• t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    And media costs money to make.

    But not to copy, which is what you are asserting is being “stolen”. No one is claiming that turnstile jumpers are taking away money from train manufacturers. You’re having to mix analogies, because copying something isn’t theft.

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. The point is that in both examples, somebody is exploiting somebody else’s labor without paying.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        There is no labor in making digital copies.

        You are trying to blur the line between the media/art/music/film, etc, and the reproductions of it.

        Artists do deserve to be paid for their work, but artists do not deserve to maintain ownership over the already-sold assets, nor whatever happens to those assets afterwards (like copies made). If you want to say they should retain commercial rights for reproduction of it, sure, but resell of the originally-sold work (e.g. the mp3 file), and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work? Nah.

        They didn’t put in labor towards that. To say they did expands “labor” far beyond any reasonable definition.

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re trying to blur the line between what is and what should be. We don’t live in an ideal world.

          • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yup, many people (like you) consider copyright morally okay, and many people (like me) consider copyright infringement morally okay.

            Not an ideal world for either of us, I guess.