A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Oh cool then piracy isn't theft.
-
I agree with the sentiment, but what exactly is the explanation for this? If you're allowed to lease or rent or purchase a license, isn't stealing that thing for free still theft?
-
I mean, are you taking your definition of "theft" from the law? Or from your own internal set of ethics for right and wrong? Is it theft if no one is deprived of anything, because bits copy, and because you'd never trade dollars for the privilege of maintaining an exploitative relationship with a company but that is all they've made available? If you're hung up on whether the legal system thinks it's theft - I dunno what to tell ya, it obviously does.
-
As someone else pointed out when this article was posted yesterday, the legal system doesn't consider it theft, it's considered copyright infringement, though I suspect this doesn't change anyone's opinion on it
-
I mean, are you taking your definition of "theft" from the law? Or from your own internal set of ethics for right and wrong? Is it theft if no one is deprived of anything, because bits copy, and because you'd never trade dollars for the privilege of maintaining an exploitative relationship with a company but that is all they've made available? If you're hung up on whether the legal system thinks it's theft - I dunno what to tell ya, it obviously does.Yeah, I am just confused on the logic. Like what is the relation between us not owning it (which is bad) and piracy not being theft? I wholeheartedly agree that pirating things is okay if a license gets revoked, and it is 100% okay to pirate something you bought even if you still have the license and it hasn't been revoked. It's yours. You paid money for it. But from my understanding, this statement doesn't just cover people who bought it, but everyone, regardless of if they bought it.
-
I couldn't possibly care less about what a megacorp tries telling me what I may or may not do with information that can be copied perfectly and infinitely at 0 cost.I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to - small creators - literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)" The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.
-
Yeah, I am just confused on the logic. Like what is the relation between us not owning it (which is bad) and piracy not being theft? I wholeheartedly agree that pirating things is okay if a license gets revoked, and it is 100% okay to pirate something you bought even if you still have the license and it hasn't been revoked. It's yours. You paid money for it. But from my understanding, this statement doesn't just cover people who bought it, but everyone, regardless of if they bought it.I mean, "theft" implies depriving someone of something, to me. But I don't want to bicker about definitions if your position is more about morality of taking something for free than about the definition of theft. For myself, I'll happily pay for things that provide fair value and a fair agreement / relationship. That includes donating to stuff that *is* offered for free - there are a handful of content creators and other services (Internet Archive, Signal, etc.) that I directly support, every month. And by the same token, I don't feel bad at all about enjoying something, for free and against their wishes, from a company or publisher that only offers unacceptable (to me) terms. To me those are perfectly consistent. My dollars go to individuals and publishers that produce the kind of media ecosystem I think is good for us. Because - we must be clear - it's not a level playing field, and the shift away from consumer ownership is a plague of exploitation inflicted upon us. It's now metastasizing away from strictly digital domains, now to physical *hardware*, which is outrageous. Roku, for instance, can update your streaming device overnight and force you to accept their new terms, in order to keep using your device. This is not hypothetical, it happened (may have gotten company wrong). Do you think the companies enacting policies, particularly ones prohibiting ownership outright, are operating from an ethical or moral framework? I promise they don't believe in anything like that. They screw us precisely as hard as the courts, and the court of public opinion, allow. And they're always trying to move that line in their favor. Why do you care about pirating? Who or what are you standing up for, I guess I'm asking?
-
I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to - small creators - literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)" The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.
-
I agree with the sentiment, but what exactly is the explanation for this? If you're allowed to lease or rent or purchase a license, isn't stealing that thing for free still theft?[This may help](https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/)
-
It still may be. Is it theft to take a rentable car without renting it? You are getting a good without enabling it's production. Just because the additional cost from you doing this is extremely low does not mean it ain't theft. Just means it ain't such a terrible thing to do.
-
I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to - small creators - literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)" The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.Grant me the serenity to pirate the things from big corpos that need pirating, the courage to pay for indie work, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-
I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to - small creators - literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)" The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.> literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) You can not steal something that it is impossible to own. It is possible to purchase and own a house or a car, someone choosing to lease or rent instead does not change that. It is _impossible_ to purchase or own a copy of The Crew, so it cannot be stolen. You also cannot steal a hotel room, trespassing is a different crime than theft.
-
It still may be. Is it theft to take a rentable car without renting it? You are getting a good without enabling it's production. Just because the additional cost from you doing this is extremely low does not mean it ain't theft. Just means it ain't such a terrible thing to do.
-
Does the rental company now have one less car they can rent? Does the developer now have one less license they can lease?Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn, or if you see it as someone depriving someone else of their property, or both of them count. I'd argue both qualify as theft, and pirating is the first case. Just because you can replicate something for free (which is not the case with software) does not mean you are entitled to it.
-
> literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) You can not steal something that it is impossible to own. It is possible to purchase and own a house or a car, someone choosing to lease or rent instead does not change that. It is _impossible_ to purchase or own a copy of The Crew, so it cannot be stolen. You also cannot steal a hotel room, trespassing is a different crime than theft.Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.
-
Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.Maybe read the post before replying to comments: >The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” **Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.**
-
Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn, or if you see it as someone depriving someone else of their property, or both of them count. I'd argue both qualify as theft, and pirating is the first case. Just because you can replicate something for free (which is not the case with software) does not mean you are entitled to it.> Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn't pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well. > does not mean you are entitled to it. I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I'm just saying it's not theft.
-
> Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn't pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well. > does not mean you are entitled to it. I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I'm just saying it's not theft.You can't steal from nature. Parks are provided for the public, its literally the whole point. Any more gotchas?
-
Maybe read the post before replying to comments: >The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” **Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.**Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say "no shit idiot" and slap my future self. If you were deceived that's on you.
