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

    You’re arguing a legal definition. I am not.

    I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.

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

      It’s not just the legal definition. It’s the dictionary definition, as well.

      Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:

      noun. the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.

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

        It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.

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

            How does that do anything other than prove my point?

            “without permission or legal right”

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

              the action or offense of taking another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.

              Piracy isn’t taking property without the intention to return it. The pirated media itself is property, but it’s being copied rather than stolen. The potential profits from selling said media to you is being taken, but that’s not tangible property capable of being stolen.

              On the other hand, piracy is appropriation. It’s just doesn’t meet the criteria of theft/stealing.

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

                Now you’re just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?

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

                  That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It’s not theft, it’s unethical appropriation of others’ work.

                  Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create

                  I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.

                  Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.

                  Likewise, should the media become unavailable after “purchase” as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).

                  The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn’t get screwed.

                  if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?

                  That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.

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

                    Ugh…but that isn’t the point of my argument that you responded to. I don’t care what you want to call it but arguing that it’s appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.

                    You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you’re sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.

                    I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I’ve never argued against that.

                    I also agree with you about media becoming “unavailable”. I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I’ve argued that using terms like “Buy” and “Sell” for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.

                    I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.

                    This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. “You” want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content “you” want to choose to insert here) that “you” want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.

                    I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.