• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    9 months ago

    Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.

    The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.

    I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, it’s exactly the same logic.

      The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn’t their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.

      In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:

      • Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.

      • Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.

      • Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.

      • Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.

      There’s a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren’t depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.

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

        It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you’re paying money for the product of their labor.

        Everything else you’ve said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else’s work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it’s a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.

          You don’t steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don’t prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can’t prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.

          It’s all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it’s as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can “kill” an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That’s why words have meanings, and different things have different names.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.

      What if I don’t sell it? If someone opts to use FreeCAD instead of Fusion360, did FreeCAD steal income from Autodesk?

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

        Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the product and not paying for that use.

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

          What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?

          You should pick your examples more carefully.

          You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?

            That’s wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I’m making. It’s a total straw man.

            You should pick your examples more carefully.

            I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷‍♂️

            You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.

            How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s a total straw man.

              Not a straw man at all, but I’ll let it slide.

              I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷‍♂️

              Fair point.

              How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?

              You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Not a straw man at all

                It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.

                Fair point.

                I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.

                You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.

                Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.

                  It isn’t a reconciliation, it’s an admission that you are right on that point, and that I was mistaken.

                  Only in a legal sense

                  It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.

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

                    You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.

                    It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.

                    It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.

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

        Ingesting something doesn’t only mean eating it. It literally means “to bring into”.