Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

    • friend_of_satan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      141·
      1 year ago

      Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine—too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away.

      https://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html

    • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.socialEnglish
      1712·
      1 year ago

      How is creating a popular a novel any different than creating a popular object? Hundreds of hours of labor go into both and the creators are entitled to the full value of said labor.

      Say you have an amazing story about the vacation you took last year, and told all your friends about it. You would justifiably be pissed if you later found out one of your friends was telling that story as if they had done it. It’s the same for someone who writes a book or any other form of media.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Piracy can only be considered to be depriving someone of some good if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pirate would have paid for access to the content had they not had a pirated copy available. Not only is this not true in the majority of cases, it’s also completely impossible to prove in 99.9% of the cases where it is true.

      • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
        93·
        1 year ago

        We aren’t talking about plagiarism, the friend would be telling the story about you still.

        Spoken word narratives are such an integral part of culture, imagine if your grandpa told you to never repeat any of the stories of his childhood because “he owns the copywrite”. Insane. That’s what you are suggesting.

        Ideas are not objects. Having good ideas shared incurs no loss to anybody, except imagined “lost potential value”.

        • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.socialEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          I’m saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create. If a company asks to look iver some of your work before hiring you, says that they aren’t interested, and then you see them using that work afterwards i doubt you would be saying “well, information should be free”.

          If you want to write stories, draw pictures, make movies or webshows and distribute then for free ti everyone, then that’s a noble initiative, but creatives depend on what they create for their livelyhood.

          • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            41·
            1 year ago

            saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create.

            Here I was thinking we all deserved a giant meteor.

            The publisher example is one of a difference in power and you’re saying that IP is there to protect the author. Except this whole video is about how that doesn’t happen anymore. The law is written and litigated by those with power.

          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            That happens already.

            If the situation is reversed, the hammer comes down on the independent artist.

            We need stronger worker and consumer protections. Copywrite is a shit solution.

              • Nelots@lemm.eeEnglish
                31·
                1 year ago

                “renting” it is still taking money from the author even if the damage is physically limited to one item.

                I do see where you’re coming from, but not necessarily. If my friend has zero interest in ever buying said book (or can’t afford to) and would never become a paying customer, there is no downside to sharing a copy. In fact, if they like the book enough, they may even become incentivized to buy themselves a copy or look into the author’s other work legitimately when they otherwise wouldn’t have.

                This is how/why I pirate most games. I don’t have the type of pocket money to spend on games I don’t know I’ll love, so I pirate them first. If they’re good enough, I’ll buy the actual game on steam later. Spider-Man, Baldur’s Gate 3, Cassette Beasts, etc. are all games I plan to buy when I can afford to. And I can promise I never would have bought Slime Rancher 2 if I hadn’t pirated the first one at some point and enjoyed it.

        • poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          There is a difference here between lending or resale of a physical product. Can you sell a second hand book? Typically, yes. Can you do mental gymnastics to draw a parallel to reselling a digital version? Evidently, also yes.

            • poopkins@lemmy.worldEnglish
              32·
              1 year ago

              What is exactly “information” in this statement? Is a feature length movie “information” that needs to be shared freely? At 4K freely or will HD suffice for the meaning? Or is it just a plot summary? I’m in the camp that will argue just the latter.