5 ms·

Pirating != stealing.

Joeri 9y ago
You may want to look up the dictionary definition of stealing. Besides, it's still harmful to others and therefore wrong.
- sgift 9y ago
  > it's still harmful to others and therefore wrong. If everything that was harmful to others would be seen as wrong we would live in a completely different world. Interestingly, people only make this connection for very few topics.
  - Joeri 9y ago
    Sounds like a better world to me. Anyway, it seems I hit a nerve. I used to be one of those piracy is not stealing people, back when I pirated content. Now that I pay for content I can look back at that person and understand that cognitive dissonance between my notion of myself as a good person and the fact that I was pirating content led me to consider piracy a good thing, or at the least not a bad thing. Because really, what is being said with the semantics argument "piracy != stealing"? It is about how harmful piracy is, whether it really is as bad as stealing, and fundamentally whether or not we should have copyright at all. If we should have copyright, then we must have legal tools to enforce it, and piracy must be illegal and wrong. If we shouldn't have copyright, then piracy is a form of freedom fighting and should be encouraged. My opinion on the matter is that we should have copyright, but that it should be more limited in duration, with stronger fair use exceptions (like the right to decrypt for the purpose of backup and archival). I don't care for the semantics argument. Call it piracy or call it stealing, it does not change what is being done: taking things without permission.
    - vincnetas 9y ago
      I'm not saying that pirating is good. I'm just saying that pirating does not mean "taking things without permission" aka stealing. It's copying things without permission. P.S. when i was young and poor i used to wear an eye patch, these days i'm paying for stuff.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  The word existed before digital content. By your own logic; corporate protectionism is also harmful to others, so that is wrong too?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The word existed before digital content. So? Words get revised when society/technology/etc changes. Besides copyright existed before digital content too.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > Words get revised In this case, society adopted the word "piracy" to represent the new semantic, whereas the recording industry chose "stealing" so as to conflate the issue. The word war is not a neutral process. > copyright existed before digital content too And it's application in modern times is increasingly contrived and outdated. Since when was it decided that mandatory "remastering" was a reasonable condition to repay for a media all over again? Why would I have to pay additional fees just to use a different medium (mobile phone vs laptop, for example).
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >In this case, society adopted the word "piracy" to represent the new semantic, whereas the recording industry chose "stealing" so as to conflate the issue. The word war is not a neutral process. No, but it's also not as clearcut as "society uses piracy / recording industry chose stealing". If anything, the recording industry refers to piracy all the time. >And it's application in modern times is increasingly contrived and outdated. From a consumer standpoint? Because it's meant to protect creators, not consumers. >Why would I have to pay additional fees just to use a different medium (mobile phone vs laptop, for example). Because the seller sets the price. People can pay it or not use the product. It happens with everything else.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        Yes, but "piracy" seems to have stuck. "Stealing" I'd consider non-neutral. > Because the seller sets the price But I already paid. The seller is also asking to control the medium. That does not happen with everything else. In fact, there has been a creep toward control in the hands of distributers (e.g. Amazon deleting recalled ebooks off the devices they sold to you). This isn't just a case "seller has product, seller sets price". The landscape of available products is being purposefully manipulated to expand the number of different products that exist e.g I'd consider a digital movie file to be one 'product', independent to whatever medium I choose to play it on; But the movie industry might advocate for a separate 'product' per medium. At that point it's not even related to the original "artist"/creator or their compensation - I'm now dealing with middlemen actively lobbying to create new forms of compensation, and restricting the ways in which I can access certain services without them. In the example I gave above, "remastering" is an excuse to charge for the same product on a different medium. There might be compensatory charges on top of DVDs that go to offset piracy, but there will never be compensation for consumers who already bought a film on a different format (VHS, for example) - the advantage only ever goes one way, so I don't care what narratives industry lawyers care to craft - piracy provides a necessary pressure to prevent consumers being taken advantage of even more.
- na85 9y ago
  If I steal your car, you lose your car. If I pirate your film, you may or may not have lost out on a sale. Probably I wasn't willing to pay for your awful SpywareDataHarvesting as a Service content platform so it's debatable whether or not you truly lost anything.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    I lost control over my work. How about that? Even if I haven't lost the original, who exactly gave you the permission to watch my work? Do you also sneak into live shows without paying the cover charge? After all a live band doesn't lose money when you sneak into the theater either. And you can argue that you might have never opted to pay the ticket in the first place if you couldn't sneak. So, as long as there's enough room for other people and you're not causing them lost tickets, it's ok too?
    - na85 9y ago
      >Even if I haven't lost the original, who exactly gave you the permission to watch my work? What if I watch it for free at my friend's house? Do I need your permission?
boyce 9y ago
Yeah yeah Frankenstein is the maker, not the monster Linux is just the kernel Etc
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  ...yes, these are all true statements and you should use correct descriptions of you want to be understood. - calling pirates thieves is a leap that will undermine your argument by assuming harm that's not shown - have any serious discussion about Frankenstein's morality while confusing him with his monster and no one will understand you - I write this from a Linux device, but because it is an Android/Linux device is has a completely different experience than a GNU/Linux system, and you can have that experience on GNU/kFreeBSD or GNU/NT just as well. Semantics matter. Words make a difference. Please don't miscommunicate just because misunderstanding helps your side in an argument.
  - boyce 9y ago
    What do you think my side is and of what argument It's a shorthand which I'm sure everyone else understood. Sorry if you were confused.
    - graphitezepp 9y ago
      Speaking implicitly doesn't do well these days, it seems.

You may want to look up the dictionary definition of stealing. Besides, it's still harmful to others and therefore wrong.

sgift 9y ago
> it's still harmful to others and therefore wrong. If everything that was harmful to others would be seen as wrong we would live in a completely different world. Interestingly, people only make this connection for very few topics.
- Joeri 9y ago
  Sounds like a better world to me. Anyway, it seems I hit a nerve. I used to be one of those piracy is not stealing people, back when I pirated content. Now that I pay for content I can look back at that person and understand that cognitive dissonance between my notion of myself as a good person and the fact that I was pirating content led me to consider piracy a good thing, or at the least not a bad thing. Because really, what is being said with the semantics argument "piracy != stealing"? It is about how harmful piracy is, whether it really is as bad as stealing, and fundamentally whether or not we should have copyright at all. If we should have copyright, then we must have legal tools to enforce it, and piracy must be illegal and wrong. If we shouldn't have copyright, then piracy is a form of freedom fighting and should be encouraged. My opinion on the matter is that we should have copyright, but that it should be more limited in duration, with stronger fair use exceptions (like the right to decrypt for the purpose of backup and archival). I don't care for the semantics argument. Call it piracy or call it stealing, it does not change what is being done: taking things without permission.
  - vincnetas 9y ago
    I'm not saying that pirating is good. I'm just saying that pirating does not mean "taking things without permission" aka stealing. It's copying things without permission. P.S. when i was young and poor i used to wear an eye patch, these days i'm paying for stuff.
Chris2048 9y ago
The word existed before digital content. By your own logic; corporate protectionism is also harmful to others, so that is wrong too?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The word existed before digital content. So? Words get revised when society/technology/etc changes. Besides copyright existed before digital content too.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > Words get revised In this case, society adopted the word "piracy" to represent the new semantic, whereas the recording industry chose "stealing" so as to conflate the issue. The word war is not a neutral process. > copyright existed before digital content too And it's application in modern times is increasingly contrived and outdated. Since when was it decided that mandatory "remastering" was a reasonable condition to repay for a media all over again? Why would I have to pay additional fees just to use a different medium (mobile phone vs laptop, for example).
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >In this case, society adopted the word "piracy" to represent the new semantic, whereas the recording industry chose "stealing" so as to conflate the issue. The word war is not a neutral process. No, but it's also not as clearcut as "society uses piracy / recording industry chose stealing". If anything, the recording industry refers to piracy all the time. >And it's application in modern times is increasingly contrived and outdated. From a consumer standpoint? Because it's meant to protect creators, not consumers. >Why would I have to pay additional fees just to use a different medium (mobile phone vs laptop, for example). Because the seller sets the price. People can pay it or not use the product. It happens with everything else.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Yes, but "piracy" seems to have stuck. "Stealing" I'd consider non-neutral. > Because the seller sets the price But I already paid. The seller is also asking to control the medium. That does not happen with everything else. In fact, there has been a creep toward control in the hands of distributers (e.g. Amazon deleting recalled ebooks off the devices they sold to you). This isn't just a case "seller has product, seller sets price". The landscape of available products is being purposefully manipulated to expand the number of different products that exist e.g I'd consider a digital movie file to be one 'product', independent to whatever medium I choose to play it on; But the movie industry might advocate for a separate 'product' per medium. At that point it's not even related to the original "artist"/creator or their compensation - I'm now dealing with middlemen actively lobbying to create new forms of compensation, and restricting the ways in which I can access certain services without them. In the example I gave above, "remastering" is an excuse to charge for the same product on a different medium. There might be compensatory charges on top of DVDs that go to offset piracy, but there will never be compensation for consumers who already bought a film on a different format (VHS, for example) - the advantage only ever goes one way, so I don't care what narratives industry lawyers care to craft - piracy provides a necessary pressure to prevent consumers being taken advantage of even more.
na85 9y ago
If I steal your car, you lose your car. If I pirate your film, you may or may not have lost out on a sale. Probably I wasn't willing to pay for your awful SpywareDataHarvesting as a Service content platform so it's debatable whether or not you truly lost anything.
- coldtea 9y ago
  I lost control over my work. How about that? Even if I haven't lost the original, who exactly gave you the permission to watch my work? Do you also sneak into live shows without paying the cover charge? After all a live band doesn't lose money when you sneak into the theater either. And you can argue that you might have never opted to pay the ticket in the first place if you couldn't sneak. So, as long as there's enough room for other people and you're not causing them lost tickets, it's ok too?
  - na85 9y ago
    >Even if I haven't lost the original, who exactly gave you the permission to watch my work? What if I watch it for free at my friend's house? Do I need your permission?

boyce 9y ago

Yeah yeah Frankenstein is the maker, not the monster Linux is just the kernel Etc

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
...yes, these are all true statements and you should use correct descriptions of you want to be understood. - calling pirates thieves is a leap that will undermine your argument by assuming harm that's not shown - have any serious discussion about Frankenstein's morality while confusing him with his monster and no one will understand you - I write this from a Linux device, but because it is an Android/Linux device is has a completely different experience than a GNU/Linux system, and you can have that experience on GNU/kFreeBSD or GNU/NT just as well. Semantics matter. Words make a difference. Please don't miscommunicate just because misunderstanding helps your side in an argument.
- boyce 9y ago
  What do you think my side is and of what argument It's a shorthand which I'm sure everyone else understood. Sorry if you were confused.
  - graphitezepp 9y ago
    Speaking implicitly doesn't do well these days, it seems.