You're viewing a single thread.
I fully agree with the general message, but this particular anecdote doesn't really make sense to me and can easily be waved off by anyone who disagrees with it.
If buying isn't owning, that means it's renting or borrowing.
If you pirate it, they get no money and therefore cannot rent it out to you. You cannot just steal a movie from the movie rental store or a car from a car rental place. That's stealing.
Sure, it's infinitely reproducible but that's not what this meme says. That's an unrelated argument for piracy. It draws a direct connection between the 2 relationships of buying + owning and pirating + stealing. However, one has nothing to do with the other.
When someone owns something, they are allowed to rent it out and take it back at any time. It's always been that way and that's valid.
The real argument should be "if there was no intention to buy in the first place, then piracy isn't stealing" or something like that.
Let me rephrase. I agree that piracy isn't stealing, but the fact that buying isn't owning does NOT prove that at all, nor does it have anything to do with it. It's a reason people pirate, sure, but it in no way proves that piracy isn't stealing. The phrase is an if;then statement. If one thing is true, it MEANS the other is true, which just isn't the case. Both can be true sure, but proving the first half does not prove the second half. Making one true does not instantly make the other true.
This will not make anyone at ubisoft mad. In fact, they will be glad that such a poorly crafted argument is being used against them, since it's 0 effort to disprove and dismiss it. We should raise other arguments that are logically sound if we want to convince anyone - friends, family, lawmakers - of anything.
Am I completely missing the point or is this analogy completely nonsensical?
On a side note, I condone piracy and nobody should ever give money to large media corporations. But if we use stupid arguments like this it makes us easier to dismiss.
Edit: I'm looking for discussion here. If you're going to downvote me, at least tell me why you think my argument is wrong. I'm here to learn.
It's about them missrepresenting the transaction. If you go to the store and rent a movie then it's an agreement that it's temporary. If you buy it then they can't take it back, what they are doing is fraud and complaining that we don't want to deal with them.
I agree with everything you said, however that has nothing to do with piracy. It's a shitty thing they're doing that we should be mad at, but it in no way sets the definition of piracy, which is what they're going to try to defend against in any argument.
What we should demand is that they properly define buying, owning, and renting so that we own our products. Piracy is piracy no matter what the definition of owning is. Only the reasons change. One reason is that they treat buying as renting, but it does not change the definition of piracy, no matter what we think the definition is.
I agree with you here, piracy isn't theft for reasons unrelated to buying and owning. The reason lies with the infinite reproducibility of the product. While I may agree with the sentiment behind the post, it's not technically a sound argument.
Okay, I can copy anyone's painting, or art, or make a model of their sculpture and make copies. What does the infinite reproducibility have to do with anything?
Why should both the original creator and I be allowed to sell those pieces?
Jumping the gun a little there, aren't you? Nobody said anything about selling the pirated content. With art that's considered forgery, and that's a different crime.
If you steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre, the Mona Lisa is then gone. Nobody else gets to have it or see it. That's theft. If I pirate your software, you won't even know I've done it, and any person with a copy of that software keeps it, including you. That's piracy. You see the difference?
Okay I'll take your example. I replace the Mona Lisa with an exact copy and steal the original. Stealing or not?
Apparently the argument is that as long as a copy is left behind, it's not theft, right?
Well, not exactly; you're comparing apples and oranges because the original Mona Lisa has value inherent to it being the original, which the copy does not retain. But say you show up and exact copy the Mona Lisa and then take your copy home, that's not only not theft, it's perfectly legal. People take photographs of it all the time.
In software there's no difference between a master copy and the one you've downloaded, there is no additional value inherent to being the "original file" so this comparison doesn't really work.
If you can't tell the Mona Lisa isnt real because its a perfect copy then there is no value lost. The one thats on display in the museum is very likely not the real one, and yet people still feel all of the feelings of seeing an original.
If noone knew I made the copy and swapped it, noone would ever be harmed by it, right?
But this is an even more easily defeated argument. It’s suggesting that anything that can be copy-pasted through File Explorer should never have a monetary compensation for its existence. Given the immense hours devoted to making video games, most people would inherently disagree with that. I think the only people who’d lend any credence to the idea would be cheapskates wanting free entertainment.
fun fact: you can sell gpl-licensed software, but anyone who receives the software can distribute it for free
And, fun fact, in order for GPL software to operate commercially, they sell “licenses” - yes, foregoing the antipirating software, but still pursuing people with lawyers.
And guess what Oracle has to spend so much time doing?…Because, as it turns out, even businesses are cheapskates.
conflating the gpl license with the license to use software you buy? don't understand
It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that it isn't theft. It's software piracy. When you're finished downloading your software, everyone who had a copy of that software still has it. So you haven't stolen anything. You haven't taken resources from anyone. You aren't depriving someone else of this object and using it yourself instead. You've simply made a copy of an infinitely copiable medium. Sure you did so without paying for it, that's why piracy is a crime. But it isn't theft. You haven't taken anything away from anyone. In fact you've done the opposite, and increased the total amount of ordered data in the world, but I won't try to spin that as something chivalrous for this argument, that's a different discussion.
Point is, say what you want about piracy and its dubious legality, it factually is not theft.
This is like saying that pointing a loaded gun at a puppy isn’t technically murder or assault. You’re still admitting it’s a harmful and illegal act, and are fussing over the terminology used.
It’s also ignoring how labels and word usage shift for the sake of modern convenience. Words like “insane”, “sick”, generally weren’t used positively in history. If I said a game “technically doesn’t have loot boxes” you’d be pretty upset if you found it still had paid randomized loot, even if they were not technically contained in a six-sided “box”. You’re being overly specific about the words when much of the world agrees you’re taking something you’re not entitled to.
The difference between what you call theft and copyright infringement doesn’t have effective benefit to the seller, especially since even in physical retail, the supply of an item is often largely irrelevant for a store’s financials. As such, I am okay with referring to both as the same thing, even if you’d currently find dictionaries that separate them.
EDIT: Fun. It looks like after I posted this comment, someone went through and downvoted all of my comments listed on my profile, even on completely different topics. Don't anger pirates, kids! You will never beat their pettiness.
That phrase means "if you will make an enemy out of me and won't let me buy the kind of ownership I want, I'll take it and ignore paying you".
But notice that the full explanation is longer? That phrase captures perfectly well the antagonizing perspective, and nobody goes around making sure they pay fairly the people that treat them as enemies. It also fails to capture any other bit of the logic, but it's ok, the logic is simple and automatic once the antagonism is explicitated.
"You disrespect me when you use the word BUY when you mean RENT, I'll show you the same disrespect by denying you any monetary gain that you normally get from ghosting your customers"
Sometimes I wish I could have the skills to hack these websites - change every "Buy" to "Rent", add a " Why am I seeing this?" and then explain that the transaction is for "Digital key revocable at any time by (insert scummy corporate here)".
Then I'll happily laugh and watch their profits drop , while they try to publish a statement defending their position.I can see that, that's a good point. However, it's so easy to misconstrue that phrase into an objective statement of "the relationship between buying and owning directly creates the relationship between piracy and stealing" and the average person, lawmaker, etc can easily get confused when the "ones who own all the content" try to disprove that statement even though it's not the statement we're trying to make.
What is literally said in the meme is incorrect, even if it means something completely different. We need to say what we mean, not make a catchy analogy that's technically incorrect and easily used against us.
Yeah, I can agree with that. And somebody will eventually find some way to use that mismatch against people.
But the correct language doesn't have an impact, and we don't decide what gets popular anyway. I don't like that phrase either (I think it's too conservative), but it's here to stay.
From all of these replies, I'm getting the feeling that people generally don't understand that the phrase is objectively incorrect, whether or not they agree with its sentiment (which they all do, at least around here). So I am questioning the overall effectiveness of sharing it. But like you said, I think it's here to stay specifically because everyone seems to agree with the sentiment behind it so much, without considering it objectively.
We're getting to a bigger picture here which I can't even speculate on, but at least I learned something about this particular narrative. I just hope this meme doesn't do too much harm when people get into debates with others that disagree.
You are getting bogged down in the details. The phrase is a slogan for the sentiment behind it. Sometimes it is more effective to capture the vibe behind something with an eight word phrase instead of writing an essay properly explaining it. We're discussing a meme not a legal document.
Your argument sounds like someone saying that you should never use "All cops are bastards" because it is an absolute statement and it is statistically likely that there could be at least one cop somewhere in the world that isn't a bastard and hasn't yet been drummed out or given up and quit. Sure, a more accurate phrase is: "The overwhelming majority of police officers are bastards and even the very few among them that are actively making an effort to be beneficial to society are still propping up and participating in an oppressive and highly problematic system" but you can't exactly print that on a coffee mug, can you?
That's because it's the same argument. Both sayings are stupid, not because of the message behind them but because of their uselessness in actual conversation with anyone who might disagree. It's just circlejerking at that point, only shareable and discussable with people who already agree or know what it really is supposed to mean.
Do you know what someone who disagrees hears when I say ACAB? They hear me calling millions of people I've never met a mean name. It doesn't matter what I want it to mean. Even if I explain to them what it is supposed to mean (the conversation probably wouldn't even get that far), the fact stands that I called millions of people I've never met a mean name. And that's all anyone needs to dismiss my argument.
The whole point of these phrases is to spread the message to people who either don't care or disagree. And they are NOT effective at that very specific thing. These phrases are fine at letting people who already agree pat each other on the back though. These phrases push away the target audience.
I don't disagree with anything you said but I wanted to point out that you are on lemmy.world, which is about 80% circle jerk, thats why its so common to see it here. The local posts in my instance are a lot less reactionary, once I turn on all is when I start seeing mob mentality type stuff.
Also, by the way, technically you can quote any predicate as a consequence of a false one.
I don't know if the people that made this phrase knew that, but it's technically correct :)
basically if you get to be a scumbag so do I
2 wrongs don't make a right, this phrase just points out how piracy is a service issue
I agree that it's a good reason to pirate, but the meme/phrase is ostensibly trying to use the definition of owning to change the definition of stealing.
It doesn't prove anything, it just gives a good reason why people are pirating, when it looks like it's trying to prove some logical relationship of the concepts.
if my property can be taken without fair compensation so can theirs.
pretty cut and dry logical relationship.
I think we're talking about two different things here.
I agree that they have shitty predatory business practices. However, you did not sign an EULA saying that you could take their property. So even if they do take the things you bought from them away, you would be out of luck. The thing that needs to change is not allowing that to be classified as "buying".
What I'm talking about is "if buying isn't owning" having anything to do with "then piracy isn't stealing". Buying not being owning is a great reason to pirate. Still doesn't make piracy any more legal.
I mean, digital piracy isn't stealing regardless of the premise that buying ≠ owning.
Stealing is taking another's property without the intent to return it. Making a digital copy is not taking any property, it's creating a reproduction of it. The only place left to argue that piracy is stealing would be to say that you're stealing the company's theoretical revenue... but that revenue was never tangible property, being that it's your money up until the moment you give it to them. Piracy is, and only is, copyright infringement.
Why are you entitled to any video game you want for free?
I'd argue stealing is also taking something for free that you would normally have to pay for.
Aren't you essentially arguing all digital property is worthless because its made of nothing?
You know thats not true though, there is worth or else you wouldnt want to steal it.
Why are you entitled to any video game you want for free?
Nobody here has claimed that, don't put words in their mouths.
I'd argue stealing is also taking something for free that you would normally have to pay for.
Thats cool. You're wrong, though.
Aren't you essentially arguing all digital property is worthless because its made of nothing?
Nope, they're pointing out that it's infinitely reproducible and thus making a copy doesn't deprive someone of their copy.
And then use that as justification to steal it. What a fun circle we just went in.
steal
Not what's happening, as has been said. Legally, not just semantically
I'm saying stealing and piracy are equivalent. Different words for the same thing. It does make sense pirates don't want to be associated with the thieves, but as someone who has been around both groups, they are exactly the same thing.
Its the same as me going on farms and stealing fruit from their trees and calling it fruit sharing instead of theft. You can call it whatever you want, its still stealing when it comes to morals.
I see where you're coming from now and totally agree.
Whenever a concept is distilled to a catch phrase it always loses something.
Yeah that's true. I have no creative bone in my body so I can't even offer an alternative to the catch phrase I am calling out, unfortunately haha
my opinion: it's not stealing in the Classic sense because if you copy something you don't take it away from its owner. it might be against the law because intellectual property is a concept.
What's the aversion to calling it stealing. It feels like stealing any other thing. You would steal games for the same reasons you might steal a physical good.
Do we just want a separate word that means digital theft?
Because it's not—by definition—stealing?
Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.
Digital piracy is:
- Copying, not taking.
- Not affecting personal property.
- Not depriving the creator of their property.
Why does everyone keep adding that qualifier to stealing like it makes any sense? So if I steal something from someones vacation home and return it before they visit, its not stealing either right? Thats residential piracy is it?
How about I love a painting so much but I'm an asshole and I think artists don't deserve to be paid for art, so I sneak in while he's sleeping, with a replica in tow, and swap out his real painting for the identical fake. Thats not stealing either?
I don't know what changed over the years really, it was stealing in the 90s and stealing in the 00s, and then some people figured if they just said it wasnt stealing enough it would stick?
You can argue the prices aren't appropriate but its hard to argue you should get all your games for free just because, oh well nothings lost. I even pirate games but I'm not afraid to call it stealing.
So if I steal something from someones vacation home and return it before they visit, its not stealing either right? Thats residential piracy is it?
It's still theft. You intended to and successfully managed to deprive someone of their property, albeit temporarily. You would also still end up in front of a court for trespassing and breaking and entering.
How about I love a painting so much but I'm an asshole and I think artists don't deserve to be paid for art, so I sneak in while he's sleeping, with a replica in tow, and swap out his real painting for the identical fake.
Still theft, but with copyright infringement on top. You have deprived the artist of his property—his physical copy of the painting.
I don't know what changed over the years really, it was stealing in the 90s and stealing in the 00s, and then some people figured if they just said it wasnt stealing enough it would stick?
People unquestionably accepting falsehoods is what changed. Have you noticed that when pirates do get caught and taken to civil or criminal court, it's for copyright infringement, computer fraud and abuse, wire fraud, or something else tangential to theft but not actually theft? It's because digital piracy is legally not "theft".
its hard to argue you should get all your games for free just because, oh well nothings lost.
I am not making that argument.
I even pirate games but I'm not afraid to call it stealing.
I don't, and I still wouldn't call your digital piracy stealing. In English-speaking countries, at least, the law considers it to be copyright infringement.
In the same vain, I wouldn't call randomly sucker-punching someone "assault": it's battery.
In america the law changes from state to state. I don't understand the point of appealing to law when its different depending where you are.
I'm talking morally, which I don't tie to laws, and it seems like pirates don't either. It is morally equivalent to stealing, and it hurts artists. Theres a bunch of hoops people jump through to try to negate that fact, but its just another halo effect to make people think something wrong is something right.
Right, I agree with that, but "because if you copy something, you don't take it away from its owner" is a valid reason, and completely unrelated to the fact that buying isn't owning. Even if buying WAS owning in all situations, your comment would still be true. That's my point, the analogy in the meme is useless, and arguments like yours should be the main talking point.
I find interesting that I remember buying a game in Brazil in 1995 (the 11th hour, sequel to The 7th Guest) and in the receipt it was written “license to use”. So, even back then we were already told that it was a permission, not ownership.
Exactly. This has always been a problem to some extent, but back then no company ever revoked that license or even cared what people did with it unless they sold pirated copies. So it wasn't a problem for us either.
I know what you mean and I agree. It's always seemed to not really make logical sense when I hear it. It isn't quite right. Like you, I also agree with the actually message behind it though.