You're viewing a single thread.
b-b-but it's not theft 😢
Semantically doesn’t matter much.
If a peach seller has a harvest of 1,000 peaches that will go bad in a week, he doesn’t care about “only having 940 peaches” when someone steals 60 of them. He cares that he spent all that effort and money growing the peaches on the bet he’d make a profit, rented the shop space in the market, hired an assistant to bag and sell them, and some douchebag still didn’t pay for them.
The quantity of product a seller maintains is generally almost completely irrelevant to the costs. It’s about the societal expectations of paying your due to people who have put work into something you want.
Ok so alternatively, instead of "stealing" peaches, I pay $10 monthly for Peaches+, which means I get to look at the peaches whenever I want to until they go bad. Sometimes new peaches arrive but they rarely look as good as the previous ones. Then when I eventually cancel my Peaches+ subscription I still don't own a single peach even though I paid a lot of money.
You Wouldn’t Look At A Peach…
And you only get to see what peaches Peaches+ has the rights for at this time. There's no guarantee they'll have a Canadian Harmony next week, and if you didn't try one when they were available, then that sucks. There's a used bluray copy of Canadian Harmony available on Amazon for $60 if you're interested.
Oh but don't worry! You can pay another $10 per month for a VPN service and change your location to Canada to see which peaches are available to watch over there!
And if they don't have it there, they can at least recommend other peach cultivars you might like with absolutely no regard for the genre of peach that you were looking for. Sorry we didn't have any Canadian Harmonies, would you like a May Pride, or maybe a Donut Peach?
(Made extra realistic by the fact that I don't actually know the differences between different peach cultivars)
Let's say that no matter how much is "stolen" the peach seller has an infinite inventory. It never depletes, and it never goes bad.
The peach seller takes all the money, increases the selling price of the peach, and each peach you buy is a contract that allows the seller to kill your wife.
Yeah, you’re right, sorry, we can’t have a concept of intellectual property without Disney mandating we attach a murder clause into it. That’s certainly not stretching the argument.
Just gonna paste my reply since I have an infinite supply of it. (Did I just steal from myself?)
Why singularly focus on the one point about a recent Disney event and completely disregard the other points as if they were now wholly tainted by your critique.
Ignore the single point about the reference to Disney then.
Please continue with the other points.
I’d be more likely to reply if you’d actually withdraw the argument. Say “You’re right, sorry, that was a dumb thing to focus on since it has nothing to do with the point about intellectual property. But the point stands.” Don’t just put the onus on me to “ignore the times I say something I can’t substantiate.”
Basically, if I know you’ll never walk something back from being convinced, you’re not arguing in good faith, and addressing the rest of it (something you can imagine I’ve wasted my time doing before in previous online discussions) is really not worth my effort.
Why does everyone bring the Disney thing into every discussion of piracy's moral footing?
Why singularly focus on the one point about a recent Disney event and completely disregard the other points as if they were now wholly tainted by your critique.
Ignore the single point about the reference to Disney then.
Please continue with the other points.
The issue is not the criticism of Disney my brother. The issue is everyone trying to generalise and use it as a moral backbench to justify piracy when this is just an example of a case specific incident
My point is that it would be smarter to use the Disney argument to evaluate whether it would be sensible for one to purchase a Disney subscription rather than as an argument to justify piracy as a whole
I hope you're just playing devil's advocate and not licking corporate boots
The corporations can fuck right off because they steal more from creators than pirates ever could. But directly supporting independent creators you like is a good thing that should be lauded. Someone dying penniless in the street because they chose to make things that enhanced people's lives instead of going into a soul sucking banking career or some shit is a travesty if you ask me.
What if someone richer than the peach grower took a picture of the peaches, and then demanded everyone else pay them instead of the peach grower for copies of the photo of the peaches? Would you still be upset if the peach photographer didn't make money from every single person who obtained a copy of the photo of the peaches? In some cases, the peach grower got paid before the photo started being sold, in other cases the peach grower gets 0.0004% of the profit from each peach photo sold.
If it’s the photographer’s wish to make money off the photo, and each person who sees it agrees that it’s high value, then yes, I’d be upset about him not making money. If it was so easy to take good photos of peaches, I’d prefer everyone took their own for their eye-catching uses. As it so happens, it’s not so easy.
In fact, it’s extremely hard for photographers to convince clients, even wealthy magazines, to pay for photo licenses.
First paragraph addresses the overheads of running a biz.
Second paragraph proffers a specious moral argument.
A connection is vaguely insinuated.
Sloppy.
It’s about the societal expectations of paying your due to people who have put work into something you want.
An excellent argument in favor of banning the sale of used copies of media
There's a little concept known as Intellectual Property that begs to differ
If someone steals my bike, I lose ownership of the bike, that's theft.
If I pirate a movie, Disney still owns the movie.
If I buy a game, I don't even own that copy of the game??
In my opinion, theft is a bit more nuanced than that. You pirating the game denies the producers of the game the profit they would have otherwise derived from you purchasing the game
no because otherwise I simply wouldn't have bought it
That's why it's called piracy, not theft.
If I buy a game, I don't even own that copy of the game??
Here's my chance to shill for GOG in this thread! It feels nice to legally own a copy of Stardew Valley
When people hear the concept of thought crimes described to them, they rightfully recoil in disgust at that kind of dystopic idea. However, euphemize the concept as intellectual property, and for some reason, most people are fine with it.
I have no idea what a "though crime" is, but if your intent is to antagonise IP laws then you're probably not a very creative person
They likely meant "thought crimes"
IP isn't a thought crime though
Right? No justification is required.