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

    Your definition is wrong, because your definition of theft is incomplete.

    It is not. The author is deprived of something tangible. They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.

    Copyright infringement only involves the potential profit. There is no actual loss.

    We’re not talking about copyright infringement. That is a legal term that only applies to the legality of the action. I am not discussing the legality.

    There is a potential loss, but not an actual loss.

    This is not true and, since you continue to try and argue the legal matter, it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss, even though that’s not at all what my argument is about.

    Digital piracy is not theft, it’s less than that. It may be wrong, it may be similar, but it’s not theft.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether someone who creates something should be paid by the people who consume the thing they created.

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

      They are deprived of the cost that they are asking for the exchange of being able to consume what they created.

      That cost occurs regardless of whether or not copyright infringement occurs. There is no further loss. Thus, you cannot assign a loss to copyright infringement.

      We’re not talking about copyright infringement.

      We are talking about copyright infringement. That’s what “piracy” is.

      I hope you see now that the definition of words really does matter.

      it has already been determined that piracy is not a potential loss

      You’ve said that, but you’re wrong. This is a clear misassociation.

      Whether something is tangible or not is irrelevant.

      It very much is relevant. If an action causes a loss, then the effect has a cause. If the loss occurs regardless of the action, then you cannot assign cause and effect.

      We’re digging down further into the princples of things. I feel like, before long, we’ll be talking about how magnets work.

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

        We are talking about copyright infringement.

        We’re not. I’m not making any kind of legal distinction.

        I think we just need to agree to disagree. You’re ignoring the very central part of my argument to try and argue the legal distinctions that are irrelevant to my point. If it’s just going to continue to be a semantic argument then I’m not interested in continuing.

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

          We’re not. I’m not making any kind of legal distinction.

          We’re talking about definitions. I say copyright infringement, you say piracy, we mean the same things.

          You say piracy is theft, I say they’re different. That’s where you’re wrong.