Zoolander @ dpkonofa @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

920

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I'm arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You're stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don't care if people pirate things but admit that it's stealing and move on.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?

It's not factually untrue. You can't make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.

Everything else you've said is pointless because you're only arguing about a subset of content. I'm arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don't pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren't going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It's literally as simple as that.

You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We're literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It's madness.

How does that do anything other than prove my point?

"without permission or legal right"

They'll never admit this because it invalidates their entire point.

I am not a troll. I am a creator that thinks your mental gymnastics attempting to justify theft is bullshit.

It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you're stealing ("the action or crime of stealing") income from the creator, unless they're explicitly giving that creation away for free.

You're only unintentionally (I think) proving my point, not yours.

Companies who make clones of things are still in business because people are paying for the clones. You're not paying for the cloned movie you're pirating.

Also, in your example and using your logic, someone would have to recreate the production of the content. If someone decided to remake a movie (and get actors, crew, production, marketing, etc.) and then decided to release that for free, not only would it not be stealing but it also wouldn't be copyright infringement because it would be covered by fair use since its a recreation. Copyright infringement doesn't apply simply to an idea of something. It applies to the manifestation of that idea.

It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you're paying money for the product of their labor.

Everything else you've said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.

Ingesting something doesn't only mean eating it. It literally means "to bring into".

It's stealing because you watched it. If you didn't watch it and didn't buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you're consuming and ingesting the product they're selling without paying for it.

Additionally, if you're making the argument that you can't count "potential" sales of something as theft then you can't also make the argument that "potential" exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it's theft.

And you've just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don't pay for it, you don't get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you're stealing if you're ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.

Again, I don't care. You're still starving.

It can if you're ingesting the product. If you're ingesting the end product then value and market extractive value are the same. Either you think it's worth the price that the creator is asking or you don't. If you don't, then that doesn't mean you're entitled to view it for free just because you think they're asking too much. It means you don't get to watch it and they don't get to be paid for it.

Everything else you said is irrelevant. The supply is the creator, not the product that the creator made. If they can't make a living creating those products, then those products go away. Whether you want to claim that's artificial or not is completely moot.

Did you watch it still?

If you didn't pirate and didn't buy it and also didn't watch it, then no it's not stealing.

If you did watch it, then it's stealing.

It's not that hard of a concept. You're not entitled to the fruits of someone's labor for free unless they're explicitly granting you that entitlement.

So yeah... it's being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn't stealing.

And if everyone just scanned that one person's bike, then the company that makes that bike would go out of business, the people that work there can't make bikes anymore because they aren't getting paid to design, manufacture, and build them, and the person who paid for their bike would be left wondering why you are entitled to something for free that they had to pay for.

This is like stating the chicken and the egg problem and then brushing it off as "I have a way to copy chickens indefinitely. I don't need eggs." without realizing that you needed not just eggs to even be able to make the first chicken to copy but also land, farms, farmers, food, and everything else that went into making the chicken you copied like an entitled, spoiled child.

Why? I have no need for synonyms when that world is perfectly clear and accurate for what is happening.

You being pompous and overly verbose makes you look bad.

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.

I know. It's painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I've already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I'm saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they're depriving the creator of income, they're ok with that, and they'll continue to do it. That's it.

You're arguing a legal definition. I am not.

I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you're not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.

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.