• squidspinachfootball@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Frankly this catch phrase never made any sense to me, from a logical point of view.

    It assumes that:

    1. If buying = owning then pirating* = stealing, because you own it without buying.

    2. And if buying =/= owning then pirating =/= stealing, because you can’t own it otherwise.

    But the justification in the second statement is completely irrelevant to the first statement. You still own it without buying. It’s still stealing.

    UNLESS - we examine what “stealing” is. This is where the arguments about being in a digital space vs. a physical space comes in. Where the question is raised: Is making an exact copy really “stealing”? Or, consider what is being “stolen”? The original item? The idea? We need to think about this more.

    But it’s here the argument should be made and here the debate should be. That’s where “pirates” have a chance of winning. Let’s get rid of this flawed, easily repeatable, but fundamentally incorrect catch phrase and come up with a better one already. One that makes sense.

    *(Nevermind that most of you technically aren’t even pirating, you’re just downloading the fruits of someone else that pirated.)

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s a shorthand way of writing ≠ digitally without needing to know the alt code or where it is in your mobile devices keyboard

          • Gladaed@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            It is not a composite expression but a single expression made up from 2 letters. And this is not a widespread notation.