• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That doesn’t track at all. I can’t afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It’s absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.

    If it’s stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it’s an actual need. If it’s getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there’s no need there.

    The ethical argument is that there’s no one harmed because you can’t afford it anyway. It’s not that you need it like a starving man’s bread.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Just one specific point of contention. A physical object is very different from an object that can infinitely and effortlessly be copied with 0 degradation of that thing.

      I think you are making a good argument and but maybe not the best example.

      I think there is significance in the difference that needs to be accounted for in any discussion of piracy as theft.

      It is currently, and has been for a long time, legal to copy music from the radio or movies and tv shows from a broadcast(but not pay per view, or copys for distrubution) or go to a library and borrow whatever interesting (to you) media they have.