Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Manuel Correia (gamesbymanuel@peoplemaking.games)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 01:22:57 JST Manuel Correia

   • Seiðr

   "Piracy can't be stealing if paying for it isn't owning"

   This is increasingly how it feels, when streaming shows disappear for tax reasons and things you "own" digitally become inaccessible.

   Thank you @Illuminatus for this quote.

   • narcolepsy and alcoholism :flag:, Seahorses are horses and Another Linux Walt Alt {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Zealist (zealist@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 01:22:54 JST Zealist

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     • midway
     @Eiregoat @midway @gamesbymanuel
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 01:22:55 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • midway
     With renting the lessor isn't pretending to give you permanent ownership of something. When you buy a digital asset from a marketplace like itunes or amazon there's the expectation that your access to that asset is now a permanent right, and yet they violate that right constantly.
     
     More broadly I'd argue information cannot be considered property in the same way a car is because it's not scarce or rivalrous. There a limited amount of cars, there is a functionally unlimited amount of copies of a file. If one person is using a car that means another person can't use it, whereas if I copy a file you're using then we can both use it.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 01:22:56 JST midway

     in reply to
     So stealing a rental car is not theft?
     Fediverse Contractor likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Fediverse Contractor (bot@seal.cafe)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 01:31:05 JST Fediverse Contractor

     in reply to

     • midway
     I was about to make the same point.
   • Embed this notice
     Fediverse Contractor (bot@seal.cafe)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 04:39:44 JST Fediverse Contractor

     in reply to

     • MMS21 :blobcatkirby:
     • midway
     You’re buying a license. You paying $10 for a movie doesn’t entitle you to all of the resources and money behind the production of the movie, as if it were literally your property.
   • Embed this notice
     MMS21 :blobcatkirby: (mms21@seal.cafe)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 04:39:45 JST MMS21 :blobcatkirby:

     in reply to

     • Fediverse Contractor
     • midway
     That that says rent. Buy implies you own it. Nobody says “I bought a car for my trip” when they meant to say “I rented a car for my trip”.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • midway
     @midway I'm sorry, you seem to have been conned hard by corporate propaganda.
     
     Sharing information with your neighbor is good, even if it makes a business imagine that they lost money they weren't going to get in the first place.
     
     I myself wouldn't mind paying an artist for a work, as long as I can pay with only free software, but I find it unacceptable to pay a business that will take 100% of the profit and use it to fund degeneracy like proprietary software and digital handcuffs.
     
     I'll leave you some further reading:
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
     https://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html
     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:50 JST midway

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     You are depriving the inventors of the fruits of their work.
     The fact that you don't respect them doesn't change that.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:51 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • midway
     You can call any behaviour stealing and anyone a thief. The moral failure doesn't come from the word, it comes from the consequences. Me stealing a TV deprives someone of a TV. Me downloading a movie deprives no one of anything.
     
     So my conscience is clean and your accusations ring hollow. Your moral compass seems to be a rationalisation engine for why we should all fork over billions of dollars to jew propagandists.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:52 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • midway
     The fact that they're still in business disproves your claim that works going public domain would kill the industry.
     
     Anyhow it's still not functionally equivalent to theft. If I loot a TV that means the shop no longer has a TV. If I download a film the studio still has their film.
     
     My moral compass as regards media is simple:
     
     - Did I enjoy it? I only pay for media that's actually good and only as much as I think it's worth. This requires consuming first and paying later.
     
     - Has the production been paid off? If it's something that was made 50 years ago and the creator is dead I'm not paying off a rent seeker.
     
     - Is the producer trying to harm me? If the creator is going to use my money to hurt me, my nation or anyone I care about, they don't get any.
     
     Anyhow, as I've said the debate on copyright vs. public domain is over. Public domain won and their victory disproved the claims made by copyright proponents.
     
     The only arena where copyright still functionally exists is in suppressing derivative works and "similar" works. The fact that jews can shut down any creative project they like because there's something "similar" in their stable is a major problem.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:52 JST midway

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     You can try to justify it all you want, you're still a thief. I'm sure many thieves construct narratives in their head to justify why they steal. This is just your version of that. It's just ok to steal what you want to steal and it's bad when other people steal what they want to steal.
     
     And like I said, I get it. It happens. But just state that and leave it at that. Your "moral compass" is just a rationalization engine to help you justify in your head why it's ok.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:53 JST midway

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     The fact that they are still in business justifies your theft? Yeah, looters use that reasoning to justify their actions as well.
     
     Like I've said elsewhere in this thread. We've all done it at some point. My larger objection is trying to morally justifying it. If you're going to steal, at least have the balls to say that's what you're doing and that it's not some noble act.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:54 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • midway
     > So someone is only entitles to sell 1 copy of their work because once they do that it's public domain? Yeah, that's not going to work.
     
     And yet it moves.
     
     Copyright has been functionally dead for decades now. I can download any book, piece of music or film in history without paying a dime. It's not even that they sell one copy then it goes public, it leaks before they even make their first sale.
     
     And yet people still pay for music, books and films. Those industries are bigger than ever. The rise of filesharing has proven that copyright is an unnecessary evil. People voluntarily pay for good art without having to be locked down with ten flavours of DRM.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:07:55 JST midway

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     So someone is only entitles to sell 1 copy of their work because once they do that it's public domain? Yeah, that's not going to work.
     
     You may have an expectation of how a digital marketplace works, but it's up to you to understand how it works before putting down your money. I think these markets should also make their terms readily accessible and understandable, but the point stands that the seller can set terms of the transaction. It's then up to the buyers whether they accept them or not.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:11:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • midway
     @midway >If you didn't pay for it, you have deprived them of the money for the purchase. That is the fruits of their work.
     I was walking down the street with a want for $1000. I asked the first person I saw for $1000 and he no! He has deprived me of $1000!
     
     >They aren't entitled to your money but you are entitled to their work because ... reasons.
     They are entitled to how much time they would like to spend on the work and the terms of distribution (i.e. pay $10 for a copy of the file), anything more is ridiculous really.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:11:51 JST midway

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     If you didn't pay for it, you have deprived them of the money for the purchase. That is the fruits of their work.
     
     You speak of entitlement, but that's exactly what you are claiming. They aren't entitled to your money but you are entitled to their work because ... reasons.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:11:52 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • midway
     Nope! They still have the fruits of their work. The fact that I now have a copy deprives them of nothing.
     
     Unless of course you're referring to profits, in which case yes I'm depriving them of those. But no business is *entitled* to a profit and I wouldn't be rewarding them with one whether or not I watched their film.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:30:09 JST midway

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     Just demanding money isn’t depriving you because there is no exchange. The exchange with digital assets is the use of those assets. You are claiming entitlement to use something without paying for it. That is entirely different from demanding money from someone on the street.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 07-Jul-2023 23:30:09 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • midway
     @midway Referring to published works as "digital assets" devalues such works - it dismisses their value to society aside from potential commercial profits.
     
     You are demanding the entitlement of restricting someones ability to share with their neighbor, even after payment for the work in question has been received.
     
     Merely watching a video, or running some software doesn't even "use" it, as you cannot possible consume or exhaust digital information.
     
     If you are worried sick about someone watching a video you made, or running some software you run without paying you, even after being paid the price you set for x copies distributed, you should probably not have make the video or written the software in the first place.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jul-2023 16:48:00 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • midway
     @midway >But you don’t own it.
     Nobody should ever "own" digital information that they have sent to other people.
     
     >What you purchased was a license to use and that license has term and conditions. If you don’t like them, don’t use the product.
     If you ever end up agreeing to a proprietary license, it is your duty to break such antisocial terms, although it's better not to agree to such terms in the first place, as breaking them can sometimes be illegal.
     
     If you don't like how I would like to share information with my neighbors, you shouldn't have released that information.
     
     >Just like a rental car.
     No, as a physical object is scarce and cannot be copied, unlike digital information, which once exists, is not scare and can easily be copied.
     
     >You are paying for a right to use it.
     You are paying for the ability to deprive the usage of the rental car from the rental company and resulting physical wear on that car - not a "right to use".
     
     Making a copy of digital information leaves the original one unchanged - usage of the original copy is in no way deprived and no wear is caused.
     
     >Could you potentially buy the cat from the agency?
     Yes, as the rental company isn't bothered if they lose a rental car, if they receive enough money - as all they care about is money.
     
     If you pay them enough money, they'll be more than happy to do the insane task of driving any of their perfectly good rental cars to a scrapyard and getting it scrapped.
     
     >Could you buy the full rights to the digital product? Sure, but that’s a different transaction with a different price.
     This is a false parallel, as I've mentioned, nothing is lost when a copy of digital information is made.
     
     The only thing that I can think of that is remotely similar is, if you were to pay any business enough money, such business will be happy to do the insane task of depriving themselves of the usage of any copies of digital information that they have by deleting all copies of it that they have.
     
     
     Here is a good article that describes why proprietary licensing is of no value to society: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/07/07/producing-nothing.html
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Saturday, 08-Jul-2023 16:48:01 JST midway

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     But you don’t own it. What you purchased was a license to use and that license has term and conditions. If you don’t like them, don’t use the product.
     
     Just like a rental car. You are paying for a right to use it. Could you potentially buy the cat from the agency? Sure but that is a different transaction at a different price. Could you buy the full rights to the digital product? Sure, but that’s a different transaction with a different price.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 09-Jul-2023 17:59:30 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • midway
     @midway >Claiming something has no value to society isn't up to any one person.
     It is, as one person has to make the claim.
     
     >Society itself decides that as it's subjective.
     Yes, society contains many things that are known to have no value, but people do those things anyway.
     
     >Saying that you can only make money based on time you worked is a silly argument.
     I don't think you read the article properly.
     
     What was claimed is that it's only legitimate to be paid for actual work done (i.e. payment based on time worked), which is something I agree with.
     
     >the business model depends on having more than one person pay for the product.
     It's up a business to decide if their business model is based on one person, or many.
     
     >Otherwise the price for the first copy would be astronomical. Insisting that each user pay is a way to keep the price down.
     Paying a few programmers to work a few months on some software does cost a fair amount, but not an astronomical amount - although the business managing the programmers wants to charge a price so astronomical that <0.1% of profits are equivalent to all the programmers wages.
     
     Demanding that each and every user pay is a way to be profitable - but it makes no difference to the actual cost of developing the software.
     
     
     >What piracy has lead us to is software and other digital media being offered as subscription services more directly (e.g. SaaS).
     Unauthorized copying has nothing at all to do with the increased levels of digital handcuffs and subscription services - many companies have just realized that screwing over the customers is more profitable and they'll all keep doing that for as long as the suckers keep paying.
     
     >So for those of us who actually prefer having an actual copy, that option is slowly going away. So you end up renting it more explicitly than before anyway.
     The option for an actual copy is only going away because people refuse to choose with their wallet and just say no to degeneracy.
     
     I do not pay for proprietary software, or for monthly subscription "services", so I'm doing my part, barely anyone else seems to be doing so though.
     
     
     >I say all this as a proponent of FOSS
     I wish to eliminate all forms of proprietary software, including "FOSS".
     
     >50 GitHub repos all with an MIT license
     Github is proprietary and licensing under expat is a terrible idea - as it's just a handout to proprietary software companies - clearly your time is valuable, so why use it to do gratis work for proprietary software companies?
     
     I recommend licensing under the AGPLv3-or-later.
     
     >the creator should get to decide if he wants to release his product as FOSS or not.
     The author of a copyrightable work has the option to choose the license on resulting work.
     
     The author should have the choice whether to distribute some software or not, but it's not acceptable for any author to release proprietary malware.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Sunday, 09-Jul-2023 17:59:31 JST midway

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     Claiming something has no value to society isn't up to any one person. Society itself decides that as it's subjective. Saying that you can only make money based on time you worked is a silly argument. Investments can produce passive income. And the business model depends on having more than one person pay for the product. Otherwise the price for the first copy would be astronomical. Insisting that each user pay is a way to keep the price down.
     
     What piracy has lead us to is software and other digital media being offered as subscription services more directly (e.g. SaaS). So for those of us who actually prefer having an actual copy, that option is slowly going away. So you end up renting it more explicitly than before anyway.
     
     I say all this as a proponent of FOSS. I use some of those products and have around 50 GitHub repos all with an MIT license. But the creator should get to decide if he wants to release his product as FOSS or not.