anymore because they aren’t getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.

                    This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as “I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don’t need eggs.” without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.

        • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Stealing this stuff, which is what piracy does (and ai have no issue with for all kinds of reasons), only results in the people who made things you want to watch not getting paid to make that stuff.

          Are you saying that if I pirate a movie from 2019, the actors have not been paid for their screentime yet and won’t be paid until I buy the movie in, like, 2028?