• 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.

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

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

      It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.

      If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.

      Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.

      I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.

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

        You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you

        They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.

        If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession.

        I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.

        Don’t move the goalposts.

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

          They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.

          Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you’re ignoring it.

          I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.

          Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.

          Don’t move the goalposts.

          I’m not. You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.

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

            Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD.

            But that’s not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.

            Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes.

            Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.

            Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good.

            The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.

            You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.

            I’m not ignoring it, you’ve just failed to demonstrate it for this example.

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

              The limited physical good is the plastic circle.

              This is just dishonest, yet again. Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely. The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.

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

                Without that physical good, you cannot distribute the file copied on that disc indefinitely.

                Ridiculous, of course you can. You just copy it to another DVD, or a flash drive, or stream it over the internet. If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

                The content is not the physical medium for digital goods.

                I can rip that DVD to my laptop, backup the file to my laptop, and I’d be in the clear legally, morally, or however else you want to look at it.

                If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.

                The entire reason the current situation exists as it does is because of the distinction between tangible and intangible goods which, again, you keep ignoring.

                No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.

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

                  If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

                  This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method. That’s the entire distinction between this physical media and the intangible product on the disc. You’re continuing to be dishonest.

                  If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.

                  I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

                  No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.

                  Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

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

                    This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method.

                    Again, ridiculous. The file is on the distribution company’s sever. A copy of that file has been destroyed. Extremely key distinction.

                    I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

                    Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file, and the physical medium you got it on is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.

                    Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

                    I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too. That’s gotta make things hard.