• Refurbished Refurbisher
    link
    15
    edit-2
    5 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?

    • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      -5
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with?

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

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

      They are if you take something they created.

      It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact.

      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.

      I don’t know how these justifications can be described as anything other than “mental gymnastics” because they obviously make zero sense and personally benefit you.

      • Refurbished Refurbisher
        link
        6
        edit-2
        5 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.

        • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          15 months ago

          Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?

          No one. The person who did the work did so with the intention of generating income.

          Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.

          Does it really matter? What’s the important differentiation there?

      • Zoolander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -95 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -95 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]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -65 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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            65 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -35 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]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                25 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -15 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.

                  • archomrade [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    35 months ago

                    It doesn’t matter whose fault it is.

                    ‘Piracy is stealing’ certainly seems to be a statement of fault, doesn’t it?

                    What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created.

                    No, that someone is being deprived of something in the first instance by being made to justify their existence through their labor. That someone isn’t willing to pay for that labor is only depriving them in the second instance, and there are innumerable examples where essential labor is uncompensated in our market system.

                    If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things.

                    That is not a given. I happen to think that by returning the time that was stolen from us (or some portion thereof) by coercing us into labor, we can all be free to create what we want. Forcing art to abide by the rules of the free market only serves to corrupt it, not enable it to sustain itself.

                    Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone.

                    Stealing actually has a bunch of definitions, and most of them depend upon the abstract concept of ‘property’.

                    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.

                    Finally something we can agree on.