• pivot_root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.

    Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      You’re arguing a legal definition. I am not.

      I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s not just the legal definition. It’s the dictionary definition, as well.

        Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:

        noun. the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.

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

          It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.

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

              How does that do anything other than prove my point?

              “without permission or legal right”

              • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                the action or offense of taking another person’s property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.

                Piracy isn’t taking property without the intention to return it. The pirated media itself is property, but it’s being copied rather than stolen. The potential profits from selling said media to you is being taken, but that’s not tangible property capable of being stolen.

                On the other hand, piracy is appropriation. It’s just doesn’t meet the criteria of theft/stealing.

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

                  Now you’re just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?

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

                    That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It’s not theft, it’s unethical appropriation of others’ work.

                    Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create

                    I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.

                    Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.

                    Likewise, should the media become unavailable after “purchase” as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).

                    The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn’t get screwed.

                    if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?

                    That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.