Thanks for proving my point. The authors willingly shared it. They put it out into the world with the intention of it being shared freely. That is not the case for pirated media/content. If OSS was released with a different license, it would be just as much theft as piracy if the writers of the code didn’t intend for it to be free or shared willingly.
Well, if you can’t provide reasonable arguments, why won’t I help you? Not that I haven’t thought about all pros and cons I could imagine on the topic and it didn’t disprove my original point. And not that not providing any evidence for your opinion to prove, waiting for opponent to imagine it for you, is making you, as a collocutor, as interesting and valuable as a scarecrow.
But to the point. If you will read my responses to other people here (idk why would you do that but anyway) you’ll notice that I’ve already used this example, but since all your arguments are all the same, I’m not seeing a problem here. So here it is: Louvre had pirated Mona Lisa. They scanned the original, and then posted it to the Internet. Now you can see it online for free. Before it happened, it required you to go to the place to see it, now you don’t have to. Did Mona Lisa lost in value because of it? Does no one goes to Louvre nowadays because of the fact that all the works you could see there where scanned and posted online?
You could argue that Mona Lisa is unique and it’s scan is not a full copy of experience you meet if you go to the museum. Well, it’s just like if you download a game from torrents — you still won’t get all the author provided for his customers: you won’t get patches, you won’t get online features, in other words, you won’t get the service. But you also won’t get some the troubles: just as I don’t have to buy tickets to France, spend my time and money, now I don’t have to buy before I try. Of course I am not a stupid, I understand that author needs to eat, so of course I would buy his product if I liked it.
If you think about it, in terms of mentality, it’s not that different from what we have with lemmy. And it’s also a more healthy consumer culture due to it’s grown selectiveness. You see, nowadays in game industry the piracy is almost dead. You might be happy because of it. I don’t know why would you be, because the unkle Sam told you that it’s a bad thing? Anyhow, let me stop you for a moment, and think: what did it lead to?
If you remembered all the problems the industry, and especially AAA games today have, you got the point and can skip this paragraph. If not, let me describe: since now the habit of preordering the games you like became as wide spread as it could be, since customers finally got that muscular reflex of buying everything good-looking, we have a huge creativity and quality crysis. Why would game studios polish their game, why would they try to invent something new, why would they hire qa team, why would they do all of that, if the customer paid full price for a preorder as soon as they showed him a little fancy trailer? And since the customers are so obedient, companies could make them eat shit. You can’t own a copy of a game by Ubisoft anymore, no, if you check their agreement, it says that you can go fuck yourself, because now they can do whatever they would like with your uplay game library, and if you’ve read what I wrote here at least somehow attentively, you can conclude that all of that are your, misters “piracy is wrong”, your all fault. You can go and preorder ten more games after seeing their “promising” trailers, god riddance, fellow non-pirater.
None of what you said makes any sense or argues the points I’ve made. My point was about the intent of the author. If the author didn’t intend for their work to be freely given away or “shared”, then it’s immoral to steal income for them. Plain and simple. Address that point and stop bloviating about things that aren’t relevant.
None of what you said makes any sense or argues the points I’ve made
🤡🤡🤡
How could anything make sense to you if you’re not even trying to analyze what people say?
Don’t you see how contradictive your thinking is by reading my example with Mona Lisa? Or it’s not okay to pirate, if the author is alive, but it’s absolutely fine if the author is dead? Did Leonardo da’Vinci intended to share his artwork online? You may say that da’Vinci haven’t lost anything when louvre shared the scans, and that’s exactly what I already have talked about with you in the neighbouring comment branch.
Address that point and stop bloviating about things that aren’t relevant.
Stop trying to make a good face during a bad play. Discussions are made to identify the truth. If you’re trying to manipulate everwhom’s opinion or ignore your opponent’s arguments instead of stating ones yourself, then you’re nothing but a windbag. It’s either you ignored what I said or you’re really that stupid, in either way with each comment you more and more resemble a clown to me.
Your examples are dishonest and poor. Your first analogy was bad and so is this one. The Mona Lisa is a single piece of physical artwork. We’re talking about intellectual property that can be digitally pirated. If someone could 3D print an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, then your argument might make sense.
I’m done responding to you. Your responses are poor, they’re not well-thought out, they ignore the actual issue at hand here, and, on top of that, you’re rude and condescending. Go argue your bad analogies and straw-men elsewhere and stop trying to bend over backwards to justify your theft. You’re stealing. Just grow up and own up to it. I have and a lot of others in this sub have too. We pirate just the same but we don’t spout empty nonsense to try and make ourselves feel better about our moral shortcomings like you do.
Lol. I already have answered on your argument about “single piece of physical artwork”. Now you have just proven that you didn’t read what I said. Therefore you are a windbag, and your opinion has no value at all.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Thanks for proving my point. The authors willingly shared it. They put it out into the world with the intention of it being shared freely. That is not the case for pirated media/content. If OSS was released with a different license, it would be just as much theft as piracy if the writers of the code didn’t intend for it to be free or shared willingly.
Well, if you can’t provide reasonable arguments, why won’t I help you? Not that I haven’t thought about all pros and cons I could imagine on the topic and it didn’t disprove my original point. And not that not providing any evidence for your opinion to prove, waiting for opponent to imagine it for you, is making you, as a collocutor, as interesting and valuable as a scarecrow.
But to the point. If you will read my responses to other people here (idk why would you do that but anyway) you’ll notice that I’ve already used this example, but since all your arguments are all the same, I’m not seeing a problem here. So here it is: Louvre had pirated Mona Lisa. They scanned the original, and then posted it to the Internet. Now you can see it online for free. Before it happened, it required you to go to the place to see it, now you don’t have to. Did Mona Lisa lost in value because of it? Does no one goes to Louvre nowadays because of the fact that all the works you could see there where scanned and posted online?
You could argue that Mona Lisa is unique and it’s scan is not a full copy of experience you meet if you go to the museum. Well, it’s just like if you download a game from torrents — you still won’t get all the author provided for his customers: you won’t get patches, you won’t get online features, in other words, you won’t get the service. But you also won’t get some the troubles: just as I don’t have to buy tickets to France, spend my time and money, now I don’t have to buy before I try. Of course I am not a stupid, I understand that author needs to eat, so of course I would buy his product if I liked it.
If you think about it, in terms of mentality, it’s not that different from what we have with lemmy. And it’s also a more healthy consumer culture due to it’s grown selectiveness. You see, nowadays in game industry the piracy is almost dead. You might be happy because of it. I don’t know why would you be, because the unkle Sam told you that it’s a bad thing? Anyhow, let me stop you for a moment, and think: what did it lead to?
If you remembered all the problems the industry, and especially AAA games today have, you got the point and can skip this paragraph. If not, let me describe: since now the habit of preordering the games you like became as wide spread as it could be, since customers finally got that muscular reflex of buying everything good-looking, we have a huge creativity and quality crysis. Why would game studios polish their game, why would they try to invent something new, why would they hire qa team, why would they do all of that, if the customer paid full price for a preorder as soon as they showed him a little fancy trailer? And since the customers are so obedient, companies could make them eat shit. You can’t own a copy of a game by Ubisoft anymore, no, if you check their agreement, it says that you can go fuck yourself, because now they can do whatever they would like with your uplay game library, and if you’ve read what I wrote here at least somehow attentively, you can conclude that all of that are your, misters “piracy is wrong”, your all fault. You can go and preorder ten more games after seeing their “promising” trailers, god riddance, fellow non-pirater.
None of what you said makes any sense or argues the points I’ve made. My point was about the intent of the author. If the author didn’t intend for their work to be freely given away or “shared”, then it’s immoral to steal income for them. Plain and simple. Address that point and stop bloviating about things that aren’t relevant.
🤡🤡🤡 How could anything make sense to you if you’re not even trying to analyze what people say? Don’t you see how contradictive your thinking is by reading my example with Mona Lisa? Or it’s not okay to pirate, if the author is alive, but it’s absolutely fine if the author is dead? Did Leonardo da’Vinci intended to share his artwork online? You may say that da’Vinci haven’t lost anything when louvre shared the scans, and that’s exactly what I already have talked about with you in the neighbouring comment branch.
Stop trying to make a good face during a bad play. Discussions are made to identify the truth. If you’re trying to manipulate everwhom’s opinion or ignore your opponent’s arguments instead of stating ones yourself, then you’re nothing but a windbag. It’s either you ignored what I said or you’re really that stupid, in either way with each comment you more and more resemble a clown to me.
Your examples are dishonest and poor. Your first analogy was bad and so is this one. The Mona Lisa is a single piece of physical artwork. We’re talking about intellectual property that can be digitally pirated. If someone could 3D print an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, then your argument might make sense.
I’m done responding to you. Your responses are poor, they’re not well-thought out, they ignore the actual issue at hand here, and, on top of that, you’re rude and condescending. Go argue your bad analogies and straw-men elsewhere and stop trying to bend over backwards to justify your theft. You’re stealing. Just grow up and own up to it. I have and a lot of others in this sub have too. We pirate just the same but we don’t spout empty nonsense to try and make ourselves feel better about our moral shortcomings like you do.
Lol. I already have answered on your argument about “single piece of physical artwork”. Now you have just proven that you didn’t read what I said. Therefore you are a windbag, and your opinion has no value at all. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I did read what you said. It just doesn’t address the issue at all and is a straw man.