• null@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It is not stealing. The mental gymnastics are when you try to claim that it is.

    You’re stealing income from whoever created the content if you’re not paying them for your ability to watch it.

    It’s just as much “stealing” as me not watching it at all.

    I’m infringing on their copyright, absolutely, but I’m not taking anything away from them that they could otherwise profit from.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You can’t reason with him. He is an anti-piracy troll.

      For him, any comparison made to help him understand is a logical fallacy and any evidence presented against his argument is “irrelevant” as he puts it.

      It is like arguing with a trump-like narcissist lol. “My argument counts and yours is wrong, but if yours is right then it is irrelevant, made up, and/or a straw man. If I don’t understand something then it is an attack and I will insult you and instantly label you inferior.”

      It’s sad honestly and just like them all he is all “think of the poor artists who created the media you love” while conveniently ignoring that in the music industry, many/most artists don’t even get royalties because the record labels swindled then forced them to sign their lives and works away getting a couple pennies on the dollar.

      Video game industry is salaried. All profits go to the corporations outside of indie games. Movies, outside of the big name stars, earn almost poverty wages and absolutely 0.00% of what gets sold because the studios are so incredibly corrupt.

      Not to mention dead artists where unless they were extremely smart, their families are likely earning 0% of sold media.

      Also not getting into the fact that copyright used to be very short until large corporations bribed lawmakers constantly and for so much corrupt money that they changed copyright to extend an extreme amount of time, otherwise things from the 90s would already be public domain if there wasn’t so much blatant bribery and corruption done by the people you are “stealing” from.

      Unless you are pirating things from Dolly Parton or someone who was business savvy enough to not get cheated by the studios, you are not stealing from the artists in any crazy mental gymnastic stretch of the imagination.

      Piracy, at the very worst, is stealing from long time hard criminals. There is not a single big record corporation that has not committed a multitude of thefts, blackmail, drug dealing, bribery of government officials, and worse. That isn’t even getting into the crimes of porn studios and movie studios. Disney mass murdered animals on camera for views as one example.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.

      • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.

        Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.

          • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please… Listen… Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.

              Stop being dishonest.

              • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Provide to me a copy/paste definition of “false premise” so i know you know more fallacies than “strawman” and “ad hominem”. If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.

                (That was ad-hominem)

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.

                  • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Youre getting angry now i think. Whatever fruit this may have borne has withered. Last salvo and ill be finished:

                    I honestly want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don’t want to (and frankly, i don’t blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you’ll read it later?

                    (Spoiler: ‘false premises’ don’t necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There’s a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It’s real. Go check it out.

                    Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending this point in the future. Youre gonna all the tools available if youre going with this stance, and that’s what you want, right? You’re not just coming on this forum to run your mouth, right? Your comments have purpose, yes? You will need tools to convince, and you are in dire need of a toolbox

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.

              • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

                Why did I have to look this up for you?

                Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be “why is it stupid?” or what’s wrong with my way of thinking?", not “stop attacking me, I’m under attack!” At the very least, don’t misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn’t apply.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.

                  The point is that he didn’t provide any counter to the argument. He’s done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don’t need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I’m making.

      • null@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s a valid opinion. It doesn’t change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months 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.

          • null@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Piracy is stealing.

            No it is not. By any definition.

            You can think it’s morally wrong, that’s fine. But it simply, factually is not stealing.

            That’s the only point I’m making.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. It doesn’t matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you’re gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.

              • null@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You’re welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that’s your prerogative.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they’ve demanded in return, it’s stealing.

                  • null@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.

                    That’s not how piracy works.

      • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it.

        A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?