this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1220 points (96.5% liked)

memes

10163 readers
2823 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Okay, I can copy anyone's painting, or art, or make a model of their sculpture and make copies. What does the infinite reproducibility have to do with anything?

Why should both the original creator and I be allowed to sell those pieces?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Jumping the gun a little there, aren't you? Nobody said anything about selling the pirated content. With art that's considered forgery, and that's a different crime.

If you steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is then gone. Nobody else gets to have it or see it. That's theft. If I pirate your software, you won't even know I've done it, and any person with a copy of that software keeps it, including you. That's piracy. You see the difference?

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay I'll take your example. I replace the Mona Lisa with an exact copy and steal the original. Stealing or not?

Apparently the argument is that as long as a copy is left behind, it's not theft, right?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, not exactly; you're comparing apples and oranges because the original Mona Lisa has value inherent to it being the original, which the copy does not retain. But say you show up and exact copy the Mona Lisa and then take your copy home, that's not only not theft, it's perfectly legal. People take photographs of it all the time.

In software there's no difference between a master copy and the one you've downloaded, there is no additional value inherent to being the "original file" so this comparison doesn't really work.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you can't tell the Mona Lisa isnt real because its a perfect copy then there is no value lost. The one thats on display in the museum is very likely not the real one, and yet people still feel all of the feelings of seeing an original.

If noone knew I made the copy and swapped it, noone would ever be harmed by it, right?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't see why not I suppose.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, I'd still call it stealing much the same as I do piracy.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, then you'd be incorrect. Have you been paying attention at all? Even your own argument illustrates why this is. Think about why theft is illegal and it should be immediately apparent why they are different.

You have a cow, I take the cow from you, you starve and die and I make money. That's theft.

You have a cow, I create a perfect copy of that cow and take it home, we both get milk and beef, we both survive in our post-scarcity Star Trek like utopia. The fundamental definition of theft, the taking away of something that belongs to someone else, is impossible here.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you steal a piece of art that devalues that art for everyone, which then deprives the producers of the art of income, they then starve, and I get to have a bit of fun that I could have gotten elsewhere for free, real free.

That seems to fit your parameters there, no?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Look, the point here isn't that piracy is some magical guilt-free action that gets everyone free stuff for no downside. I'm not arguing that it should be legal. I'm not arguing that it's moral. But it is a fundamentally different crime than theft. We've been talking in circles about this for two days and it's pretty clear that neither of us is going to move off our opinions on the matter. Agree to disagree, then?

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

I actually didnt know how you felt about it until this last post, and I mostly agree. Ive been seeing an aversion here from people to acknowledge the downsides of it though and thats been frustrating. And I even pirate stuff myself.