More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty.
Fuck off with that. I’m being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.
And no… by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they’ve stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
“You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).”
The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.
They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
I’ve made several arguments and you’ve returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that’s what a debate is?
Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are.
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
The friend can either:
Purchase a copy of or license for that movie (digital or physical), compensating the creator.
Borrow my copy of the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
Torrent the movie and watch it, going against the wishes of the creator and providing them no compensation.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.
If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.
Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.
I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.
You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession.
I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you’re ignoring it.
I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.
Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.
Don’t move the goalposts.
I’m not. You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
But that’s not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes.
Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good.
The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.
You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
I’m not ignoring it, you’ve just failed to demonstrate it for this example.
Fuck off with that. I’m being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.
“You’re stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they’re asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).”
The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven’t stolen from me, but they’ve stolen from the creator, according to you.
Yes, you are. You’re pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I’ve already given several examples of why that’s not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you’re being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you’re giving do not apply to the situation I’m arguing.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
I’ve made several arguments and you’ve returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that’s what a debate is?
You haven’t demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
You’ve made several arguments that don’t address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren’t relevant because you’re ignoring fundamental differences. I’m not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I’ve said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a “used” intangible item or “lend” (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD, not the physical DVD itself.
The friend can either:
Explain how 3 is stealing and 2 is not.
It’s not irrelevant. You never mentioned that the friend was ingesting this in any way other than taking a physical disc from you. You’ve moved the goalposts and pretended that you scored.
If we’re talking about the digital movie contained on the DVD then you don’t need to lend your friend the DVD. You can just rip it and send it to them and that is theft because you’ve made a copy of the content without paying the creator of that content. The entire distinction is whether you’re lending (which itself implies a temporal nature to the idea and a physical limit) or a duplication of someone else’s effort without compensating them for that.
I already have. One is physically limited, the other is not. One is created with the physical, temporal, and material limitations inherent to it while the other is not. If your friend has your DVD, you can’t watch it while they have it in their possession. Something being intangible doesn’t mean it’s not worth compensation.
They ingest the content by watching it. They do not ingest the DVD, nor the torrent file.
I’ve already “ingested” the content, and paid the creator for it, like they asked. But my friend did not pay the creator, yet has “gained something from their work without compensating them”.
Don’t move the goalposts.
Their ingestion is limited by it being a DVD. It is not limited by a torrent file. There is a distinction but you’re ignoring it.
Yes… of a physical item. 1000 random strangers can’t all watch your DVD at the same time in their own homes. Creators of physical media create it with the understanding that it is a limited, physical good. That is not the case for digital, intangible media.
I’m not. You’re still ignoring the distinction between tangible and intangible goods as if they are comparable.
But that’s not relevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
Also irrelevant to whether or not the creator gets the compensation they requested.
The limited physical good is the plastic circle. The file is copied onto the disc, not the other way around. There is no limit to how many times that file can be distributed, and the DVD is just one of many way to do that.
I’m not ignoring it, you’ve just failed to demonstrate it for this example.