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

  • @gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    77 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.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 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.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -17 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 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.

    • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If somebody copies that thing - it’s not really theft.

      Yes, it absolutely is, by any standard. Ask the dictionary, ask the law, ask literally any authority on literacy and they all come up with the same verdict.

      You’re just lying to yourself to justify doing whatever you want.

      If you want to argue when piracy is and is not ethical, that is a different discussion we can have, and we’d likely largely agree. But saying that anything that is digital doesn’t belong to anyone is pure nonsense.

      • @TootGuitar@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        7 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.

        • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -17 months ago

          multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question

          Like many words, “theft” has several different definitions, that being one of them.

          copyright infringement is not stealing

          Congratulations, that’s the 4th strawman in this thread. No one is talking about copyrights.

          So what the hell are you talking about?

          • @TootGuitar@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17 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.