• @marauderakee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase (false scarcity by removal fro market) or if despite purchasing a physical object, say a car, I can’t fully use it or repair it without special software I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

    • @myslsl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase … I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

      I don’t think this particular line of thought makes for a very good argument without more info. The other case makes sense. But for this one, people aren’t obligated to sell you things. If you own something sentimental or private to you that I want, you’re not obligated to sell it to me if I want it and I’m not justified in stealing it from you if you don’t want to sell it.

      For ex: Think of embarassing photos of yourself, private letters between you and others etc.

      • @AnnaSH@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        I think more info was given with the examples they used though. They reveal that the problem is with copyright, where a company can both stop you from buying something from them and stop you from buying it elsewhere by still technically owning it.

        • @marauderakee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          More if it’s something that was available but only from one specific location several years ago and it’s no longer available or incredibly difficult to find for purchase. A good example would be certain old console video games that can be emulated now but have long since gone out of print and are either unavailable for purchase as digital or insanely expensive or unavailable for original hard copy.

          There’s issues with “right to repair” too but that’s a different discussion, I think.

        • @myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          With their original comment,

          If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase (false scarcity by removal fro market) or if despite purchasing a physical object, say a car, I can’t fully use it or repair it without special software I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

          I’m only talking about the first case of the or here. I specifically pointed out the other case that you are referring to was not something I had an issue with.

          Edit: And how does this change anything? Companies aren’t any more obligated to sell people things than individuals. There are instances where it may be beneficial for a company to choose not to sell certain products, for example if a better product exists that should succeed the old product or when a certain product is later discovered to be harmful in some way.

      • Uriel-238
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Are we talking things, or intellectual property? Not the same.

        • @myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          I feel like the same kind of argument can probably extend to either intellectual property or real physical objects. With physical objects certain limits have to apply of course (like me withholding things you need to survive could potentially justify your theft).

          With intellectual property, if you write stories for yourself to pass the time you aren’t obligated to share/sell those stories to me and it would be wrong for me to break into your home and make copies of them if you chose not to sell/share them with me.

          • Uriel-238
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Why breaking into someone’s home?

            See, since I’m your buddy, you tell me bits and pieces of the stories you’re writing for fun. And I, a Hollywood mogul, take those ideas, hand them off to a development crew and put out a movie based on your ideas. You get nothing.

            This is normal in Hollywood. Also, I underpay my development crew because capitalism. They hate me but my stockholders think I’m okay. Original content creators like you? Well, there’s a reason the writers are on strike, since screenwriting pays so poorly it’s downgraded to hobby.

            It’s a problem especially in the record labels, in which most artists have their content signed away for a pittance because that was the only way to get heard which is changing through the internet, which is why the RIAA is eager to speed up enshittification of social media. And there are some interesting conspiracy theories about why Kim Dotcom was arrested in 2012 days before he rolled out a new music distro system that had dozens of major Hip Hop artists involved that allowed artists to get music out for free and then keep all their touring proceeds. But that died with the Megaupload seizure. Remember that?

            If you really want to shill for folks like Disney and Sony and Time Warner, feel free, but you can expect your content to enshittify as well (as it has been for years now). I’m sure Fast and Furious XIII will be awesome.

            • @myslsl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              If you really want to shill for…

              Yeah, I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I think you’re misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding my point. My point is that the argument below needs more details to justify why/when piracy is acceptable. I’m not claiming piracy is totally unethical or anything like that, nor am I shilling for anything.

              If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase … I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

              For what it’s worth, I don’t think your point about ethicality problems in the entertainment industry makes for a very satisfying argument either. If my neighbor steals from somebody else, am I justified in stealing from my neighbor? Maybe? But that reeks of self-interest and doesn’t actually help the real victim.

              If my neighbor steals a pound of sugar from somebody and I steal their car, to me it seems like I’m still doing something unethical. If my neighbor steals somebodies life savings and I steal their car, it feels like at best I’m doing something morally neutral, if not still outright wrong.

              I’m not saying piracy is unethical, nor am I saying people shouldn’t pirate. What I’m saying is that certain arguments for piracy being ethical aren’t very good.

              • Uriel-238
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                This is not about whether your neighbor is committing wrongdoing in your community, rather whether the system itself, and the edifices that hold it up are conducting themselves in good faith. Without these major players pressuring government to extend the enforced monopolies of copyright longer (that is, robbing the public – you and I – of its catalog of public-domain material) and failing to enforce educational and fair use, we wouldn’t have IP laws at all, and piracy would not be a thing.

                Granted, some argue that creators would have no interest in creating, except that they do when they are given the means to do so. This is one of the threats social media has, in providing entertainment that is not sending its profits to the major players in the industry.

                We’re not pirating from the artists. We’re not pirating from our neighbors. We’re pirating from giant corporations who’ve been plying the government for over a century now to strip rights from the public.

                And given the government does not execute its function in good faith (that is, in service of the public, including protecting its interests from corporate capture), we have grounds to argue the authority of the state is forfeit, ruling the public by force rather than by consent (our elections allow us to choose from oligarch selects, and they have to obey plutocrats to keep their careers.)

                Without the artificial construct by governing systems to make IP a thing to be licensed (and the use of DRM to control its distribution) neither patents nor copyrighted material would be a thing at all, let alone have been turned into the monstrosties that are US and EU IP law.

                • @myslsl@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  This is not about whether your neighbor is committing wrongdoing in your community, rather whether the system itself, and the edifices that hold it up are conducting themselves in good faith. Without these major players pressuring government to extend the enforced monopolies of copyright longer (that is, robbing the public – you and I – of its catalog of public-domain material) and failing to enforce educational and fair use, we wouldn’t have IP laws at all, and piracy would not be a thing.

                  Firstly, the neighbor comment I made is an analogy. Nobody is claiming this is about literal neighbors committing wrongdoings in a community. I’m not sure if you’ve missed my point with that analogy or if you’re choosing to willfully misunderstand it here?

                  Second, what you’re claiming here isn’t correct when you talk about “what this is about”. My comment which you are replying to was not about whether “the system itself, and the edifices holding it up are conducting themselves in good faith” or anything like that. My whole point is about whether “If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase … I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.” is good reasoning or not. Nobody is debating you on whether the modern media industries, the government, etc are corrupt or acting in good faith. That has nothing to do with my actual point.

                  We’re not pirating from the artists. We’re not pirating from our neighbors. We’re pirating from giant corporations who’ve been plying the government for over a century now to strip rights from the public.

                  You keep jumping back to these points of “well the media corporations, the government, etc did X wrong by us, so we’re automatically justified to pirate”, that’s not how this works. The whole issue is why does that justify piracy? Doubling down and trying to say “BUT I WAS WRONGED!” is not a good argument here. Being wronged in some way does not make it morally acceptable to just do whatever you like.

                  • @TowardsTheFuture@vlemmy.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I believe they mean not that they were wronged, but that the system is wrong. Ala MLK just laws and unjust laws. They disagree with IP law and thus feel piracy is fine as such.

                    Personally, I pay for my music and don’t use streaming services. I support bands by going to shows and buying merch. However I also don’t listen to big name artists and shit, and think most really don’t give a shit if you pay for the music or not if you’re supporting them in some way often. Plenty of bands have a “steal this record” or “steal this album”, or end up putting out stuff where they’d urged people to pirate their shit example: Streetlight Manifesto had done so because victory was refusing to send CD’s to the band to distribute to those who had preordered, wasn’t paying them for purchases made through victories site, etc. The (bigger label) music industry is fucked. They extort bands. They extort venues. They extort anywhere that plays music. They extort anything they can for money while the content creators barely get shit.

                  • Uriel-238
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Fair enough. By what authority do you assert intellectual property belongs to a private entity and not the public?