• skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    I agree with you here, piracy isn’t theft for reasons unrelated to buying and owning. The reason lies with the infinite reproducibility of the product. While I may agree with the sentiment behind the post, it’s not technically a sound argument.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Okay, I can copy anyone’s painting, or art, or make a model of their sculpture and make copies. What does the infinite reproducibility have to do with anything?

      Why should both the original creator and I be allowed to sell those pieces?

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Jumping the gun a little there, aren’t you? Nobody said anything about selling the pirated content. With art that’s considered forgery, and that’s a different crime.

        If you steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is then gone. Nobody else gets to have it or see it. That’s theft. If I pirate your software, you won’t even know I’ve done it, and any person with a copy of that software keeps it, including you. That’s piracy. You see the difference?

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Okay I’ll take your example. I replace the Mona Lisa with an exact copy and steal the original. Stealing or not?

          Apparently the argument is that as long as a copy is left behind, it’s not theft, right?

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Well, not exactly; you’re comparing apples and oranges because the original Mona Lisa has value inherent to it being the original, which the copy does not retain. But say you show up and exact copy the Mona Lisa and then take your copy home, that’s not only not theft, it’s perfectly legal. People take photographs of it all the time.

            In software there’s no difference between a master copy and the one you’ve downloaded, there is no additional value inherent to being the “original file” so this comparison doesn’t really work.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              If you can’t tell the Mona Lisa isnt real because its a perfect copy then there is no value lost. The one thats on display in the museum is very likely not the real one, and yet people still feel all of the feelings of seeing an original.

              If noone knew I made the copy and swapped it, noone would ever be harmed by it, right?

                  • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Well, then you’d be incorrect. Have you been paying attention at all? Even your own argument illustrates why this is. Think about why theft is illegal and it should be immediately apparent why they are different.

                    You have a cow, I take the cow from you, you starve and die and I make money. That’s theft.

                    You have a cow, I create a perfect copy of that cow and take it home, we both get milk and beef, we both survive in our post-scarcity Star Trek like utopia. The fundamental definition of theft, the taking away of something that belongs to someone else, is impossible here.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      But this is an even more easily defeated argument. It’s suggesting that anything that can be copy-pasted through File Explorer should never have a monetary compensation for its existence. Given the immense hours devoted to making video games, most people would inherently disagree with that. I think the only people who’d lend any credence to the idea would be cheapskates wanting free entertainment.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          And, fun fact, in order for GPL software to operate commercially, they sell “licenses” - yes, foregoing the antipirating software, but still pursuing people with lawyers.

          And guess what Oracle has to spend so much time doing?…Because, as it turns out, even businesses are cheapskates.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It doesn’t mean that at all. What it means is that it isn’t theft. It’s software piracy. When you’re finished downloading your software, everyone who had a copy of that software still has it. So you haven’t stolen anything. You haven’t taken resources from anyone. You aren’t depriving someone else of this object and using it yourself instead. You’ve simply made a copy of an infinitely copiable medium. Sure you did so without paying for it, that’s why piracy is a crime. But it isn’t theft. You haven’t taken anything away from anyone. In fact you’ve done the opposite, and increased the total amount of ordered data in the world, but I won’t try to spin that as something chivalrous for this argument, that’s a different discussion.

        Point is, say what you want about piracy and its dubious legality, it factually is not theft.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          This is like saying that pointing a loaded gun at a puppy isn’t technically murder or assault. You’re still admitting it’s a harmful and illegal act, and are fussing over the terminology used.

          It’s also ignoring how labels and word usage shift for the sake of modern convenience. Words like “insane”, “sick”, generally weren’t used positively in history. If I said a game “technically doesn’t have loot boxes” you’d be pretty upset if you found it still had paid randomized loot, even if they were not technically contained in a six-sided “box”. You’re being overly specific about the words when much of the world agrees you’re taking something you’re not entitled to.

          The difference between what you call theft and copyright infringement doesn’t have effective benefit to the seller, especially since even in physical retail, the supply of an item is often largely irrelevant for a store’s financials. As such, I am okay with referring to both as the same thing, even if you’d currently find dictionaries that separate them.

          EDIT: Fun. It looks like after I posted this comment, someone went through and downvoted all of my comments listed on my profile, even on completely different topics. Don’t anger pirates, kids! You will never beat their pettiness.