You're viewing part of a thread.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it. If they’re not entitled to your money, then you’re not entitled to the product of their time, effort, and labor.
Then why is digital piracy legally considered to be copyright infringement instead of theft?
That’s irrelevant. I’m not arguing the legality of it.
If i could just teleport into your house so i could liberate your keyboard, i would. Because your take is so collosally stupid that it actually angers me that you have it.
Like real, palpable rage that this insipid argument still exists in this world, after all this time.
Ahh yes… the tried and true ad-hominem. No actual argument against the point, just childish name-calling and insults. Grow the fuck up.
An ad hominem would be if i avoided your point and instead attacked you as a person. I attacked the point itself as frivolous and years-debunked. Please... Listen... Your keyboard is suffering under the weight of false premise. Free it, please
You did not address the point at all. Nothing has been debunked. It cannot be debunked because it’s true - you are stealing something someone created, which they made in order to get paid and make a living, because you are ingesting it and not paying them.
Stop being dishonest.
Provide to me a copy/paste definition of "false premise" so i know you know more fallacies than "strawman" and "ad hominem". If i feel you learned something today ill call our little tete a tete a win.
(That was ad-hominem)
I don’t need to provide you with shit. Look at you, expecting to get someone else’s effort and time for free again. Thanks for proving you’re dishonest.
Youre getting angry now i think. Whatever fruit this may have borne has withered. Last salvo and ill be finished:
I honestly want you to read about false premise, and i (selfishly) want proof that you have bettered yourself. If you don't want to (and frankly, i don't blame you) then would you at least pinky swear you'll read it later?
(Spoiler: 'false premises' don't necessarily invalidate an argument, just make the ground is on shakier. ) There's a lot to read, and a lot to learn. Here, i’ll link it. It's real. Go check it out.
Believe it or not, reading thru the definition will make you better at defending this point in the future. Youre gonna all the tools available if youre going with this stance, and that's what you want, right? You're not just coming on this forum to run your mouth, right? Your comments have purpose, yes? You will need tools to convince, and you are in dire need of a toolbox
I'm not angry. I haven't even thought about what you said before, even after you just mentioned it.
I'm not doing anything you ask me to because I know what a false premise is, I know what ad hominem is, and I know what a straw man is. You haven't actually provided any kind of argument against what I said so I know you're not being honest. Since you're not willing to be honest, there is no point in continuing discussion with you.
Saying your argument is stupid isn't attacking you, dude.
That’s not what ad-hominem is, “dude”. It’s still a superficial attack rather than an attack of the argument if there’s no substance to it to actually dispute the argument.
ad-hominem (adj.): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Why did I have to look this up for you?
Think of it this way, saying your argument is stupid is similar to saying your argument is not valid, not sound, etc. Your response should be "why is it stupid?" or what's wrong with my way of thinking?", not "stop attacking me, I'm under attack!" At the very least, don't misappropriate a logical fallacy that doesn't apply.
He clearly directed the attack at me since he wants to come into my house and smash my keyboard or whatever the fuck he said. Introducing pedantry to the mix isn't useful or helpful.
The point is that he didn't provide any counter to the argument. He's done nothing to address the actual argument and has simply made an attack. I don't need to argue the semantics of it unless they care to actually address the points I'm making.
Introducing pedantry to the mix isn’t useful or helpful.
I agree.
You should also take your own advice and address the actual argument and points made.
I did and I have. Several times.
True, if you count each and every time you stopped typing....
No, that is a bit mean and untrue. You have replied to many points, some of them even without calling the person "dishonest" or saying their point is "irreverent"
That's a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the crime is copyright infringement, not theft.
I'm not arguing the legal or criminal semantics. I'm arguing the dishonest justification and misrepresentation of piracy. Piracy is stealing. You're stealing income from the creator if you ingest their work without paying for it. I don't care if people pirate things but admit that it's stealing and move on.
Piracy is stealing.
No it is not. By any definition.
You can think it's morally wrong, that's fine. But it simply, factually is not stealing.
That's the only point I'm making.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you're gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.
You're welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that's your prerogative.
Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they've demanded in return, it's stealing.
To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.
That's not how piracy works.
No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don't pay them after they've created it, you're stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it's a different term, I don't care. You're stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they're asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).
If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don't pay them after they've created it, you're stealing from them.
Nope, you've potentially violated a contract, but you haven't stolen anything.
By your definition, if I lend my friend a DVD movie and they watch it, they've now stolen that movie.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You've stolen the product that they created for you because you haven't paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.
And no... by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they've stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
No it’s not. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t watch it.
A friend bought a movie, invited me and 12 other people to watch it. Are we supposed to be legally required to say no?