3 ms·

> someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket If I pirate something, how do I _very literally_ take money out of the pocket of the creator?

denton-scratch 5y ago
This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally". People excuse the abuse, saying that it also means something like "emphatically"; but in this case, it's clear why this abuse results in errors. As far as "theft" is concerned: software, including recorded music and films, has zero marginal cost of production. The software industries therefore have the potential to generate extreme profits, unrelated to the risks and costs of development. Intellectual Property laws are needed to protect these extreme profits. Incidentally, I'm not aware that the term "Intellectual Property" was in use before about 1985. Copyright infringement, in particular, wasn't a crime before about that date; enforcement was by civil suit, and if you didn't make any money from infringement, then the court's award couldn't be greater than zero.
- blihp 5y ago
  While the 'Intellectual Property' terminology probably did start in the 1980's alongside personal computers, the concerns about wide scale infringement definitely existed prior to that via Xerox (i.e. copy) machines (paper), audio tape/cassettes (sound) and VCRs (video) which made widespread consumer duplication trivial. This was all a thing before 1980, it just exploded as the technology reached the masses in the 80's. Copyright infringement was most definitely a thing before then and damages could be awarded even if you had no income from it. See statutory damages. Really the only thing that changed with computers was the ability to make perfect copies, thanks to the data being digital. Prior to that, the problem was somewhat mitigated by the analog nature of it and that by the time you got to the 3rd or 4th generation copy the quality had significantly degraded.
- cxr 5y ago
  > This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally" It's not. The problem lies with the way the respondent rephrased the original. The original, as written ("very literally ends up with less money"—not to "very literally take money out", as the respondent chose try to use in a bizarre and underhanded setup), is in perfectly reasonable accord with the correct use of the word "literally"...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
d23 5y ago
I you want to get really pedantic with the use of "literally": you're misquoting him. He didn't say you're literally "taking" the money out of their pocket; he said they literally have less in their pocket. I guess we could argue most people don't use cash these days so it's not literally in their pocket, but that's a level of pedantry I don't think is really valuable in a public forum.
- samatman 5y ago
  The strongest adverb I would support in that sentence is "hypothetically". "literally" is risible, and not because the poster meant "figuratively".
- hhjinks 5y ago
  I'm not misquoting them. How do you propose I can cause someone to _literally_ have less money in their pocket, without me _literally_ taking it out of their pocket? Regardless of whether that pocket is a literal pocket, or a bank account? By definition I am "taking". My act of piracy does not "very literally" cause any amount of money to be removed from the IP owner. And if the poster meant to invoke the more colloquial form of literally, they damn well shouldn't have qualified it with "very."

denton-scratch 5y ago

This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally". People excuse the abuse, saying that it also means something like "emphatically"; but in this case, it's clear why this abuse results in errors. As far as "theft" is concerned: software, including recorded music and films, has zero marginal cost of production. The software industries therefore have the potential to generate extreme profits, unrelated to the risks and costs of development. Intellectual Property laws are needed to protect these extreme profits. Incidentally, I'm not aware that the term "Intellectual Property" was in use before about 1985. Copyright infringement, in particular, wasn't a crime before about that date; enforcement was by civil suit, and if you didn't make any money from infringement, then the court's award couldn't be greater than zero.

blihp 5y ago
While the 'Intellectual Property' terminology probably did start in the 1980's alongside personal computers, the concerns about wide scale infringement definitely existed prior to that via Xerox (i.e. copy) machines (paper), audio tape/cassettes (sound) and VCRs (video) which made widespread consumer duplication trivial. This was all a thing before 1980, it just exploded as the technology reached the masses in the 80's. Copyright infringement was most definitely a thing before then and damages could be awarded even if you had no income from it. See statutory damages. Really the only thing that changed with computers was the ability to make perfect copies, thanks to the data being digital. Prior to that, the problem was somewhat mitigated by the analog nature of it and that by the time you got to the 3rd or 4th generation copy the quality had significantly degraded.
cxr 5y ago
> This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally" It's not. The problem lies with the way the respondent rephrased the original. The original, as written ("very literally ends up with less money"—not to "very literally take money out", as the respondent chose try to use in a bizarre and underhanded setup), is in perfectly reasonable accord with the correct use of the word "literally"...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

d23 5y ago

I you want to get really pedantic with the use of "literally": you're misquoting him. He didn't say you're literally "taking" the money out of their pocket; he said they literally have less in their pocket. I guess we could argue most people don't use cash these days so it's not literally in their pocket, but that's a level of pedantry I don't think is really valuable in a public forum.

samatman 5y ago
The strongest adverb I would support in that sentence is "hypothetically". "literally" is risible, and not because the poster meant "figuratively".
hhjinks 5y ago
I'm not misquoting them. How do you propose I can cause someone to _literally_ have less money in their pocket, without me _literally_ taking it out of their pocket? Regardless of whether that pocket is a literal pocket, or a bank account? By definition I am "taking". My act of piracy does not "very literally" cause any amount of money to be removed from the IP owner. And if the poster meant to invoke the more colloquial form of literally, they damn well shouldn't have qualified it with "very."