How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?
You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
Fair point.
I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.
It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.
It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.
It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.
We are disagreeing on the definition of “stolen”. Your argument is insane because it implies you can steal potential in a real way. This is incredibly problematic as you are now saying anytime some entity does not make all the money/trade/exposure someone has stole that from them.
You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.
We were talking about CAD software, I pointed out how the most prominent player in the CAD market (AutoDesk) have screwed over their customers. People bought permanent lifetime licenses, now those licenses have been degraded and they cannot use their product in the industry. It’s not simply the case that AutoCAD is now an annual subscription priced at a higher cost, but the older product as provided by the manufacturer isn’t the same as what was paid for.
If you pirate earlier versions of AutoCAD, you sidestep these issues (for the most part, new versions still pop up with a warning if the .dwg has been edited in an older version).
It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.
We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen.
No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.
It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.
It is a straw man because I never made that argument. I never stated or made any kind of position about pirated versions and how they compare to official versions. In fact, I’ve argued elsewhere in this thread that piracy can be justified in any number of situations. Whether it’s justified or not doesn’t change that it’s stealing.
No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.
I am not. In fact, people have posted the definitions here. Again, we’re just disagreeing on what is being stolen.
Either way, I’m done here because you’re continuing to argue straw men, ignore the most central idea of my argument, and then claiming that I’m misunderstanding something when the entire point of my argument is how the two things are fundamentally the same and result in the creator not being paid for their work.
It is a straw man because I never made that argument.
I didn’t say you made any sort of argument. I just introduced a tangential point to put things in perspective.
My argument wasn’t contradicting yours. It just provided better framing to the argument overall. You’re far too narrow in your perspective here.
Again, we’re just disagreeing on what is being stolen.
Yes, sure, because you’re claiming that things were stolen when you never had them to begin with, and wouldn’t have had them if the action hadn’t occurred. Thus, no theft has occurred.
Not a straw man at all, but I’ll let it slide.
Fair point.
You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.
It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.
I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.
Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.
It isn’t a reconciliation, it’s an admission that you are right on that point, and that I was mistaken.
It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.
You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.
It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.
We are disagreeing on the definition of “stolen”. Your argument is insane because it implies you can steal potential in a real way. This is incredibly problematic as you are now saying anytime some entity does not make all the money/trade/exposure someone has stole that from them.
We were talking about CAD software, I pointed out how the most prominent player in the CAD market (AutoDesk) have screwed over their customers. People bought permanent lifetime licenses, now those licenses have been degraded and they cannot use their product in the industry. It’s not simply the case that AutoCAD is now an annual subscription priced at a higher cost, but the older product as provided by the manufacturer isn’t the same as what was paid for.
If you pirate earlier versions of AutoCAD, you sidestep these issues (for the most part, new versions still pop up with a warning if the .dwg has been edited in an older version).
It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.
No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.
It is a straw man because I never made that argument. I never stated or made any kind of position about pirated versions and how they compare to official versions. In fact, I’ve argued elsewhere in this thread that piracy can be justified in any number of situations. Whether it’s justified or not doesn’t change that it’s stealing.
I am not. In fact, people have posted the definitions here. Again, we’re just disagreeing on what is being stolen.
Either way, I’m done here because you’re continuing to argue straw men, ignore the most central idea of my argument, and then claiming that I’m misunderstanding something when the entire point of my argument is how the two things are fundamentally the same and result in the creator not being paid for their work.
I didn’t say you made any sort of argument. I just introduced a tangential point to put things in perspective.
My argument wasn’t contradicting yours. It just provided better framing to the argument overall. You’re far too narrow in your perspective here.
Yes, sure, because you’re claiming that things were stolen when you never had them to begin with, and wouldn’t have had them if the action hadn’t occurred. Thus, no theft has occurred.