• @Katana314
    link
    English
    -62 months ago

    But this is an even more easily defeated argument. It’s suggesting that anything that can be copy-pasted through File Explorer should never have a monetary compensation for its existence. Given the immense hours devoted to making video games, most people would inherently disagree with that. I think the only people who’d lend any credence to the idea would be cheapskates wanting free entertainment.

    • Rain World: Slugcat Game
      link
      82 months ago

      fun fact: you can sell gpl-licensed software, but anyone who receives the software can distribute it for free

      • @Katana314
        link
        English
        -12 months ago

        And, fun fact, in order for GPL software to operate commercially, they sell “licenses” - yes, foregoing the antipirating software, but still pursuing people with lawyers.

        And guess what Oracle has to spend so much time doing?…Because, as it turns out, even businesses are cheapskates.

        • Rain World: Slugcat Game
          link
          22 months ago

          conflating the gpl license with the license to use software you buy? don’t understand

    • skulblaka
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      It doesn’t mean that at all. What it means is that it isn’t theft. It’s software piracy. When you’re finished downloading your software, everyone who had a copy of that software still has it. So you haven’t stolen anything. You haven’t taken resources from anyone. You aren’t depriving someone else of this object and using it yourself instead. You’ve simply made a copy of an infinitely copiable medium. Sure you did so without paying for it, that’s why piracy is a crime. But it isn’t theft. You haven’t taken anything away from anyone. In fact you’ve done the opposite, and increased the total amount of ordered data in the world, but I won’t try to spin that as something chivalrous for this argument, that’s a different discussion.

      Point is, say what you want about piracy and its dubious legality, it factually is not theft.

      • @Katana314
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        This is like saying that pointing a loaded gun at a puppy isn’t technically murder or assault. You’re still admitting it’s a harmful and illegal act, and are fussing over the terminology used.

        It’s also ignoring how labels and word usage shift for the sake of modern convenience. Words like “insane”, “sick”, generally weren’t used positively in history. If I said a game “technically doesn’t have loot boxes” you’d be pretty upset if you found it still had paid randomized loot, even if they were not technically contained in a six-sided “box”. You’re being overly specific about the words when much of the world agrees you’re taking something you’re not entitled to.

        The difference between what you call theft and copyright infringement doesn’t have effective benefit to the seller, especially since even in physical retail, the supply of an item is often largely irrelevant for a store’s financials. As such, I am okay with referring to both as the same thing, even if you’d currently find dictionaries that separate them.

        EDIT: Fun. It looks like after I posted this comment, someone went through and downvoted all of my comments listed on my profile, even on completely different topics. Don’t anger pirates, kids! You will never beat their pettiness.