this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1217 points (96.6% liked)

memes

10309 readers
2050 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (55 children)

I fully agree with the general message, but this particular anecdote doesn't really make sense to me and can easily be waved off by anyone who disagrees with it.

If buying isn't owning, that means it's renting or borrowing.

If you pirate it, they get no money and therefore cannot rent it out to you. You cannot just steal a movie from the movie rental store or a car from a car rental place. That's stealing.

Sure, it's infinitely reproducible but that's not what this meme says. That's an unrelated argument for piracy. It draws a direct connection between the 2 relationships of buying + owning and pirating + stealing. However, one has nothing to do with the other.

When someone owns something, they are allowed to rent it out and take it back at any time. It's always been that way and that's valid.

The real argument should be "if there was no intention to buy in the first place, then piracy isn't stealing" or something like that.

Let me rephrase. I agree that piracy isn't stealing, but the fact that buying isn't owning does NOT prove that at all, nor does it have anything to do with it. It's a reason people pirate, sure, but it in no way proves that piracy isn't stealing. The phrase is an if;then statement. If one thing is true, it MEANS the other is true, which just isn't the case. Both can be true sure, but proving the first half does not prove the second half. Making one true does not instantly make the other true.

This will not make anyone at ubisoft mad. In fact, they will be glad that such a poorly crafted argument is being used against them, since it's 0 effort to disprove and dismiss it. We should raise other arguments that are logically sound if we want to convince anyone - friends, family, lawmakers - of anything.

Am I completely missing the point or is this analogy completely nonsensical?

On a side note, I condone piracy and nobody should ever give money to large media corporations. But if we use stupid arguments like this it makes us easier to dismiss.

Edit: I'm looking for discussion here. If you're going to downvote me, at least tell me why you think my argument is wrong. I'm here to learn.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

my opinion: it's not stealing in the Classic sense because if you copy something you don't take it away from its owner. it might be against the law because intellectual property is a concept.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's the aversion to calling it stealing. It feels like stealing any other thing. You would steal games for the same reasons you might steal a physical good.

Do we just want a separate word that means digital theft?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Because it's not—by definition—stealing?

Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny. 

Source

Digital piracy is:

  • Copying, not taking.
  • Not affecting personal property.
  • Not depriving the creator of their property.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why does everyone keep adding that qualifier to stealing like it makes any sense? So if I steal something from someones vacation home and return it before they visit, its not stealing either right? Thats residential piracy is it?

How about I love a painting so much but I'm an asshole and I think artists don't deserve to be paid for art, so I sneak in while he's sleeping, with a replica in tow, and swap out his real painting for the identical fake. Thats not stealing either?

I don't know what changed over the years really, it was stealing in the 90s and stealing in the 00s, and then some people figured if they just said it wasnt stealing enough it would stick?

You can argue the prices aren't appropriate but its hard to argue you should get all your games for free just because, oh well nothings lost. I even pirate games but I'm not afraid to call it stealing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So if I steal something from someones vacation home and return it before they visit, its not stealing either right? Thats residential piracy is it?

It's still theft. You intended to and successfully managed to deprive someone of their property, albeit temporarily. You would also still end up in front of a court for trespassing and breaking and entering.

How about I love a painting so much but I'm an asshole and I think artists don't deserve to be paid for art, so I sneak in while he's sleeping, with a replica in tow, and swap out his real painting for the identical fake.

Still theft, but with copyright infringement on top. You have deprived the artist of his property—his physical copy of the painting.

I don't know what changed over the years really, it was stealing in the 90s and stealing in the 00s, and then some people figured if they just said it wasnt stealing enough it would stick?

People unquestionably accepting falsehoods is what changed. Have you noticed that when pirates do get caught and taken to civil or criminal court, it's for copyright infringement, computer fraud and abuse, wire fraud, or something else tangential to theft but not actually theft? It's because digital piracy is legally not "theft".

its hard to argue you should get all your games for free just because, oh well nothings lost.

I am not making that argument.

I even pirate games but I'm not afraid to call it stealing.

I don't, and I still wouldn't call your digital piracy stealing. In English-speaking countries, at least, the law considers it to be copyright infringement.

In the same vain, I wouldn't call randomly sucker-punching someone "assault": it's battery.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

In america the law changes from state to state. I don't understand the point of appealing to law when its different depending where you are.

I'm talking morally, which I don't tie to laws, and it seems like pirates don't either. It is morally equivalent to stealing, and it hurts artists. Theres a bunch of hoops people jump through to try to negate that fact, but its just another halo effect to make people think something wrong is something right.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Right, I agree with that, but "because if you copy something, you don't take it away from its owner" is a valid reason, and completely unrelated to the fact that buying isn't owning. Even if buying WAS owning in all situations, your comment would still be true. That's my point, the analogy in the meme is useless, and arguments like yours should be the main talking point.

load more comments (52 replies)