The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.
The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.
I have a thing and than someone takes it away, so I can’t use it anymore. If somebody copies that thing - it’s not really theft.
My point is more - concepts from physical world don’t nessessary apply to digital world.
It just seems that what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be paid if their work doesn’t create something physical.
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I just make a difference between copying, stealing, physical goods, digital goods and immaterial things. They are not the same.
Easy examples: original and copy does not really apply to digital works or two people on opposite sides of world can have the same thought but not have the same physical object at the same time, etc.
Please name for me something someone could create on a computer, that you would agree they should be paid for; even if they show a demonstration copy to someone.
What ever they can find someone to pay for. I my self pay or use legally free software for my work. I just do t think that if someone pirates a copy of adobe cs it’s equivalent to theft of a physical good. Completely ok in my book for private use a bit shady for commercial use - but adobe subscription model is shady in my book anyway.
So…say you like to use Sublime Text. And you pay for a premium license. How do you know the person you paid is the person who wrote Sublime Text?
In fact, let’s suppose one day you go online and it seems there are hundreds of excellent open source IDEs, all of which look a lot like Sublime Text, with different names. Who deserves the credit? It could be theorized that each of the authors you’re looking at DID pay for their initial copy; and since software is free to use in any way you like, it’s free to sell its use, right?
The above is not a problem in our world where the code of the application in question is the intellectual property of its original author - that even when he makes it open source, he retains the rights to put a donation/premium button in the help menu.
I’d still like a direct answer; what goods can most normal people produce on a computer that, absent intellectual property laws, they could still commonly sell? I’d also question what would be the path for highly niche specializations where, currently their work sells for high prices due to the constrain on supply. If everyone worked off of a FOSS donation model, they likely would not have so many four-digit donators.
Dude are you really that dense? I say that digital goods are not the same as physical goods and the concept of ownership or theft which applies to physical goods does not apply in the same way to non physical goods. Humans created different frameworks to be able to make money and integrate non material goods into economy. But that does not change the nature of things: unlimited number of people can have the same thought at the same time in different physical locations - that is not possible with physical objects; if someone copies an digital objects it’s still there for others to use, not so much if someone steals an objects.
If we are talking about copyright infringement, sure - but don’t equate copyright infringement to theft. And we can talk about use of immaterial goods, but no-one really owns them. Again - you can not own an idea, even if you create a legal framework that pretends that it’s possible - at any given time at any given place someone can come up with the same idea even as complex as say - periodic system of elements.
That’s a lot of words. So, what’s the answer to the question?
If copying is an action open to everyone, what can a person create on a computer, that they could expect other people to pay them for? What could they make that doesn’t have equal value simply to copy, than to buy from its creator?
If you not interested in my opinion feel free to leave at any point.
Quite simple because you value the works of others? If you want for example a specific art piece from a specific artist you commission it from that artist. We also don’t need to have a theoretical debate about it - since steam exist. You can have most games pirated or get them even cheaper (than on stem) from grey key market - but if one makes a convenient affordable (localized cost for example )distribution options, people will pay for things they use - because most people actually think that it’s the right thing to do (as long as they can afford it). No everyone is an asshole, most people are actually not.
Yes, it absolutely is, by any standard. Ask the dictionary, ask the law, ask literally any authority on literacy and they all come up with the same verdict.
You’re just lying to yourself to justify doing whatever you want.
If you want to argue when piracy is and is not ethical, that is a different discussion we can have, and we’d likely largely agree. But saying that anything that is digital doesn’t belong to anyone is pure nonsense.
You say “ask the dictionary” — multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question, which obviously doesn’t apply to copyright infringement of digital works.
You say “ask the law” — copyright infringement is not stealing, they are literally two completely different statutes, at least in the US.
So, what the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is not theft.
Like many words, “theft” has several different definitions, that being one of them.
Congratulations, that’s the 4th strawman in this thread. No one is talking about copyrights.
So what the hell are you talking about?
My brother/sister in Christ, everyone in this discussion is talking about copyright infringement. That is the actual legal name for what we colloquially refer to as “piracy,” according to, you know, the law, which you previously referenced as something we should look to.
Sure buddy what ever makes you happy.
None of this makes me happy
That’s strange, ignorance is supposed to be bliss.
Sorry to hear.