Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
    133·
    1 year ago

    You seem to not understand what the word own means and the difference between material and not material goods.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
        124·
        1 year ago

        I have a thing and than someone takes it away, so I can’t use it anymore. If somebody copies that thing - it’s not really theft.

        My point is more - concepts from physical world don’t nessessary apply to digital world.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
          42·
          1 year ago

          It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be paid if their work doesn’t create something physical.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
            22·
            1 year ago

            Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I just make a difference between copying, stealing, physical goods, digital goods and immaterial things. They are not the same.

            Easy examples: original and copy does not really apply to digital works or two people on opposite sides of world can have the same thought but not have the same physical object at the same time, etc.

            • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Please name for me something someone could create on a computer, that you would agree they should be paid for; even if they show a demonstration copy to someone.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                What ever they can find someone to pay for. I my self pay or use legally free software for my work. I just do t think that if someone pirates a copy of adobe cs it’s equivalent to theft of a physical good. Completely ok in my book for private use a bit shady for commercial use - but adobe subscription model is shady in my book anyway.

                • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  So…say you like to use Sublime Text. And you pay for a premium license. How do you know the person you paid is the person who wrote Sublime Text?

                  In fact, let’s suppose one day you go online and it seems there are hundreds of excellent open source IDEs, all of which look a lot like Sublime Text, with different names. Who deserves the credit? It could be theorized that each of the authors you’re looking at DID pay for their initial copy; and since software is free to use in any way you like, it’s free to sell its use, right?

                  The above is not a problem in our world where the code of the application in question is the intellectual property of its original author - that even when he makes it open source, he retains the rights to put a donation/premium button in the help menu.

                  I’d still like a direct answer; what goods can most normal people produce on a computer that, absent intellectual property laws, they could still commonly sell? I’d also question what would be the path for highly niche specializations where, currently their work sells for high prices due to the constrain on supply. If everyone worked off of a FOSS donation model, they likely would not have so many four-digit donators.

                  • gapbetweenus@feddit.deEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Dude are you really that dense? I say that digital goods are not the same as physical goods and the concept of ownership or theft which applies to physical goods does not apply in the same way to non physical goods. Humans created different frameworks to be able to make money and integrate non material goods into economy. But that does not change the nature of things: unlimited number of people can have the same thought at the same time in different physical locations - that is not possible with physical objects; if someone copies an digital objects it’s still there for others to use, not so much if someone steals an objects.

                    If we are talking about copyright infringement, sure - but don’t equate copyright infringement to theft. And we can talk about use of immaterial goods, but no-one really owns them. Again - you can not own an idea, even if you create a legal framework that pretends that it’s possible - at any given time at any given place someone can come up with the same idea even as complex as say - periodic system of elements.

          • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
            52·
            1 year ago

            You say “ask the dictionary” — multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question, which obviously doesn’t apply to copyright infringement of digital works.

            You say “ask the law” — copyright infringement is not stealing, they are literally two completely different statutes, at least in the US.

            So, what the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is not theft.

              • TootGuitar@reddthat.comEnglish
                31·
                1 year ago

                My brother/sister in Christ, everyone in this discussion is talking about copyright infringement. That is the actual legal name for what we colloquially refer to as “piracy,” according to, you know, the law, which you previously referenced as something we should look to.