• TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it very much isn’t. Don’t buy into the media companies trying to rewrite the law in their favour. Copyright infringement is not theft.

    • FoxBJK@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It may sound the same but making a copy of something is absolutely not the same as taking something. It’s an important distinction.

      • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re taking away the profit they deserve for the work and effort it took them to create the information.

        • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They only deserve what people are willing to pay. It’s like those scammers in foreign countries who push bracelets on you and then demand money for them. If people aren’t willing to pay $600 for your software, you don’t automatically deserve that money just because you said you do.

          • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Push bracelets on you? Who is forcing you to use their software? Please let me know, we can call the police man, that’s fucked up.

          • hoodatninja@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They only deserve what people are willing to pay

            Oh god please don’t drag the invisible hand into this.

            Let me give me an example: I’m a photographer. I do a limited run of 500 of my prints. You are upset at the cost of my prints - even though you can afford it - so you go find a real one, make a great scan of my photo without my permission or remove my watermark from a public one where I explicitly say do not reproduce with my permission, blow it up, and put it on your wall.

            Is that right?

            As for your software example, you are leaving out a critical element: why are you entitled to the software? The answer is you aren’t, you just want it.

            • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              What if I can’t afford it? What if I wouldn’t pay for it even if I could? How are you harmed by me putting it on my wall? You still have 500 photos to sell, and you didn’t lose a customer because I never was one to begin with.

              I don’t think I’m entitled to it, I just think it’s a victimless situation. I download shit because I can and because I wouldn’t pay for it anyway. And noone is harmed or effected in any way.

                • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I never made any justifications or claims of morality. I don’t think pirating is some moral service in most cases, but I also strongly disagree that it’s immoral. And yes, it may be a small percentage, but there are people out there pirating purely for archival sake. Archive.org has dumps of old games for pretty much every system. Lots of retro games would be unplayable now if people hadn’t pirated them. Same with books and movies that go out of print. It definitely does help to keep the media alive.

                  My main point though was that I strongly disagree that there’s any immoral or unethical about it, provided I’m not profiting off your work. You literally would never even have a way of knowing, if i kept a copy just for personal use. It’s also definitely not theft, it’s a civil matter and in civil matters you have to prove damages, which is impossible in the example you gave because there is no damage to you (or your reputation).

          • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you never intended to buy the product but you intended to use it?

            Do you understand they are charging you for the usage, not for your intentions or moral views?

                • hoodatninja@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They say there’s no moral argument yet they try to defend themselves with more arguments, even as I say nothing about morality lol

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes. If I don’t think it’s worth paying the price they’re asking, I will download and play it for free. It if were not available to download for free, I would simply not play it. They lose nothing either way.

              If I would have paid for it, but downloaded it for free simply because I could, you’re correct they would be losing profits. But that’s not always the case as you seem to be claiming.