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

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    That is absolutely 100% a completely insane position. The fact that you feel entitled to literally everything someone else creates it’s fucking horrific and you are a sad person.

    • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.

      Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

      What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft

        No, you have it wrong, one is part of a strategy to confuse the public into thinking it’s not, because it justifies doing whatever they want.

        still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

        But they don’t feel that copyright infringement is wrong. How closely did you read the previous statements?

        They literally said “Intellectual property is a scam”. I don’t know how else you could possibly interpret that

        • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Exactly, “intellectual property” doesn’t exist. It’s a term that was created to try to lump together various unrelated government-granted rights: trademark, copyright, patents, etc. They’re all different, and the only thing they have in common is that they’re all rights granted by the government. None of them is property though. That was just a clever term made up by a clever lobbyist to convince people to think of them as property, rather than government-granted rights related to the copying of ideas. Property is well-understood, limited government-granted rights to control the copying of ideas is less well understood. If the lobbyists can get people to think of “intellectual property” they’ve won the framing of the issue.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            So it’s just a classic case of someone saying something entirely unrepresentative of what they actually mean, then arguing it to death…?

            • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Could we stop having this meta-debate about what a person who is not either of us meant, and instead could you comment on the substance of my post?

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If you think it’s okay to copy what someone else has created without their permission, for a product you have not paid for, we have nothing to discuss. It’s as simple as that.