Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

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

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
      144·
      11 months ago

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

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
          134·
          11 months 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.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
            42·
            11 months 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.deEnglish
              22·
              11 months 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.worldEnglish
                11·
                11 months 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.deEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months 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.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    11 months 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.

            • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
              52·
              11 months 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.

                • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
                  31·
                  11 months 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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
      74·
      11 months 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.

    • aylex@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      11 months ago

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

      Just telling on yourself 😂