People Twitter

6843 readers

902 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1405

Crunchyroll (lemy.lol)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

517 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bluesky Post.

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just keep repeating their different as if it’s a factual statement

Let's go for some language definitions then:

We can summarise all of these by saying "theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession".

Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of anything. They still have the possession, they can still continue to sell it without any loss. Your argument is entirely centred around the potential lost sale and the cost the owner has in aquiring the possession. That cost occurs either way, and the sale probably would not have happened if no piracy occurred.

Your argument has 2 holes, the one you look at it through and the one in the bottom through which it falls out.

If someone ingested that media then it ceases being “potential revenue”.

Wrong. You're assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it. This is a false assumption.

You're not poor because people didn't pay for your work. You're poor because people didn't want to buy it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can summarise all of these by saying "theft is taking with the intent to deprive the owner of said possession".

Yes... and as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, we're disagreeing on what is being stolen. You're arguing that it's not theft because no one is deprived of the media. That is not the argument. I'm arguing that they're being deprived of the income. You are stealing money from the creator.

You're assuming that the person would have paid for the media had they not pirated it.

No, I'm not. I'm not assuming anything. I'm flat out asserting that, if they had not been able to pirate it, they would not be able to consume the media unless they paid for it. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.

You're poor because people didn't want to buy it.

If they didn't want to buy it, then they aren't entitled to still make use of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m arguing that they’re being deprived of the income.

And, as I have said time and time again, the income you claim would most likely not have been yours if the pirate hadn't committed copyright infringement. Just because they consumed your media does not mean you are owed money. If they couldn't have pirated your media, they still would not have paid you. Thus, you are owed nothing. You have lost nothing. No one wanted to buy your thing to begin with.

They were happy to consume it when it was free, they would not have consumed it at the price you were asking.

Edit:

If they didn’t want to buy it, then they aren’t entitled to still make use of it.

Sure, they weren't entitled to it. Copyright infringement/piracy is wrong. They shouldn't have done that.

But it's not the same as you writing a physical manuscript and them taking it from you. You still have the game, you're still selling it, you haven't lost anything. It's just that no one wants to buy it.