• shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The fact that the comparison feels off to many despite being perfectly valid is exactly the point.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not, though. The money your boss pays is done in exchange for services, not goods, nor does your boss actively take your possessions.

      You don’t provide services to the store, so there’s no equivalent. The closest thing is simple shoplifting (you take the goods but do not pay) but there are tons of videos online that prove that many stores won’t do much to stop shoplifters. Some stores will keep track of how much you’ve stolen and only take action after passing a certain threshold, something employees can also do as wage theft is illegal but higher amounts are easier to win the lawsuit over.

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The distinctions you name are completely irrelevant, because in both cases people are robbed of $100 they legally own. It doesn’t matter if physical goods or services are exchanged, or if the owner also physically possessed the money at some point.

        Idk where you live, but shop owners in my country will absolutely go after every penny someone has stolen from a store, and rightfully so!

          • shrugal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, no one is saying that they are the same. The argument is that their differences don’t matter in this context, because the negative outcome for the victim is the same. And that’s absolutely not the case for physical theft vs digital piracy, not even close.