this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1368 points (95.7% liked)
memes
10454 readers
4187 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We have another one.
Slavery used to be legal. So it was okay?
Right now „selling“ stuff and saying its just a license you fool is legal so it is okay?
That is a false equivalence, and I think you know that.
Feel free to point out where because thats exactly what people mean by the phrase in the post.
Comparing slavery to purchasing digital media might be a good place to start.
Its unimportant which example you use.
The underlying principle is legal ≠ correct. Just because something is legal, its not necessarily morally or otherwise correct.
Selling a movie to someone and calling it a license is highly manipulative and I think you know that.
Yes, I said from the start that it might not be moral.
But that's exactly the point: companies sell movies to theaters, and then those theaters sell tickets to each viewer. That's the license they each agreed to. A theater buying a movie off Amazon and then selling tickets to everyone who watched it would probably make some people upset, and would very clearly be illegal.
Talk about mental gymnastics.
You cant sell a limited time license. That is rent, plain and simple. If you pay 3 years rent at once or monthly, its still rent.
If you pay for something and have to give it back, you dont actually become the „owner“.
And thats why people say if buying isnt owning, piracy isnt theft, plain and simple.
Renting generally refers to physical goods, with the following property: when it’s being used by one party, it’s unavailable to everyone else.
For intellectual property, things that can be used by N people without interference between them, the term limited license is correct.
Its still manipulative to call it „selling“ or „owning“.
What's funny about your bad equivalency is that pirating is treating the people who created the content as slaves since you're enjoying the fruit of their labour without compensating them.
This user you interacted with here, went on to describe this conversation as you “abusing” and “manipulating” them. They claimed that you were a troll, and started a huge thread in the Fediverse community about expanding ban powers and purging the world of people they disagree with.
My god it’s a discussion thread on the internet, with two people disagreeing. This is what they consider trolling and abuse now.
Look at how they responded to you disagreeing with them: https://lemmy.giftedmc.com/post/204629
Wow...
And another one. There are a lot more and better ways to compensate an artist than giving money to record companies.
Besides that, I‘m not saying dont buy artistic work, I‘m saying please pirate products of companies that try to bullshit their customers.
Ok, realistically, how many pirates turn around and send money to the creators, making sure that all the people involved in the creation of the content are compensated for their work?
You don't want to admit it but in the end you're still taking money from the creators and if everyone was doing that then no one would create content.
I hope pirates are happy that some people keep paying for shit.
You‘re not answering my comment but repeating a set of beliefs. If you want to discuss stuff, feel free to. Otherwise kindly move along.
You're saying there are better ways to compensate the creators, I'm saying no pirates do it, especially not in a way that would make them legally allowed to have a copy of the creators' work.
If you don't want to buy a CD because you don't want the record label to profit from your purchase and you instead buy a t-shirt and go see a show, it doesn't give you the right to have a digital copy of the artist's songs. What you bought is the right to see a show and to own a t-shirt and downloading a copy of their album is still taking money from the artists and all the people that worked on it.
Referencing one point of my many arguments is not a discussion.
„Selling“ limited licences should be illegal but isnt. Legal does (evidently) not mean morally or otherwise okay. Supporting artists does not mean buying bad products, you cant prove that no pirates buy merch or use alternative methods to support creators, therefore I‘ll just ignore your statement.
You were the one trying to derail the topic to a cd or movie, which is not what I said.
Here's your whole argument:
`And another one. There are a lot more and better ways to compensate an artist than giving money to record companies.
Besides that, I‘m not saying dont buy artistic work, I‘m saying please pirate products of companies that try to bullshit their customers.`
I'm refuting the first part (which is your main argument because the second part is just another way to say the exact same thing) and my rebuttal also covers your second point (you're punish the creators that have nothing to do with the company that's doing bullshit).
You can't prove that pirates do compensate the creators either so your argument is moot if mine is. The only way to legally have the creators content on hand is but purchasing it (license or full ownership), no other form of compensation allows you to have those files or compensates ALL the people involved.
As for derailing the conversation, you're the first one who mentioned artists and compensating them in other ways, which, if you can be honest for 30 seconds, isn't something that exists in the video game world.
In the end, it's on you to just not play games that are distributed in a way that makes you reliant on a third party. Just because you're mad it doesn't make it ok to enjoy the work of the people who created the games that are distributed in a way you disagree with without compensating them.
Many words for something you could have said in three sentences.
You obviously dont know how to prove something. I would have to prove someone has pirated something (if thats how we define pirate) and then prove they have done whatever to compensate the creator, e.g. buy merch, subscribe on patreon or otherwise send them money.
And no, it is not my main argument. My main argument was that calling a limited license „buying“ or „owning“ is manipulative and should be illegal, therefore pirating products from a company using these tactics is ok.
For fuck's sake, what have YOU proven so far? You're the one who brought up "alternative compensations", yet you can't prove that's something that happens or that it makes you legally entitled to own the media created by the people you're compensating in this alternative way.
Pirating is only ok if you decide to ignore the fact that the creators have a right to make a living. If you think they don't then you're no better than a slaver as you're talking their work and enjoying it while they're left without any form of compensation in return. The responsibility is on your as a consumer to say "This product is distributed in a way I disagree with therefore I will do without it." and you can contact the creators/publisher to tell them how you feel. The second you open your eyes and see the human element you have no moral ground to stand on and from the get go you already know you don't have any legal ground to stand on either.
In the end you're just treating people in a way you would never accept to get treated yourself.
I‘m quite pleased to see you lose it, ngl.
I just pointed out how it would be easy to prove that someone who pirates still compensates the creator. For legal reasons I would never try to prove this to some internet rando. Shame on you for thinking I would. You on the other side cant prove the opposite by definition and are thus making baseless claims. Imo you only used the example to support your shilling for IP holders.
What you’re doing rn is called the conjunction fallacy or if conciously used just abusive rhetoric: you‘re assuming that because I think pirating from a faceless corporation abusing their customers is ok I must think that artists dont deserve money.
To an ignorant, easily manipulatable person, this would seem correct. For someone with more experience its wrong in the best case and brutally abusive and manipulative in the worst.
You starting to use more and more aggressive and derogatory language instead of keeping calm or disengaging shows me that your intent is to be abrasive, not to change anyones mind or have a meaningful discussion.
buy merch, subscribe on patreon or otherwise send them money.None of these things give you a moral or legal right to have access to other content they have created. You send money to the dev directly? What about all the other people involved in the project? You buy merch? Good for you, that gives you the right to have that merch, not something else they created.
I would never try to prove this to some internet randoYou would never be able to prove it on a large scale, that's the real reason why you would never do it, it would be anecdotal evidence and that's it.
assuming that because I think pirating from a faceless corporation abusing their customers is ok I must think that artists dont deserve money.The second you pirate content that's exactly what you accept, they there are people that don't get compensated for their work.
For someone with more experience its wrong in the best case and brutally abusive and manipulative in the worst.Funny how the people concerned wouldn't agree with you, guess they're not experts.
You starting to use more and more aggressive and derogatory language instead of keeping calm or disengaging shows me that your intent is to be abrasive, not to change anyones mind or have a meaningful discussion.And you refusing to face basic facts and logic shows me that you argue in bad faith.
I never needed to prove on a large scale. You said noone does it. You know that its impossible to prove that.
You accusing me of arguing in bad faith because I dont accept moral arguments for large corporations is quite funny.
This discussion is not going anywhere. I did prove what I wanted. Your arguments (no pirates pay for pirated content, pirating from companies that abuse IP law hurts mostly the artists) are neither substantiated nor are they relevant for the original point.
In any case, I do what you couldn’t. I‘m calling it now. Have a good one.
https://lemmy.giftedmc.com/post/204629
Wow, you're a big baby aren't you?
Let me solve that for you by blocking you 😘
Yeah, feel free to. Always happy for one abusive person less in my lemmy experience. Reported, blocked.
they supposedly bloced me, too.
some people cant stand the cognitive dissonance that comes with learning they were wrong.
Considering that this account has never before interacted with me and immediately went there, they either used an alt or have severe issues with impulse control and abusive behavior.
no, it's not
What do you call it if you work to create something for someone and that person decides that what you created is theirs for free and you don't have a say in the matter?
Because that's exactly what slavery is and that's exactly what pirates do.
If you disagree you should mention it to your boss because I'm sure they would be very happy to know that!