5 ms·

"but it's still taking something " taking ? Or copying? Something? Or some representation? A problem with these discussions is that people use common words

"but it's still taking something " taking ? Or copying? Something? Or some representation? A problem with these discussions is that people use common words as if everyone had the same understanding of their meaning and application. If I download a movie, I'm not taking that movie. And what I end up with is not a thing; if I then move it over to another drive, no thing has moved, yet the movie can be watched. Now, in the end, this action it may or may not be wrong or immoral or whatever, but arguments based on physical notions of "take", "thing", "own" are putting the cart before the horse.

citricsquid 16y ago
taking = gaining possession of [item] taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either side of the discussion, it's just a word. I can take $10 from my mum to pay for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take without.
- kijinbear 16y ago
  When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is moving. But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of anything. That's copying, which is a different kind of taking. It gets even more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate copy of a song or a movie, and then produces more copies to share with other people. You run the fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "taking" in both senses.
  - citricsquid 16y ago
    My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can "take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical. Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|
    - kijinbear 16y ago
      Your actual argument depends on the sense of the word "take" that you use. (a) It is a well-established norm in any modern society that it's immoral to take (move) something without permission. (b) It is not well-established -- or at least, pirates would like to say that it's controversial -- that it's immoral to take (copy) something without permission. (c) It's even less well-established that it's immoral to take (purchase) something with permission and then crack the DRM or produce further copies to share with other people. Nobody disagrees with you about (a). But you're extrapolating that view to (b) and (c), and that part of the argument seems to hinge upon an equivocation of the different senses of "take". Content producers have a shaky argument because they want to use the "moving" sense of the word "take" to argue that (b) is immoral, while using something like the "copying" sense of the word "take" to argue that (c) is immoral. (If ownership of the movie was actually moved when you purchased it, it's none of their business what you do with the DVD you now own!) Don't make the same mistake of equivocation. This is not an argument that piracy is OK. I'm just trying to point out that there are good and bad ways to argue against piracy.
    - jamesbritt 16y ago
      "Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument" If I don't know what your words are supposed to mean, then I don't know what your argument is supposed to be.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
So, copying a representation belonging to someone else is "not stealing"? Is that the goal of this semantic fudging - somehow its not so bad?

citricsquid 16y ago

taking = gaining possession of [item] taking doesn't have to be negative and it's not a word associated with either side of the discussion, it's just a word. I can take $10 from my mum to pay for dinner, or take a magazine from a shop (after paying for it), it's just the opposite of give. You can take with permission, that's why I stated take without.

kijinbear 16y ago
When you take $10 from your mom, your mom no longer has that $10. When you pay money to buy a magazine, the shop no longer has that magazine and you no longer have the money. Taking in the usual sense is moving. But pirates insist that they can "take" without depriving the owner of anything. That's copying, which is a different kind of taking. It gets even more complicated if somebody first purchases a legitimate copy of a song or a movie, and then produces more copies to share with other people. You run the fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "taking" in both senses.
- citricsquid 16y ago
  My usage of "take" is insignificant, it's just a word in my argument. You can "take help" you can "take ideas" and they're not physical. Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument :|
  - kijinbear 16y ago
    Your actual argument depends on the sense of the word "take" that you use. (a) It is a well-established norm in any modern society that it's immoral to take (move) something without permission. (b) It is not well-established -- or at least, pirates would like to say that it's controversial -- that it's immoral to take (copy) something without permission. (c) It's even less well-established that it's immoral to take (purchase) something with permission and then crack the DRM or produce further copies to share with other people. Nobody disagrees with you about (a). But you're extrapolating that view to (b) and (c), and that part of the argument seems to hinge upon an equivocation of the different senses of "take". Content producers have a shaky argument because they want to use the "moving" sense of the word "take" to argue that (b) is immoral, while using something like the "copying" sense of the word "take" to argue that (c) is immoral. (If ownership of the movie was actually moved when you purchased it, it's none of their business what you do with the DVD you now own!) Don't make the same mistake of equivocation. This is not an argument that piracy is OK. I'm just trying to point out that there are good and bad ways to argue against piracy.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    "Please don't focus on the word "take", instead the actual argument" If I don't know what your words are supposed to mean, then I don't know what your argument is supposed to be.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

So, copying a representation belonging to someone else is "not stealing"? Is that the goal of this semantic fudging - somehow its not so bad?