The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My brother/sister in Christ, everyone in this discussion is talking about copyright infringement. That is the actual legal name for what we colloquially refer to as “piracy,” according to, you know, the law, which you previously referenced as something we should look to.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be paid if their work doesn’t create something physical.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Katana314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Please name for me something someone could create on a computer, that you would agree they should be paid for; even if they show a demonstration copy to someone.

                • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What ever they can find someone to pay for. I my self pay or use legally free software for my work. I just do t think that if someone pirates a copy of adobe cs it’s equivalent to theft of a physical good. Completely ok in my book for private use a bit shady for commercial use - but adobe subscription model is shady in my book anyway.

                  • Katana314@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So…say you like to use Sublime Text. And you pay for a premium license. How do you know the person you paid is the person who wrote Sublime Text?

                    In fact, let’s suppose one day you go online and it seems there are hundreds of excellent open source IDEs, all of which look a lot like Sublime Text, with different names. Who deserves the credit? It could be theorized that each of the authors you’re looking at DID pay for their initial copy; and since software is free to use in any way you like, it’s free to sell its use, right?

                    The above is not a problem in our world where the code of the application in question is the intellectual property of its original author - that even when he makes it open source, he retains the rights to put a donation/premium button in the help menu.

                    I’d still like a direct answer; what goods can most normal people produce on a computer that, absent intellectual property laws, they could still commonly sell? I’d also question what would be the path for highly niche specializations where, currently their work sells for high prices due to the constrain on supply. If everyone worked off of a FOSS donation model, they likely would not have so many four-digit donators.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re going to use that word you should at least know what it means so you don’t sound stupid.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Who the fuck cares?

        People who are not human fucking garbage care. If your position is that you simply don’t care about stealing from someone else what they spent years of time and money to create, you’re just a trash person and this conversation is moot.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Infringing copyright isn’t stealing.

            It’s abundantly clear at this point that you don’t think people are entitled to compensation for work performed or the products they create so it makes perfect sense that you feel that way.

    • aylex@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Something you never would have dedicated as much time to if you couldn’t be compensated for it.”

      Just telling on yourself 😂