• null
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.

    That’s not how piracy works.

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

      No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it’s a different term, I don’t care. You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).

      • null
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them.

        Nope, you’ve potentially violated a contract, but you haven’t stolen anything.

        By your definition, if I lend my friend a DVD movie and they watch it, they’ve now stolen that movie.

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

          More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You’ve stolen the product that they created for you because you haven’t paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.

          And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.

          • null
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty.

            Fuck off with that. I’m being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.

            And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.

            “You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).”

            The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.

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

              I’m being no more dishonest than you.

              Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.

              They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.

              This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.

              • null
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’ve made several arguments and you’ve returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that’s what a debate is?

                Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are.

                You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?

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

                  I’ve made several arguments

                  You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.

                  You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?

                  Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.

                  Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.

                  • null
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.

                    Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.

                    The friend can either:

                    1. Purchase a copy of or license for that movie (digital or physical), compensating the creator.
                    2. Borrow my copy of the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
                    3. Torrent the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.

                    Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.