The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.
Yes, you have. Creators/artists/producers exchange their time and talent for something - whether that’s money or something else that they gain as a result. Their time and talent are the scarce “supply” that would normally be “supplied” in your argument. It’s not slavery to exchange your time/effort/labor/creations in exchange for money or another commodity. That’s literally how jobs work.
I think you’re just overextending my point to give yourself something to argue against. All I am saying is that creators deserve to be paid for their work (if that’s what they’re asking in exchange for that work) and that, if people are pirating that work, then it means they find some value in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have put my argument in precise terms but you’re just ignoring it and arguing something else entirely.
No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don’t pay them after they’ve created it, you’re stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it’s a different term, I don’t care. You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).
Maybe? If you’re asking how the original companies stay in business when a clone comes along, the answer to that is that many times they don’t. And, as mentioned elsewhere (and maybe even here), if we’re talking about tangible goods, then, in most cases, there are clear differences between the clones and the non-clones. If enough people buy the items from the original maker, then they stay in business. There are plenty of examples where clones popped up in a market and forced the original creator out of business. We’re not talking about “clones” in the sense that they’re close enough. We’re talking about exact duplications. If someone can make an exact copy for less, then the original company would go out of business if no one paid for that product. I don’t know how you could view that as anything but theft.
Stealing would be if the clone company literally stole the design of the original company and installed ransomware onto their computers so they lose access to that design.
No, you don’t need the second part. Stealing it would be stealing the design of the other company and selling it. Recreating something is not the same thing as stealing it, as I’ve already stated.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You’ve stolen the product that they created for you because you haven’t paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.
And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
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.
Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.
They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
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.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I agree. I’m simply saying that I don’t care whether you call it “stealing” or “leeching” or whatever other term you want to use. The fact that we’re even using the term “pirating” instead of just “acquiring” or whatever other term may be better suited gives up the game that piracy is stealing. If it wasn’t, we’d just call it that.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people. If educators/writers could sell to schools directly, they should. Otherwise, students attempting to learn shouldn’t be limited in their education/enrichment because they can’t afford it. That’s not the same situation, at least to me, with someone pirating a popcorn flick because don’t want to pay for it.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
I agree 100%. I am not advocating for the system as it is nor am I saying that the situation in the OP is fair. It’s not, nor is it fair for rights holders to remove legal ways for people to consume media (like Nintendo going after people for pirating content that can’t legally be purchased anymore). In those cases, I agree that piracy is justified and even necessary to preserve certain types of media. But that doesn’t make it something other than stealing or theft. It’s justified theft but it’s still theft. Just look at the amount of “lost media” that’s been preserved because of justified theft/bootlegging/whatever.
I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
That is much clearer and I will try to use that going forward. I can see how using “you” is confusing and it wasn’t my intention to confuse or belabor that point.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
They definitely don’t care… because it benefits them not to. I’m just making the plea that we should be honest about what we’re saying, not whether it’s justifiable or not.
you are making ad-hominem arguments while trying to claim other arguments/points are wrong because they are ad-hominem.
I also did not do that. I was not saying that anyone’s point was wrong when I insulted them. I insulted them because they were not actually addressing the argument. The insults were intended in what I wrote to them precisely because they weren’t making an argument against what I was saying. They were being dismissive and I was returning that dismissiveness in kind.
You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Ignoring and misrepresenting my argument to argue another one is dishonest. You can claim it’s not but that just gives me more reason not to engage with you.
That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying the definition isn’t relevant. I don’t care if you call it “stealing”, “leeching”, “pirating”, or any other word. The fact that people are attempting to make a distinction proves that pirating is not a standard acquisition of content. It’s implicitly admitting that it’s stealing from someone.
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.
thus should be priced far lower than physical goods
This is a completely separate argument, that’s why it’s not valid. I’m not arguing about the price that content producers are charging for their products. If people don’t think it’s worth that price, then they shouldn’t buy it. What I am arguing, though, is that, whatever the perceived value of that work, people should not be entitled to consume/ingest that product simply because they disagree with the price. They just shouldn’t consume/ingest it.
With digital piracy, they’ve experienced no extra cost…you claim is suffering a loss?
One is infinite. The other is not. The scope of the loss matters. The time it takes someone to produce a physical good may be greater than an intangible good but there is time and effort taken in either case. You can make the argument that those differences should be reflective of that, and I would probably agree, but that’s not the point that I’m arguing so it’s irrelevant to the argument.
Maybe not entitled for the cost of accessing a place, eg a museum could charge entry (although the best ones don’t), but viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience.
You’re advocating for something you yourself would not participate in. If this was an actual situation that you’d be supportive of, then you’d just be advocating for exactly the situation you’re in - DRM and other bullshit that limits the access to a “place”. It’s just not a physical place. No one wants that, including you, so there has to be some middle ground where artists can get paid for their work by the people who view it without having to needlessly restrict that access to physical places.
viewing art itself should be free and a natural part of the human experience
This would be great in a society where people can create art freely without needing to make a living. We do not live in such a society nor even such a planet.
Most people involved in making these products get paid only once, they don’t get paid per copy sold - the ones that do get paid this way actually, by and large, have very little hand in producing it.
Again, a different argument from the one I’m making. This is only the case because people pay the distributors rather than paying the creators directly. The distributors have the money and so they’re the ones that have the massive piles of funds necessary to produce these products.
You seem to be skirting around any of the valid negative points that the industry itself creates.
No, I’m not. I’m not arguing anything about the industry. This is yet again a completely separate argument.
Edit: And yet you left the original text in there for some reason… 🧐
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.
If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.
Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.
I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.
If they’re selling a physical product, then you viewing the painting temporarily while you’re in the store is not the same as being able to view it whenever you want or to physically have it in your home. You cannot buy “used” intangible goods. You can buy “used” paintings and those paintings can be materially changed by being “used”.
Crunchyroll (lemy.lol)
Bluesky Post.