Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.
You're viewing a single thread.
Piracy was never stealing. It’s copyright infringement, but that’s not the same as stealing at all. People saying it’s stealing have always been wrong.
One of the great modern scams, was to convince society that unauthorized copying of data is somehow equivalent to taking away a physical object.
Jesus didn’t ask for permission to copy bread and fish. It’s a clear moral precedent that if you can copy you should.
What would the Jesus do?
Checkmate Atheists!
Jesus was the first pirate.
Nah, that would be Prometheus.
Wasn't the idea and origin story of Jesus stolen from previous texts and religions lol
They forked Judaism
Pretty sure it was Marvel or something.
Athiests don't have a problem with Middle-Eastern Socialist Jews, the 'Christians' sure do.
Literally no one thinks that. But you know that already, don't you?
It's theft of intellectual property...
There is no such thing as intellectual property - you can not own a thought.
Once again with the strawman.
Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It's an idea or digital creation. Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time. Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn't be compensated for it.
I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.
You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.
You seem to not understand what "theft" means.
I have a thing and than someone takes it away, so I can't use it anymore. If somebody copies that thing - it's not really theft.
My point is more - concepts from physical world don't nessessary apply to digital world.
If somebody copies that thing - it's not really theft.
Yes, it absolutely is, by any standard. Ask the dictionary, ask the law, ask literally any authority on literacy and they all come up with the same verdict.
You're just lying to yourself to justify doing whatever you want.
If you want to argue when piracy is and is not ethical, that is a different discussion we can have, and we'd likely largely agree. But saying that anything that is digital doesn't belong to anyone is pure nonsense.
You say “ask the dictionary” — multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question, which obviously doesn’t apply to copyright infringement of digital works.
You say “ask the law” — copyright infringement is not stealing, they are literally two completely different statutes, at least in the US.
So, what the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is not theft.
multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question
Like many words, "theft" has several different definitions, that being one of them.
copyright infringement is not stealing
Congratulations, that's the 4th strawman in this thread. No one is talking about copyrights.
So what the hell are you talking about?
It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn't be paid if their work doesn't create something physical.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I just make a difference between copying, stealing, physical goods, digital goods and immaterial things. They are not the same.
Easy examples: original and copy does not really apply to digital works or two people on opposite sides of world can have the same thought but not have the same physical object at the same time, etc.
I love how you guys play these mental gymnastics to justify this shit to yourselves.
I love how you bootlickers always deny that anyone could possibly have a principled objection to modern intellectual property laws. I don't need to "justify" at all. I rarely even pirate anything, but I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong when I do.
I love how you bootlickers always deny that anyone could possibly have a principled objection to modern intellectual property laws.
Wow look that's 3 strawman in a row, you guys are exceptional at fabricating fictional arguments to tear down.
If you're going to use that word you should at least know what it means so you don't sound stupid.
Intellectual property is not a thought that you own. It’s an idea
Ah, it's an idea, not a thought. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up.
Something that actually takes time to make, often a whole lot of time.
Who the fuck cares? Dinner also takes a great deal of time to make.
Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.
That's not true. People have been telling stories and creating art since humanity climbed down from the trees. Compensation might encourage more people to do it, but there was never a time that people weren't creating, regardless of compensation. In addition, copyright, patents and trademarks are only one way of trying to get compensation. The Sistine chapel ceiling was painted not by an artist who was protected by copyright, but by an artist who had rich patrons who paid him to work.
Maybe "Meg 2: The Trench" wouldn't have been made unless Warner Brothers knew it would be protected by copyright until 2143. But... maybe it's not actually necessary to give that level of protection to the expression of ideas for people to be motivated to make them. In addition, maybe the harms of copyright aren't balanced by the fact that people in 2143 will finally be able to have "Meg 2: The Trench" in the public domain.
Why should an artist not be paid but a gardener or someone who build your house is supposed to be paid?
After all, humans build stuff and make stuff with plants without compensation all the time.
You just sound like a Boomer who thinks work is only work when the product isn't entertaining or art.
Why are you making up a story about an artist not getting paid?
"Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn't be compensated for it."
Just telling on yourself 😂
What is that supposed to mean?
If no one thinks that, why are you saying it right now?
Actual theft of intellectual property would involve somehow tricking the world into thinking you hold the copyright to something that someone else owns.
If no one thinks that, why are you saying it right now?
...huh?
Actual theft of intellectual property would involve somehow tricking the world into thinking you hold the copyright to something that someone else owns.
...no? What are you talking about? All it involves is illegally copying someone else's work.
Isn't 'theft of intellectual property' taking someone else's work and try to pass it off as your own?
No.
Intellectual property is a scam, the term was invented to convince dumb people that a government-granted monopoly on the expression of an idea is the same thing as "property".
You can't "steal" intellectual property, you can only infringe on someone's monopoly rights.
This feels like an easy statement to make when it applies to Disney putting out new Avatar movies. Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you're a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took, instead of re-printing it without your permission.
"InfORMaTioN wANts tO Be FrEe, yO."
Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took
That's a pretty specific example. Probably because in many cases photographers are paid in advance. A wedding photographer doesn't show up at the wedding, take a lot of pictures, then try to work out a deal with the couple getting married. They negotiate a fee before the wedding, and when the wedding is over they turn over the pictures in exchange for the money. Other photographers work on a salary.
Besides, even with your convoluted, overly-specific example, even without a copyright, a magazine would probably pay for the photo. Even if they didn't get to control the copying of the photo, they could still get the scoop and have the picture out before other people. In your world, how would they "reprint" it without your permission? Would they break into your house and sneakily download it from your phone or camera?
This is the kind of situation I’m citing:
A lot of photography is not based on planning ahead before being paid (a person requests Photo X, and then pays on delivery). Nature photographers, and in fact many other forms of artists, produce a work before people know/feel they want it, and then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website, and then requests use of that work themselves.
The struggles of the above insect photographer are even with the existing IP laws - they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into, and VERY MANY media outlets don’t bother; to say nothing of giving a charitable donation.
then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website
So, they choose to rely on copyright, when they could do work for hire instead.
they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into
No, they ask for unfair compensation based on copyrights.
No - they CAN’T do work for hire. Are you listening?
“Hi. I do really cool photos. Please hire me to take one, and after you’ve paid me, you can see it.”
According to you, that’s a comprehensive resume and advertisement for a photographer, absent of a single graphic. According to you, a client could come to a consult about buying a photo, sneak their phone camera up to the print, and say “Never mind about payment! I just copied it. You can keep the print! So long, loser.”
You’re not even trying to imagine the impossible hurdles such a craft would have trying to earn enough to eat food every day, much less have a roof over their head. If you have nothing substantive to add, everyone on this site should be done with you.
No - they CAN’T do work for hire. Are you listening?
Your inability to imagine anything other than the status quo is really depressing.
That is absolutely 100% a completely insane position. The fact that you feel entitled to literally everything someone else creates it's fucking horrific and you are a sad person.
For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.
Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”
What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.
One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft
No, you have it wrong, one is part of a strategy to confuse the public into thinking it's not, because it justifies doing whatever they want.
still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”
But they don't feel that copyright infringement is wrong. How closely did you read the previous statements?
They literally said "Intellectual property is a scam". I don't know how else you could possibly interpret that
I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?
Exactly, "intellectual property" doesn't exist. It's a term that was created to try to lump together various unrelated government-granted rights: trademark, copyright, patents, etc. They're all different, and the only thing they have in common is that they're all rights granted by the government. None of them is property though. That was just a clever term made up by a clever lobbyist to convince people to think of them as property, rather than government-granted rights related to the copying of ideas. Property is well-understood, limited government-granted rights to control the copying of ideas is less well understood. If the lobbyists can get people to think of "intellectual property" they've won the framing of the issue.
So it's just a classic case of someone saying something entirely unrepresentative of what they actually mean, then arguing it to death...?
Imagine if startrek was written with IP in mind. Instead of all these wunderkinds being all gung ho about implementing their warp field improvements on your reactor you'd get some ferengi shilling the latest and greatest "marketable" blech engine improvements.
Fiction is much better without reality leeching in.
Star Trek was set in a future utopia. One of the key things about the show is that it's a post-scarcity world where even physical objects can be replicated.
They definitely wrote the series with IP in mind... in that their view of a future utopia was one where not only did copyright etc. not exist, but nobody cared much about the ownership of physical objects either.
Nah, if I stole their IP, they wouldn't have it anymore
Nah, that's not how that works.
So you also believe people shouldn't need a ticket for a concert, for example?
The performers time is not infinitely reproducible so your argument is apples to oranges.
But the time to create a novel, a videogame, or a news story is not infinitely reproducible, either. So when you are pirsting one of those things, you are actively reaping the benefits of someone's time for free, like going to a concert without a ticket
There's a difference between the performer's time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user's time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I'm pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.
Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I'm actually paying for something to be made.
Whether I'm pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time
And where do you think that money comes from...?
It just magically appears /s Its disingenuous to try and justify piracy on the basis that the performers have already been paid. I don't agree with studios either of course, customers are being scammed
From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.
That's exactly it. Investors. They are not donations. They expect a return on their investments.
And such "return" comes after the work, not before. So there's no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people. Now that would be air-quotes "stealing"!
And such "return" comes after the work
And once again, where do you suppose it comes from?
So there's no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people.
How does one "condition wages"?
Is your argument simply that theft is a-ok 👌 when the person you're stealing from is wealthy?
This only applies to cases where the artist/actor/whatever gets paid upfront. Most of the times, that does not happen. The creator of something only gets money when somebody buys what they have created (books, videogames, music, etc)
Even if they were paid upfront, they were paid off the idea that the company could make bank on their (ready yourself for the word in case it triggers): Intellectual Property.
In a future world where people have achieved their wish and the concept no longer exists, companies have no reason to pay creators ahead of time.
I can get that they'd not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?
Every artist in every field get MAYBE paid a tiny bit upfront, and then a percentage of the sales. That's how books and music work, for instance
Yeah, this is the real issue. That said it is a shame and a waste for the results of these efforts to be artificially restricted. I do really hope that one day we can find a way to keep people fed and happy while fully utilizing the incredible technology we have for copying and redistributing data.
I mean, we've kinda already found a way, and it's ads. Now it's obvious that the ad market as a whole is horrible (it's manipulative, it has turned into spying, it does not work really well, it's been controlled by just a handful of companies etc), but at least it's democratic in that it allows broader access to culture to everyone while still paying the creators.
Personally, I would not be against ads, if they were not tracking me. As of now, though, the situation seems fucked up and a new model is probably necessary. It's just that, until now, every other solution is worse for creators.
But it is though: via the power of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_television?wprov=sfti1
Though you could charge for the experience of other sweaty humans, bad ventilation in some cases, and the thrill of potentially being trampled
I don't see anything wrong with paying for software or music or digital media. I don't think that not doing so is theft - like I also don't think that getting into a concert without paying is theft. By the way a concert is also not digital data, at least an irl one.
Why do you hate libraries?
A library card is your ticket there and libraries are paid via taxes, which is why they're free at point of use.
Attending a free concert is not stealing. Breaking into the Eras tour is.
The library buys once and allows multiple people to read/watch each item without each person needing to individually purchase. Just like one person buying something and sharing it with others.
The main point is that digitization distribution is not a concert
Digital distribution is a service. You can steal a service.
If you fuck a prostitute and then don't pay them, you are stealing from them.
If the prostitute uses a technique, and then you use the same technique without paying hem for reuse, is that stealing or does their direct involvement matter?
If you’re going to retype the code of a program from scratch, then your analogy is valid. If instead you are taking the production created through someone else’s labor without compensating them, then you are stealing from them.
Stop reading my comments if you aren't going to pay me.
Prostitutes don't become prostitutes because they know secret techniques.
The metaphor is describing the service provided, and that not paying for said service is indeed stealing.
Trying to make it a different metaphor requires a new framework from you, because you copying their actual service would be you pimping them, under this metaphor.
Someone sharing content on a peer to peer distribution network is not using the digital distribution service of whoever sold the content. They are not 'stealing' HBOs bandwidth to share Game of Thrones.
They are sharing a thing that they initially paid for from HBO at no cost to others, similar to letting your friends watch it with you on your TV at the same time. The only difference is scale.
HBOs service is "provide access to GoT"
If you provide access to GoT, by acquiring their content and then redistributing it, you are stealing the same way you pimping your prostitute is stealing.
Idk why people here love stealing but hate admitting it. It's fuckin weird. Like the literal word used is "piracy" for shits sake lol
It's okay I won't use their digital distribution system to pirate their stuff.
It's just like falling to pay a prostitute you never fucked
You're not using their distribution service when you pirate something. That's the whole point.
Libraries get money via tax. What people here are arguing for is that others should work for them or free. Because game studios, for example, are overwhelmingly not paid via tax money. They are depending on people buying their software. And many software has ongoing costs.
Do you think I should be forced to pay for a ticket if I'm standing next to the concert venue on the sidewalk but can still hear the performance?
I have never had a problem with people taking a tape recorder to a concert, even if it's against terms of service
But you do understand that if nobody would buy a ticket, there wouldn't be concerts?
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A PURSE
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
-Character from some movie I pirated
In this economy with this level of corporate greed, I will download all the purses
I would infringe all over its copyright tho
You wouldn't steal a baby!
You wouldn't shoot a policeman and then steal his helmet.
But I would definitely take a shit in that helmet
...and then return it to his grieving wife?
And then steal it again?
You wouldn’t download fish and bread!
Jesus: hold my wine…..
I bet you aren't a software developer.
I'm a software developer, and I endorse the grandparent comment.
And you all just were happy and bro fisted people who ignored the licensing terms?
Yes.
Well, not literally, both because I'm more inclined to "high five" and you can't do either gesture over the Internet. But figuratively, yes.
Why don't you just gift away your software than? That's an honest question. You obviously aren't expecting to be paid for it, do you think in general developers shouldn't earn money with software or is it just you?
Why don’t you just gift away your software than?
Because I don't make those decisions; my employer does. They ought to give it away, but they don't.
(The software I've worked on has tended to be either (a) tools for internal company use or (b) stuff used by the government/large companies where the revenue would definitely have come from a support contract even if the code itself were free.)
ParsnipWitch seems to have been eaten by a grue.
That's what happens when you forget to cast Frotz.
So, you would work for free for your employer?
That question is a red herring. My employer isn't paying me to write software; they're paying me to write the software they want instead of the software I want to make.
I am a system engineer who works on a project that is open source, AMA
The writer whose article is the subject of this post releases his books without DRM. He ends his podcast with a quote encouraging piracy. I found him because of an earlier book he released under a share alike licence
He has found that piracy increases the reach of his message, and increases his sales
That doesn't answer my questions.
Your question is irrelevant as claiming "you either support 100% paid or you support 100% free distribution" is a false dichotomy.
Software developer who gives away my software for free as Free and Open Source Software. I agree with the grand-grand-parent comment.
If I made software that people cared enough about to crack and pirate, I'd be happy that it's popular enough for that to happen.
I am a software developer but I've only worked on SaAS and open source projects.
I'd be happy that it's popular enough for that to happen.
of course you would. you would actually give them your house and wife, because you're so proud now. right?
Lmao
Pride unfortunately doesn't pay the bills. It's terrific that you contribute to open source, but not all commercial software can be open sourced.
Popularity opens other ways to make money. Open source is profitable for GNU. Cory Doctorow does fine.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect every commercial product to find profitability through exposure. I can attest to this first hand as I had published an open source Android game that was republished without ads. This led me to ultimately make the repository private, because I could not find a way to remain profitable while offering the source code and bearing the costs of labor and various cloud services.
On the flip side I guess I can take credit for the millions of installs from the other app… except they didn't publicly acknowledge me.
Was it under a "copyleft" licence (like GPL) that forces the other one to also be open source? Did you use a licence that requires you are acknowledged?
If you did the first, you at least pulled someone else into open source work
Yes, GPL.
At the time I had seen that it had been forked into numerous private repositories, I believe roughly 100 or so. Perhaps I could have made a claim to have the other app taken down through Google Play, but I had no faith that this would be resolved, and even if it would be, it would be an ongoing problem.
As for whether they would have made open source contributions or not is in the end a moot point for me, because the only change that I observed was that they changed the colors and typeface and extracted the in-game menu into a separate welcome screen. I would not have merged this back into my repository.
While I myself violated the copyleft of my project by taking it closed source, I felt that it was my only resort. I've continued to develop the game over the past few years and by modernizing it and adding additional content, I've been able to significantly outpace my competitor.
For me, this ordeal had been a bit of an eye opener. I came out of university fully supportive of open source and when I discovered how this affected a real world project, I genuinely approached this situation understanding that it was just a risk I needed to accept. However, in the three years that it was available on GitHub, I received only two small PRs, and combined with the license violations, I felt that there was really no advantage to keeping it open source.
While this is just my anecdote, it has changed my perspective on how open source can realistically work more broadly. I honestly can't envision any kind of business that needs to offset large production costs able to publish that content viably as open source.
Most people who work on open source projects have a lucrative job and work on Open Source on the side. I also volunteer, but I still need a job that actually pays me as well.
Reading some of the comments here it feels like speaking to little children who believe money magically appears on their account.
Tell me which so I can develop a competing service and steal your userbase!
You need to disconnect the badness with the term stealing because you're just wrong. Yeah it's ip infringement. Yes it's illegal. Yes people are impacted. And still... Not stealing.
I have been for over 20 years actually! What do I get for winning the bet?
Edit:
One of our games we actually ended up supporting a form of piracy. A huge amount of our user base ended up using cheat tools to play our game which meant that they could get things that they would normally have to purchase with premium currency. Instead of banning them, we were careful to not break their cheat tools and I even had to debug why their cheat tool stopped working after a release.
How did your employer pay your salaries? Or did your money perhaps came from those people who actually do pay for in-game currency in your games?
You aren't.
Yes I am. And the two companies I worked for both were small, offered their products for cheap and still had people pirating the modules or circumvent licensing terms. It's a legit problem that a lot of people don't see why they should pay for software simply because it's sometimes easy to steal it.
circumvent licensing terms
So to be clear: was it possible to purchase and own the software? Or did users have to pay a subscription for a license? Because personally I'm getting sick of every piece of software thinking it's appropriate to require a subscription.
How about you don't use it if it is to be paid by subscription? How is it justified to go against an agreement just because you don't like it?
Naa, I'd just pirate it. Fuck the rent-seekers.
Are you against employees getting good wages?
So either way I'm not paying for it. In that case pirating is not a lost sale.
I am.
