4698

submitted 2 years ago by downpunxx@lemmy.world to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

404 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] donut4ever@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

Seriously? You're comparing renting to owning? lol How about the car you actually paid for to own? Is that not your car either?

[+] Nougat@kbin.social -6 points 2 years ago

I'm not comparing renting to owning, I'm pointing out that they are different things, and each has an appropriate place. The image in the OP makes a blanket statement implying that all payment equals permanent ownership.

It is certainly true that there are things people pay for that they should have more rights of ownership over, but don't (even, and maybe especially, if they are led to believe they have ownership rights that they do not).

But even ownership of, for example, my car, does not extend to me the right to reverse engineer my car and build another identical one, and then sell that.

When you enter into a contract, where you pay for a product or service, there are a wide variety of rights you do or don't receive, depending on the agreement.

Edit: Since your employer pays you for your labor, they own you, right?

[-] donut4ever@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

My employer is paying for my time. Saying that they may own me for that is just absurd and makes no sense. They are paying for my labor, not for me physically. Lol. Buying your car doesn't give you the right to reverse engineer it, true, but it doesn't deny you the right to drive it whenever you please. No one is reverse engineering movies and TV shows, they just want to be able to watch the fucking thing whenever they want and without having to connect to the Internet, they want to own it, meaning watching it whenever forever. that's all what people asking.

Edit: some typos and missing words

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Let me restate the thing I was originally responding to:

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

This statement is so childishly oversimplified that it's just wrong. It might make people "feel better" about piracy (in particular, their own piracy actions), but it does so based on a plainly invalid argument. That's what I have been trying to point out.

Are there problems with the way media sales are handled? Absolutely. When Amazon is able to pull your purchases back out of your access that they made consumers feel that they would have unlimited and perpetual access to (even if the very fine print said otherwise), that's a huge problem. If a particular piece of media just isn't available anywhere except for via streaming (or, frankly, anywhere at all outside of piracy), that's also a problem.

OP's post doesn't address any of that. The suggestion is that "If I have paid for something, I (edit: should) have full, unlimited, and perpetual ownership rights to it." That's just not true; the landscape of commerce is far more complicated than that, and it's a mistake to just join into a weird hug boc about it.

[-] donut4ever@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I guess it all depends on how one interprets ops cryptic message. Lol I read it as "I paid for it by pressing the 'purchase' button on a movie, so now it is mine". You've probably read it "I should own the right to all of the movies and tv shows on Netflix since I'm a subscriber". I don't agree with the second, but sure as hell believe the first one from the bottom of my heart.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Piracy in this context refers to copying data, not paying to rent physical items or places, and it's a strawman argument to say it doesn't.

[-] Uriel238@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Besides which, rent-seeking (which taps from an economy without contributing) is a more harmful act than piracy. (I hesitate to use crime since the state has commonly shown to have sucky opinions on right and wrong.)