• Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not asking about the morality, asking whether or not the people making this argument on piracy consider jumping the turnstile to be theft, in the most practical sense. Not in an ideal world, but in the real world, would you consider that theft?

      A turnstile jumper is also exploiting the products and services produced by offers without paying the cost to use them. Nothing is being “removed” in that situation either.

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          What would you call taking or using something without paying for it, then? Resources are still being spent to transport the person who has not paid for them.

              • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Only if the rides are a scarce resource. Which they aren’t. Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.

                • Chozo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.

                  Nothing? Not even the fuel required to transport the extra weight of somebody who hasn’t paid? Not even the wages for the employees who conduct and maintain the trains?

                  You can argue that the amounts are miniscule, sure. But “miniscule” does not equal “zero”.

                  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    When you’re paying, you’re not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.

                    What you’re describing is called “marginal cost” and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you’d be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.

              • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I think I figured out the disconnect here. Yes, hopping a turnstile is against the law. It is still not considered theft. It is called fare evasion, and it is more akin to a traffic violation. The reason I was confused, and why I assumed you meant morality, is that nobody is saying piracy isn’t against the law. The article never said that either.

      • Unaware7013@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Jumping a turnstile and taking a physical, actually scarce resource is not comparable to duplicating a digital, artificially scarce resource.

        The train requires ongoing maintenance and can only hold a finite amount of people. Taking the train seat for free takes away something from another person. Downloading media does not use any ongoing resources, and does not take anything away from another consumer.

        Comparing the morality of physical goods to digital goods are not really a good comparison specifically because of the artificial scarcity brought on by making something digital to try to make it more expensive doesn’t map to the real scarcity of physical goods.

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Again, I have to ask: How do you think those digital goods are made in the first place? Somebody labored to create it. They deserve to be paid for it.

          Not sure why this is such a hot take.

          • mkhoury@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            How much should they be paid for it? In a situation where the streaming services have a stranglehold on the market and are extracting a big amount in rent-seeking price vs actually paying the people who labored to create it, should we continue to pay and give in to their morally dubious tactics? In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?

            • Chozo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              How much should they be paid for it?

              However much they’re asking. They put a price tag on it for exactly this question.

              In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?

              Not really. Civil disobedience is about refusing to follow a law, not choosing to break a law. There’s a difference between the two concepts; one involves going about your day as normal and ignoring laws, and the other is going out of your way to break a law. Piracy is no more a form of civil disobedience than looting a grocery store is.

              • mkhoury@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Ah, that’s not my understanding of civil disobedience. I prefer this definition: “civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/)

                I suppose the piracy aspect might not be public enough to count as civil disobedience though, unless you count as public the noticeable cumulative effects of all piracy.

                • Chozo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Right, but in this instance you’re not damaging the government through these actions. You’re damaging private entities. Civil vs criminal.

                  EDIT: Although, piracy often crosses both civil and criminal statutes in many cases, because copyright law is weird like that.

                  • mkhoury@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Agreed, and to me the solution is not “let’s hope the companies play nice”, but rather to bring in anti-monopoly regulations, like Canada’s Bill C-56.

                    We need to force companies to add interoperability, transparency and fairness imho. Like the ongoing fight to force Apple to allow competing browsers in iOS. Or alternate app stores for Android and iOS.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        That is a false equivalency.

        The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven’t paid for.

        Pirating takes away a possible purchase. You haven’t actually used any of their resources or cost them anything.

        If I wasn’t going to buy it anyway they haven’t lost anything.

        If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you’ve actually cost them resources.

        • Shambles@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I don’t get this logic at all. Piracy doesn’t take away a possible purchase. There is an assumption that the media downloaded was ever going to be paid for. In 100% of the cases where I downloaded pirated content, I was never going to pay for the product, even if it was available to me by other means. Further I cannot remove a sale from someone when I never possessed the money to pay for it anyway.

          I believe most people that pirate cannot afford to buy digital releases or pay for streaming services etc… (not all cases of course). In these situations nobody loses. The media companies didn’t lose anything because I was never going to buy it, and it wasn’t stolen because they still possess the media.

          Edit - I agree with you Lmaydev I replied to the wrong comment.

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven’t paid for.

          And media costs money to make.

          If I wasn’t going to buy it anyway they haven’t lost anything.

          If you weren’t going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That’s the thing, if you’re interested enough in a product to want it, then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.

          If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you’ve actually cost them resources.

          How do you think scene groups get their materials in the first place? They just find it on a flash drive on a park bench?

          More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do. The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

          • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            And media costs money to make.

            But not to copy, which is what you are asserting is being “stolen”. No one is claiming that turnstile jumpers are taking away money from train manufacturers. You’re having to mix analogies, because copying something isn’t theft.

            • Chozo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. The point is that in both examples, somebody is exploiting somebody else’s labor without paying.

              • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                There is no labor in making digital copies.

                You are trying to blur the line between the media/art/music/film, etc, and the reproductions of it.

                Artists do deserve to be paid for their work, but artists do not deserve to maintain ownership over the already-sold assets, nor whatever happens to those assets afterwards (like copies made). If you want to say they should retain commercial rights for reproduction of it, sure, but resell of the originally-sold work (e.g. the mp3 file), and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work? Nah.

                They didn’t put in labor towards that. To say they did expands “labor” far beyond any reasonable definition.

                • Chozo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You’re trying to blur the line between what is and what should be. We don’t live in an ideal world.

                  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yup, many people (like you) consider copyright morally okay, and many people (like me) consider copyright infringement morally okay.

                    Not an ideal world for either of us, I guess.

                • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work?

                  But by this definition then, it should be ok for only one person to buy the item and then just copy and give it to everyone else, and the original author receives payment from a single item?

                  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    If it comes from their copy, sure. But streaming proved that people won’t do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.

                    People only started reverting to piracy when services started cannibalizing access to content and demanding more money than the access was worth.

                    Most video games don’t contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.

                    You’re literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.

          • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you weren’t going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That’s the thing, if you’re interested enough in a product to want it then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.

            I don’t agree with this at all. There are tons of things someone might want to use or have but not enough that they’d be willing to pay for it. Or over a certain amount of money.

            • Chozo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              The fact is that the person in question is still taking something without paying for it. A sense of entitlement (I want it badly enough that I should have it for free) doesn’t change anything in this equation.

              • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Sure, they are procuring something worth money without paying for it. But this is a very different argument than you would not pirate something if you would not also be prepared to pay it.

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

            Rips do exist, ya know?

            • Chozo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              And physical media’s never stolen, right?

              The data to validate this is scarce, but I’d wager that most rips come from stolen physical media. I don’t think there’s too many people out there going “I just paid $20 of my hard-earned money for this Blu-ray, so now I’m going to give it away to strangers for free”. The whole “paying for something” thing is kinda antithetical to piracy in the first place. But again, there’s no real way to quantify this.

              • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                So you just dmit that you assume everything is stolen. That’s motivated reasoning, buddy.

                  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    We’re literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao

                    So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point. And the reason that it must be stolen is because it is connected to piracy.

                    Don’t act surprised if you’re downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.

          • Zworf@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

            The origins of most of all western countries’ wealth comes from theft, full stop.

            More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do.

            That’s only the case for pre-Bluray release content. Most of it was just captured from rips, Amazon Prime or Netflix.