KingCrunchyroll
BigtiddygothgranyIf buying isn’t ownership then pirating isn’t stealing
nullLicensing isn’t ownership, and pirating isn’t stealing, it’s copyright infringement.
Infringe me harder daddy ©👄©
The previous comment is more like shorthand, rather than literal truth.
It’s faster to say piracy isn’t stealing if purchasing isn’t ownership than it is to say “if a company can simply reverse a permanent access license at any time then pirating media from them is perfectly ethical and should not be considered a crime”
It’s bad shorthand though. In this context, there was never any “buying content” happening, nor was piracy ever “stealing”. It’s just misrepresentation of both sides.
T0RB1TThat’s fair, but I feel like the point is that many people go through a process where
That feels like buying media, so according to the common “consumer” (hate that word) brain, you are spending money to buy content.
At the same time, media corps have been trying to teach us for years that piracy is exactly the same as stealing.
The whole point of the shorthand is to explain that these are not facts, they’re misconceptions, AND both of these misconceptions exist for the same reason, corporate propaganda.
helenslunchThat feels like buying media
It doesn’t just feel like it, it says it. What it is is false advertising. If you don’t get to keep it forever, the button should say something along the lines of “rent until we decide to stop hosting it”.
Come up with something better then.
Why?
Because you’re bitching about it. Either there’s a better way to express the precise picture you’re describing, or your central argument is fundamentally flawed, and it’s an effective shorthand.
Sure, there’s nuance. Shorthand is used to convey a nuanced thought quickly. That’s literally the point.
Lol “bitching” about it.
Weird logic. Pointing out something that isn’t accurate but gets parroted anyways means I need to come up with a better thing to parrot.
There’s no logic here. You’re right and they’re just throwing a tantrum because it means they’re wrong.
M0oP0oI am not sure of all the posters here, you would want to mention “throwing a tantrum” in regards to being wrong. But hey I for one am a fan of your posts, it has been fun reading.
I don’t see anywhere that I’ve thrown a tantrum. I’ve been civil and respectful of all the people replying to me, even when they haven’t returned that in kind, and even attempted to bring some replies back to civility when I felt like the person was arguing in earnest. My point stands and no one has really argued the actual point without contradicting themselves.
Yeah, I am going to have to disagree after reading though your over 50 posts here. You point is in tatters, you are grasping a straws and the funniest part is you seem to flat out ignore anything that does not help your argument. You have many times been semantic and then when proven wrong on semantics proceeded to say you are not arguing semantics. Same deal with legality, and when asked if you have a moral argument, you deflect or ignore.
Like I said, I am a fan of your posts here. I get a chuckle when people double down over and over.
You are free and welcome to disagree but that doesn’t invalidate my point or my argument. I haven’t ignored anything unless it was irrelevant to the point (like the DRM arguments or the arguments about media that’s no longer available for purchase) and I’m not arguing the semantics of the words being used to describe the situation unless the person arguing against my point focuses on the semantics of those words as opposed to the actual crux of my argument. I’m not arguing against the legality of anything so that is also irrelevant. I haven’t deflected or ignored whether I have a moral argument or not, I’ve simply stated that it is also irrelevant to my point because, in an exchange, both parties have to gain something and agree to the exchange. That’s neither a moral nor a legal argument.
I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
Oh nice ad-hominem. That would be the correct way of doing ad-hominem by the way.
Oh and since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?
I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.
It’s not irrelevant because it’s an objective statement followed by a question about that statement. The morals, semantics, or legality of it isn’t what I’m arguing about (although I might concede that it could be argued as an ethical question which may converge slightly with morals).
I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.
Yes, “telling” as if people can not understand basic veiled implications.
What was the implication then, if there was in fact one?
your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
Sorry I take it back, this is not even veiled.
If I thought you were being anything other than disingenuous, I’d answer you. As it stands, you’re neither honest nor actually interested in what my point is. If you were, you’d have said even something about the point and not about whether it’s a moral, legal, or semantic argument.
Nice try dodging, my point is you have said anything you don’t like is “irreverent” to this argument as you are not making a moral, legal, or semantic argument. So if not one of these 3 what is your point based on other then a wordy version of “nuh uh”
That’s not true. I haven’t said anything is irrelevant simply because I don’t like it. I’ve said it’s irrelevant because it’s not relevant to the point I’ve made. Whether something is legal or not is irrelevant because my argument is not taking a position on the legality of something. It’s also irrelevant if the point deals only with the semantics of what a specific word means because my argument is not about the definition of the word, it’s about the deprivation of a gain in an exchange. It’s also not relevant if it’s a moral argument because I’m not against piracy and don’t care about the morality of it. I’m only arguing about the justification people are using to pretend that piracy is not depriving someone of the value of their work. My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.
But, sure… It’s just a wordy version of “nuh uh”. Now keep telling me you’re not a dishonest person.
It is stealing. I don’t understand the mental gymnastics here. You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.
How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with?
It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact. It’s not like a physical BluRay, where if you steal it from a store, you are making that store lose money due to that physical stock being stolen.
Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Taking away licenses is wrong. I’m not disputing that. But that doesn’t magically make stealing something that actual people created right.
Then you’re not entitled to ingest the content being created by that “company” (doesn’t have to be a company, it could be a single artist or a small group of artists).
Are you making an ethical, moral, or legal statement here?
Ownership of intangibles in this context exists only as a means to support a particular political arrangement. I think you may be assuming others here share your politics; there is no objective moral standard for exclusive ownership of intangibles.
By that argument, there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value. If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not. If you don’t agree to that premise, then there’s no point in discussing this with you.
there is no moral imperative for people to create intangibles as they have no value.
You’re right, there is no moral imperative for people to create (or share) intangibles, but nobody is claiming they have no value.
If someone creates art that you like, they deserve to be paid for the time and effort it took to create that art whether the art itself is physically tangible or not.
Again, is this a ethical, moral, or legal statement? It strikes me as a uniquely ideological statement, but you’ve not elaborated.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one. I’m not disputing the legality of anything here (since I believe that the subject of the OP is also illegal - “Buying” something denotes ownership and, therefore, taking it away is also stealing).
Additionally, I do not have objections against piracy and think there are many legitimate reasons for it. I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing.
Everyone arguing that it’s not stealing is making the claim that it has no value.
Are you trying to conflate ‘value’ with ‘extractive market value’? There are lots of things that have innate value but have no or very little market value.
Why does it matter? I would consider it moral and ethical but have no care whether it’s a legal one.
It matters if anyone cares to understand what you’re actually asserting, since you’ve again claimed ‘I am only arguing against the mischaracterization and dishonesty of claiming that it is not stealing’. How can anyone understand what you mean without knowing what you take ‘stealing’ to mean, and why it matters?
Most people here would argue that a system that relies on exclusive ownership of ideas/digitally reproducible data in order to support those who do that labor (that we all benefit from) is one that is broken. In which case ‘stealing’ would be misplacing both to whom the harm being done and the party doing the harm, because it isn’t the fault of the artist or the consumer that the system withholds the means of living from those who are unable to justify their existence through labor.
That’s all irrelevant. I’m not making some hypothetical point. Whether you agree with “the system” or not, it is the system within which we live and operate and within which people need to make a living. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created. If we accept that and attempt to justify as anything other than theft, then those people will cease to create themselves or will have to work further into the system that you’re arguing against as they will be unable to sustain themselves by creating things within that system.
If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things. All the straw man arguments about DRM and corporations that attempt to justify piracy only further reinforce the current system rather than some imagined system.
Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone. If you can’t understand ‘stealing’ in its most basic form, then there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is.
‘Piracy is stealing’ certainly seems to be a statement of fault, doesn’t it?
What matters is that someone is being deprived of something by someone who found value in a thing that the person created.
No, that someone is being deprived of something in the first instance by being made to justify their existence through their labor. That someone isn’t willing to pay for that labor is only depriving them in the second instance, and there are innumerable examples where essential labor is uncompensated in our market system.
If you want people to make more of the things you like, you have to pay them for those things.
That is not a given. I happen to think that by returning the time that was stolen from us (or some portion thereof) by coercing us into labor, we can all be free to create what we want. Forcing art to abide by the rules of the free market only serves to corrupt it, not enable it to sustain itself.
Stealing has a definition. It means that you’re taking something from someone.
Stealing actually has a bunch of definitions, and most of them depend upon the abstract concept of ‘property’.
there’s no point in having a further discussion with you because you’re only pretending not to understand to justify behavior that benefits you.
Finally something we can agree on.
I was saying that it doesn’t matter whose fault it is to your assertion that “it’s not the creators or the consumers” fault. Piracy does have a person that’s at fault and, logically, it’s the person getting something for free that is not being offered for free.
I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, “justify their existence”, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.
Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do. Of course I’d be happy if we lived in a Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter anymore but we don’t and pirating content that people make isn’t going to change that.
All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it. That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.
I’m not talking about anyone justifying their existence through labor. You’re arguing a straw man. I’m stating that creators make something with the intent to get paid for that thing. Their motivation for why they’re doing so (whether it’s to participate in the system, ‘justify their existence’, personal gratification, or otherwise) is irrelevant to the argument being made. Having numerable instances where people are uncompensated doesn’t justify those situations anymore than it justifies this one.
Everything else you said about artists is all well and good and entirely meaningless to the people who can’t afford to pay their bills because they have no choice but to live within the market that they do.
Except it isn’t, because you’re arguing they deserve to be paid because otherwise they can’t afford to pay their bills. You’ve made it explicitly relevant.
All I’m arguing is that it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is not stealing when the entire proposition of piracy is an entitlement to be able to consume something without paying for it.
And i’m saying it’s dishonest to suggest that piracy is stealing when the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.
That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination. Whether you’re watching a movie without paying for it, using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for, or having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay… it’s all stealing.
Where to start with this one…
- ‘watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
- ’using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?
- ‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?
- ‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that they deserve to be paid because they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free. Their reasons for wanting to get paid are irrelevant. They are not offering the product of their labor for free. Full stop. Why they’re doing that doesn’t matter.
the entire proposition of digital copyright is an entitlement to be able to extract currency from something that’s infinitely reproducible by denying access to it.
I’m not talking about copyright, though! Copyright is a legal concept defined by lawmakers. I’m not focusing on the legality of piracy at all. I don’t care if it’s legal or not and I don’t care about the copyright. I’m simply arguing that people create things and expect to get paid for them. They don’t create them to give them away for free unless they’ve explicitly decided to do that.
watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
watching a movie without paying for it’: like renting a movie from a library? sharing a dvd with a friend? time and format-shifting a dvd you’ve bought? plenty of legal examples here that are inconsistent with what you’re saying
Libraries have to get permission from creators to carry intangible goods. Libraries do not and cannot just buy media and offer it for consumption without permission, especially for digital media that is intangible. Sharing a DVD with a friend is a tangible good and therefore has physical limitations that intangible media does not so it is not the same. And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.
‘using a website that someone built for you that you didn’t pay for’: this is a weird one, since ‘using a website that someone built without paying for it’ is exactly how the internet works now… Unless you mean stiffing a contractor you had an agreement with?
Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).
‘having sex with a prostitute who you refuse to pay’: another weird and grotesque example… but I think conceptually the same as the website example? Stiffing a contractor?
Why is that a weird and/or grotesque example? Sex workers are people and provide a service. So, yes…stiffing a contractor.
‘That is stealing by any stretch of the imagination’: and it is quite a stretch (you’ve misused this turn-of-phrase)
Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.
Ok? I don’t think I did but does that really matter? The point still stands whether I used the idiom correctly or not.
Yes, that does matter. That would be the whole point of the idiom.
For example if I tried to argue a king can command the tide, and then used King Canute and the tide to prove my point, I would not only be not making my point stand but also confusing the crap out of everyone.
You seemed to grasp the point so, no, it doesn’t really matter.
they’re asking to be paid for their work rather than giving it away for free
If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid, am i justified in asking to be paid for you looking at it? Am I justified in accusing you of theft if you take a picture of it as I drive by? If you share it with all your friends? If I post an elaborate tiktok and say, ‘if you viewed this please pay me $5’, can I accuse you of theft if you don’t?
At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it? By what natural law is a creator granted exclusive right to the consumption and distribution of that intangible work?
Them expecting to be paid has no bearing on the moral or ethical obligation for me to do so. They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable. That doesn’t make something theft, especially not legally (which I now understand is not your point)
The most you could argue is for a social obligation (i.e. you ought to pay for things you benefit from), but that wouldn’t amount to fucking theft. If that’s the point you’re making, then it’s disingenuous to refer to piracy as stealing.
And, again, I’m not arguing about the legal implications of any of this so whether or not other things are legal or not is irrelevant.
Great, that simplifies things.
Stiffing a contractor is exactly what I mean. The person that created your website. The person that created the intangible good that you seem to be arguing is just fine to copy indefinitely without paying that person for their time (again, unless they’ve explicitly granted its free use).
You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours. A better example is if I pay you for your time to make me a website, and then someone else copies the HTML from the site after I publish it (as with most piracy, the person you’re hurting isn’t the creator but the IP owner, which is usually not the creator). Your time has been paid for already, and trying to limit access to that work after the fact is simply an abuse of some abstract ownership over something that can’t really be stolen. Anyone is free to support the work they enjoy, but saying that it’s an ethical obligation that amounts to theft if ignored is simply not a given.
It’s the same with the sex worker, except there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does that’s infinitely reproducible… that example seems to have been included specifically for the emotional weight that work elicits, since it doesn’t appear to be relevant to your point.
The problem is that in our current system, absent being paid for your labor or exclusive ownership to goods or capital needed by others, you can’t sustain yourself. That’s a relevant condition to what I think about someone copying the work I produce, not an irrelevant deflection. Additionally, the motivation to do the work changes how someone might feel about it being shared: if you only have to do work you like to do and believe in, and not for any financial obligation, doesn’t it change the emotional appeal you’re making from the point of view of the creator? And the collective benefit for making those creations freely available would outweigh any concern about obligatory compensation or abstract ownership.
Absent those conditions, the ethical conclusion you’re trying to make wouldn’t be applicable by any stretch of the imagination.
This is all a nonsense argument.
If I spend months intricately painting my car with the expectation of being paid
You cannot force someone to pay for something that is displayed in public. If you took that car that you intricately painted and locked it in a garage and charged an admission fee to look at it, then, yes, you are justified. If you are driving it in public, everything else about what you say is invalidated - no, you are not justified in accusing someone of theft regardless of what happens after that. You gave up the right to that when you drove it publicly.
At what point does a desire to be paid for creative work become an obligation on the part of those who consume it?
At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.
They’re asking to be paid for something that is by nature freely available and infinitely sharable.
This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.
You’re talking about selling labor under contract, not consuming or sharing an intangible good freely. By the quote I shared, an idea [or intangible work] is exclusively yours until you decide to divulge it. Once you share it, it is no longer yours.
Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?
there’s no intangible product of the work a prostitute does
This is not true. The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you. To borrow from your descriptions of pirated content, her product is infinitely reproducible and freely available (so long as she’s been paid for it, right?).
The problem is that in our current system
…and then you continue to make a claim for a situation that is not possible in our current system which makes it irrelevant.
Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.
At the point of its creation. Otherwise, you’re making the argument that everyone is entitled to anything anyone creates from the moment it’s created.
Nope, i’m making the argument that ownership ends when a work is shared publicly, not when it’s created.
This is the flaw in this argument. It is not freely available unless the creator is giving it to people freely. Most creators who make their content do not give it away freely.
By it’s nature, digital media is unrestricted, it costs nothing to reproduce and so cannot be ‘stolen’ from someone because doing so doesn’t take it away from them. That was Thomas Jefferson’s point; ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time. Digital media is only restricted as an artificial means of extracting value from that limitation. But even then, there’s no reasonable expectation of control once that work is shared publicly because there are no physical boundaries that encapsulate it, no means to control its propagation once it departs from its origin. That’s what I mean by ‘it’s nature is freely accessible and infinitely reproducible’.
Then, to be clear, you’re ok with someone stealing the work someone else made instead of paying you to do it at your job? If you’re a programmer, you’re ok with your boss just stealing someone else’s work if it does the job you’re being asked to do?
As a matter of principle, absolutely. I don’t blame someone from reusing my creative work, I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place, and I blame the people who take ownership of that creative work and restrict access to it in order to produce a profit that they withhold from me and those that labor to produce it. It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work. It is exactly the concept of ownership that limits creative work, not piracy.
The prostitute loses nothing that he/she had when they started the work and can continue to provide that same product to any number of people after they are done providing it to you.
THAT ISN’T TRUE. They loose their TIME and that time is finite and discrete. The work they do in that time isn’t something that can be copied. You’re intentionally conflating labor and ownership and copyright (I am very explicitly using copyright here because that is what we are discussing, which is the RIGHT TO RESTRICT COPIES of a given work by the owner of the copyright). I paint a piece of art; the act of painting is the labor, the piece of art is the product. A prostitute is a service worker, they don’t produce a tangible product, THEIR LABOR IS THE PRODUCT. Every time the work is copied their time and effort are lost. Once digital media is produced, that media can be copied indefinitely at NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.
Yes, in a fantasy Star Trekian utopia where money doesn’t matter and people don’t need money to survive, I would love for creators to make art just because that’s what they’re passionate about. I’m not arguing that fantasy, I’m arguing reality.
UBI isn’t a star trek fantasy. Public domain isn’t fantasy. You can close your eyes to what already exists all you want, but you can’t insist ‘piracy is stealing’ without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.
is shared publicly
Here’s the flaw in this. It’s not shared publicly. It’s only shared to the people who have paid for it. That’s why we have these stupid situations where distributors fall back on “licenses”.
ideas have no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost.
This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea. It took real people real time and real work to create it. Just because it’s intangible doesn’t mean that it is an idea.
Different from labor, which is finite since it’s limited by time.
If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea. The fact that the time of the creators is finite and has value is what transfers that value to the end product.
that work is shared publicly
Again, a misrepresentation of how it is being shared. The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork. They shouldn’t release their content online, they should only allow access to it in a limited fashion where people have to go to a physical location to view it so as to ensure that they get paid for their work.
I blame those who own and restrict my means of living from me in the first place
So your argument is basically that we should live in a fantasy world where this isn’t the case?
It would be far more efficient if we didn’t require problems to be solved over and over again, and far more efficient if the accumulation of capital didn’t further alienate creators from their work.
It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.
Once digital media is produced,
Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.
NO MATERIAL COST TO THE CREATOR.
…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.
without confronting the reality that it depends on the illusion of ownership.
It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it. Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.
This is the flaw in this part. Digital media is not simply an idea. It is the manifestation of an idea.
Digital media has no natural property of exclusive ownership because they can spread and propagate at no cost. An idea is also manifested when it is divulged, and it requires mental labor the same as digital media.
If intangible media requires labor in order to be created then the media itself is, by extension, finite because it can’t be created without the tangible labor in order to move it from being an idea into being a product or manifestation of that idea
Wrong. There is the labor, and there is the media. The one is limited and the other is not. I didn’t take you for a proponent of the labor theory of value.
The creation of new media requires labor, but the product of that labor is infinite.
The argument you’re advocating for is that people who create digital media should only allow people to pay for temporary, physical access to that media in the same way that museums limit physical access to artwork
No, i’m saying it is the nature of the work that it requires no additional labor to copy a digital work. A limited digital stream is a copy of a work. That it expires is an arbitrary limitation that is imposed by the distributor (be it a corporation or the artists themselves) to extract a price, one that does not reflect an actual limit to the supply. That there is no other way you can think of to compensate people who produce media is really a reflection of your own lack of understanding than a reflection of ‘reality’.
It would. 100%. We don’t live in that world or on that planet.
“It is the way it is”. Doesn’t make piracy theft, it just serves as further proof that our system needs changing.
Again, the flaw in your argument is here. Their labor and time are limited, in the exact same way as the other examples, in order to create the work in question. If they’re not compensated for that work, they can’t continue to create more of it.
It’s not a flaw, it’s a feature. Conversely, if we consider every new work of media as singularly owned and distributed, the value of a corpus of media will grow indefinitely (e.g. a corporation that owns an exclusive library of work can charge whatever they want for that work, then produce and buy more exclusive work, and charge more for that work, ad infinitum; see Disney). The market as it is cannot continue indefinitely and will lead to the outcome you’re whining about here (artists not being being paid enough to eat). That is why there are dwindling production houses in media because exclusive ownership begets more exclusive ownership.
The only way to ensure artists are paid is to distribute surplus universally so they are free to produce art for its own sake (and not for the sake of the market leaders’ profit).
…only if you ignore the material cost to the creator to make it in the first place.
I’m not ignoring it, i’m assigning that value to the work itself and not the product of that work. Don’t be dense.
It does not rely on that. It relies on the idea that, regardless of whether a good is tangible or intangible, the people creating it deserve to be paid for it by the people who consume it.
It most certainly does rely on ownership, if you’re advocating for artists to be paid via ownership of the rights to access the work. It may be true that the people who consume physical goods deserve to pay for those goods (because their consuming it lessens the supply for others), it does not follow that people who ‘consume’ copies of digital works ‘deserve’ to pay for that consumption. Once again, a copy of a work does not make any the less by the act of copying.
Public domain can only apply after something has already been created.
Right, so… you’re in favor of pirating then, since you can only pirate works that have already been created…?
How are you stealing income if there was no intention to pay the company to begin with?
Theft does not imply the intention to pay, that’s kinda the whole point.
Even if there was an intention to buy it, companies aren’t entitled to consumers’ money.
They are if you take something they created.
It’s digital data; you’re copying something, leaving the original completely intact.
I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.
I don’t know how these justifications can be described as anything other than “mental gymnastics” because they obviously make zero sense and personally benefit you.
You hit the nail on the head. That’s why they’re downvoting and arguing. It personally benefits them to steal.
I’ve said it several times here…I don’t care if people pirate stuff. There are a myriad of reasons to do so. My issue is with the dishonesty of pretending it’s not stealing. Keep doing it, I don’t care, but own up to what you’re doing and admit it’s stealing.
It’s mental gymnastics because they need to be able to continue stealing but don’t want to feel bad about it.
I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. You’re copying something someone else created, for the express purpose of generating income, without their permission.
Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?
Who said anything about generating income off of pirated work?
No one. The person who did the work did so with the intention of generating income.
Legally speaking, it is considered copyright infringement.
Does it really matter? What’s the important differentiation there?
It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.
You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.
It’s just as much “stealing” as me not watching it at all.
I’m infringing on their copyright, absolutely, but I’m not taking anything away from them that they could otherwise profit from.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.
If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.
Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.
Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.
An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please
You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.
Stop being dishonest.
Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.
I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.
Youre getting angry now i think. I want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don’t want to (and frankly, i don’t blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you’ll read it later?
(Spoiler: ‘false premises’ don’t necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There’s a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It’s real. Go check it out.
Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending your points in the future. Youre gonna need it if youre going with this stance.
I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.
I’m not doing anything you ask me to because I know what a false premise is, I know what ad hominem is, and I know what a straw man is. You haven’t actually provided any kind of argument against what I said so I know you’re not being honest. Since you’re not willing to be honest, there is no point in continuing discussion with you.
I’m not angry. I haven’t even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.
This might be the finest, most delicious dessert ive ever eaten
Again, I don’t care. You’re still starving.