/fur/ - Furry★

>>59229 (OP)

>Kotaku, a gaming website, is now writing about furry porn piracy

I don't want to be a dick, but they really ran out of material to cover.

>>59229 (OP)

They named /furry/, but they don't realize that it occurred on /fur/. Less normalfags for us I suppose.

>>59229 (OP)

Its not like theyve hacked patreon or anything, people who have paid for the patreon are uploading to the party expecting to get stuff in return. Yet people in the comments are claiming that this is the result of extreme capitalism

>>59239

Uh, are they actually blaming capitalism for the piracy or am I getting something wrong?

>>59241

Kind of weird for them to blame poor pornography sales on capitalism when it thrived the most in it. Especially when communist and socialist countries banned it as "degrading filth".

>>59242

>If you criticize the problems with capitalism, you're a communist

Stop that.

>>59252

I think you've misunderstood me, luxuries like pornography were prohibited in other economic systems as it was believed to be harmful. Capitalism enabled those luxuries and their protection to begin with. In other words, artists wouldn't be drawing furry dicks for a profit non-capitalist systems.

and you can't even buy anything on patreon, it's technically a gift exchange

the guy you're donating to gives you whatever as a gift for donating

>>59265

I hate the system as people treat it as a subscription service as opposed to a mini-kickstarter platform. There's a feature were folks can pool in money to fund a video or photo that would make it available to everyone, but many just choose to upload monthy.

>>59231

Could have just

>Kotaku

Please don't use the word "piracy" as it is confusing and misleading. I prefer the term sharing with friends.

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

I hate the liberal "art must be free" attitude. No I will NOT create shit for free, I want compensation and I want to own my creations, fuck you very much. No pay, no creation. Fuck off.

You can pirate all you want, just don't try to moralize it with "but the person is a dick, the price is too high, copies are too limited and few so I'm doing the world a favor by distributing, art belongs to the world". Just admit you want it for free and don't try to justify it with rhetoric, have the backbone to just admit you want it free and be done with it. If the creator is such a dick, don't support their work at all, don't even consume it. Ignore it.

>>59285

It's just basic economics, there's no need to moralize either way: the marginal cost of uploading paywalled content is negligible while the marginal utility gained from feeling you've made other people happy is - even if also negligible - likely higher. (otherwise why would you do it?)

What lies at the root of this is of course the oddity of trying to sell digital files. Instead of selling the service of creating the files (via commissions) or the labour of selling the files (by having a donation-only patreon), artists are trying to sell the files themselves as commodities. The problem here is that the cost of reproducing those commodities is so much lower than the price charged for them in the first place, making it trivial for others to create further reproductions and pass them on. Complaining about people engaging in the perfectly rational action of sharing instead of showing artists that alternative business models exist is a Candlemakers' Petition.

Furthermore there is an additional psychological problem, the one of taking something that people mentally believe used to be free and imposing a cost for it. Even if people value the goods and services more than they value the cost they're being charged, the move from so much as $0.00 to $0.01 is psychologically grating. (Not to mention in digital terms, imposing a not-insignificant extra burden of setting up payments where in real life you can hand over cash with ease.) An illustrative story: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-cost-of-free-doughnuts-70-years-of-regret

This is doubly the case because art is now distributed - when paid for - over the internet via patreon rather than in CD form, and we don't usually mentally value digital goods the same way we do physical goods. (Which in large part is an accurate assessment on our part, the labour theory of price is long outdated.) So you still have that mental perception that what's being sold was once free. Even if this expectation and understanding is wrong, expectations matter and it would be much easier for artists to go with the grain than try and fight it because - as we see - it's quite ineffective.

>>59285

Okay, but you do realize, nobody is obligated to pay for a service that doesn't directly benefit themselves (ie. commissions)

The only people anyone is attempting to smite are artists that use patreon as a paywall, and if you're defending that, you can kill yourself my dude.

Ya know, I'm fully aware that we need more supporters to manually update the site, but I'm starting to think going full public access was a horrendous idea.

>>59258

>prohibited in other economic systems

Wrong. An economic system cannot ban anything. The political system that runs parallel to the economic system may, but that's completely different. It would be like capitalism before 1950 criminalized homosexuality and banned interracial relations. You'd have to be a fucking moron to think such a thing, and yet people continue this day to think the political practices and laws of the Soviet Union are what define socialism.

humanity simply wasnt ready for a website like patreon

>>59285

You are completely misinterpreting all of this, patreon IS NOT A STORE, you ARE NOT STEALING FROM A STORE, to be more precise using yiffparty is merely copying data, it's not even possible to steal anything in the digital world unless the user deliberately delete the file from the original hard drive, stealing is the ignorant concept for people that do not understand the digital world, as it does not exist on the same rule as the physical one

In a store every book or item have an intrinsic value being a physical good, it costed someone something to bring it there in the state it is, in the digital world there is no such thing, i can copy the same folder containing million of images or text without requiring anything but enough free space to host it, data itself have no intrinsic value whatsoever

But more importantly patreon paywall method make an artist take money merely for the existence of an art not it's use or the possession of it, it's more akin to going to a gallery and photograph some picture, then the artist demand money for and unlimited amount of time for everyone that see the photos even when not used in any way, that's completely nonsensical, as you get no value as a buyer from doing so

I am fine with selling art, but petron is not selling, it's renting the right to view data/image with no intrinsic value whatsoever and on which you are no right to do anything with and pretending it's the same

>>59302

Shillatreon should have never existed in the first place or at least limited itself to basic support and prohibiting paywalls and any and all forms, an equivalent of Kickstarter was all we needed

I know this is off topic but, does anyone have a link to the image that was used as the article thumbnail?

I tried going through yiff party and her page on furaffinity and couldn't find it.

>>59283

Thank you.

>>59285

>No I will not create shit for free.

Doing it for free is OPTIONAL.

You can still sell your work at whatever price you deem fit. But please don't restrict others from selling it too, it's good for both of you.

>I want to own my creations

From my point of view an artist should work to promote sharing of their works however they want, not restricting a person from sharing, or building off it. In this sense nobody should "own" the work.

>"but the person is a dick, the price is too high, copies are too limited and few so I'm doing the world a favor by distributing, art belongs to the world".

Many artists are already dicks with restrictive terms of service that tie a person down. I'd rather deal with a dick artist that let's me do what I want with their work than one that doesn't.

High price is alright if I judge the work to be of good quality. I don't mind at all. At a minimum they should allow you to do what you like, as long as you give credit. I outright refuse to support an artist that won't allow these simple things.

>>59300

Actually, Capitalism legalized pornography and homosexuality. Whereas they were both prohibited in Communist China and the USSR for being dangerously useless. If you want to feel good and pretend that they would fund animal cartoon porn though, that's alright. Keep in mind that it would never happen under that system.

>>59315

>>59285

>I want to own my creations

This shit right here is the stupidest thing humanity ever conceived since the digital age, it has no equivalent anywhere, if i buy anything from anyone as soon as the transaction is complete i have no restriction on what to do with the damn thing, if i buy a car i can change the colour or the style in any way i want, if i buy a statue and keep it in the garden for the bird to shit upon it's my business, that one that made it have 0 right to decide how i use my purchase

Even paintings have no restrictions, and those too are art and have an artist behind it

Only specific law can restrict usage of certain product, but it has nothing to do with the vendors or the artist if any

I don't understand why these digital artist want any different, or are even allowed to put any kind of restriction on a sold product, there is no justification for this but pettiness, and should have no place on the market as a whole

>>59311

>515 missing CUF posts

That might be why.

If I was a journalist and would write an article about how I fap to furry porn and how shitty, childish webcomics I keep making articles about deserve money, I'd be fucking fired.

Like I get fired for all kinds of minor crap.

Also, if I don't get money for bad quality, why should anyone? Does anyone have the motivation to improve once they realize they get money whatever they do?

I mean, look at all those content creators who are like "To maintain quality/ improve quality/ get better tech, support me on Patreon" but NOTHING changes.

No. Cease all production, share work like in the old PBBS days. As it is written in Carl Barx furry art manifesto.

>>59285

We're talking about people claiming copyrighted characters as their own, just because they draw smut of it.

>>59327

I've been debating to myself to send emails to executives of Hasbro, Disney, Toei, Bandai, Pixar, etc. and use artists and places like Kahla-Nah, Jasonafex, Kadath, e621, furaffinity, derpibooru, Inkbunny or any other shitty artist that makes money off it and hit them with DMCA and CnD requests.

>>59318

>>59323

it's worth noting that lenin's USSR decriminalized homosexuality, then Stalin re-criminalized it.

>>59323

Marx was outright against sexual deviancy in general, have you read his letter to Engels? Before you point out that he meant "pedophiles", Stalin and Lenin knew what those figures meant. Hence why the latter legalized it and the former criminalized it again.

>>59335

His June 22, 1869 letter. It used to be available online, but they removed it:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/

You can find it printed though.

>>59328

I agree and thought of that myself, BUT it might backfire. Imagine more restrictions for such content, or imagine you decide to become a vulture yourself but are removed from your right to draw the only shit that's fun.

Wanna see nothing but ugly ass OCs? I don't.

But still, I hate how casual those artists handle such content and how hard they whine when someone take their art, considering the copyright owners could just snap with their fingers and fuck them up.

On the other hand, I suspect some devs like Sega, Blizzard and Disney secretly see porn as free marketing methods.

>>59339

It's kind of hard to picture the drawbacks since we live under a capitalist system, but it'll be noticeable when the system is replaced.

>>59338

No doubt they do. Its advertising to them.

>kotaku namedrops us

>500k likes

>kotaku spergs coming for our board any second now

oh_no.mp3

>>59343

Look at Paheal. It seems they insisted that Overwatch is renamed to Overlook and Pokemon to Porkeyman, but they didn't put the franchises on DNP. Either not to look like assholes, or...

>>59345

Good. 8ch has slowly been losing users for months, and the ones that stuck around here are shit. No offense, but shitposting has gone up, probably because people are bored.

>>59357

Because they are too lazy to draw.

And nothing good comes from a shit community who actually like e.g. the feminist articles or, worse, the Sunday Webcomics posts.

I wonder how the bottom of the webcomic pit even ends up there. Do you have to suck the cocks of the staff?

>>59229 (OP)

Maybe they should be writing articles about how there's a particular yellow journalism network dedicated to breaking the law for ad shekels. Maybe they could mention how it got its shit pushed in and filed for bankruptcy last year?

>>59285

>No I will NOT create shit for free, I want compensation and I want to own my creations, fuck you very much. No pay, no creation. Fuck off.

Uncreate your shit opinions then, cause I ain't paying one cent for your two.

>>59357

I wish we had more users, but there's still a good ratio of quality and shit posts with the current userbase we have. As far as furries are concerned, I don't think there is such a thing as a good community of furries.

Saging because I have nothing to add to the original topic.

I wish I had the power of a Kotaku journalist and would create hate armies against certain Youtubers.

>>59372

>all these people with ACTUAL jobs stealing from people too lazy for an actual job

>>59372

>all these people without jobs trying to justify people paying for their smut

>Artists getting mad about their paywalls being surpassed

>Said artists are usually hacks that have none of their own content, and just draw copywritten characters that are already established...behind a paywall to view it.

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

>>59360

As an artist, I don't read any mainstream journalism, just WLP, Evola, Marx, Engels, and Nietzsche. Recently read Camp of Saints. I lean right, but I just don't force personal politics into my art.

Your popularity depends on how much you network with others.

>>59383

What grinds my gears is that some artists I've talked with about sharing or selling their work look at me like I'm somebody to be spit on. Then I find an artist that does good work and just wants to he credited is all. Those are the ones who get my support and my mombucks.

All this whining and bullshittery by artists recently has only proven one thing about them: that all they ever cared about from the very beginning was money. Before Patreon, there was nothing but commissions. You had a few good artists hiding their stuff behind Sexyfur, Tailheat, etc. but the norm of furry art business has been commissions. Out of all the artists that I watch on FA and IB, only a select few moaned about commissions not being financially viable (well shame on you if you made art your only income source to begin with). Now, all of a sudden, a fully-exploitable donation service appears and everyone and their mother rushes in to register and then starts hiding anywhere between half to all of their art behind it and commissions are now some great carnal sin that should never be performed. This just proves without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of artists who jumped on the bandwagon on day one and beyond never really cared about the social aspect of the fandom. They were just using it as a big money pit and the social aspect and 'friendships' just came with the territory. The number of artists that have jumped to Patreon and now bitch about their precious paywalls being loopholed should be proof of how little heart they really have in this fandom and their fans.

>>59397

Hey Faf. I didn't know you lurked around here.

In all seriousness, you are but a cell of the cancer that's killing both the fandom and respect for artists in general. Quit art and never go back.

>>59399

gosh dont be such a bab

>>59397

Clever. Now get your ass in the drawthread and make something.

>>59397

Sounds like a process both you and the customer would get tired of going through very quickly, even if whatever you produced was worth it.

>>59413

I see the Denuvo Defense Force has switched gears and now changed over to defending anti-consumer practices in the art community.

>>59414

because the typical sort of person who's interested in complaining about how they can't get free furry porn has about all the technical abilities worth of a sea slug

>>59416

That's how the free market works. I don't care about the fact it triggers you, I just want to force you to extract your dosh from your wallet if you want to even look at my art.

>>59419

The free market also means people are going to try and extract your art for free. People enjoy sharing, especially when you make a technological challenge of it. (People also enjoy breaking security just for the sake of breaking it, and once you've done that? Might as well share what you find...)

>>59418

if that was the case then video games wouldn't get pirated under the same logic.

if somebody wants your shit, they'll get it one way or another.

>>59424

>getting you arrested for violating the contracts of our fair and free markets.

lol at this

piracy is a civil offence, kid.

>>59424

the fact that you think that you can get people arrested over a civil offence makes me feel pretty safe.

>>59428

don't get ahead of yourself, you'd need to win first.

>>59398

Blame it on society. If you're in a class that lives under wage slavery, you really can't afford to be "wasting" any time on a hobby that doesn't make you money.

If rich people made furry art, they would do it for free. But they don't.

>>59432

If you don't want it to be a business than figure out how to implement some kind of UBI so that artists don't have to monetize every aspect of their time in order to pay for their art making equipment, supplies, and training time.

>>59435

better idea: just spend time in non-furry communities where people make things they want because they feel like it, while occasionally dwelling on what a black hole of lost-potential furry is.

>>59436

Yeah, no. Every 'art community' is like this because money is what is needed to survive.

ITT: Autistic snowflakes hate working for or earning things.

>>59423

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/25151206/

>>59443

When you get to the crux of it, they're just comparing fandom stuff with other premium services like Netflix/Steam. It's not that they feel that $9 per month is expensive, just that you get little for paying that amount in comparison to other services.

>>59443

The onus is on you to earn money, it's not on anyone else to give you money.

>>59443

I just hate others working for earning things.

I'm sure some happy idiots would pay me.

>>59283

This. If you accept their narrative, then you've already lost. Like the people who say "I know it's stealing but-", like if you know it's stealing then you know you should go to prison.

I don't see sharing files as the moral equivalent of stealing. People who say "you're stealing" when you're sharing art or looking at art shared by others are trying to pass moral judgement condemning you. Note that they don't even say "it's illegal" and cite whatever law you might be breaking, they say in the sense "it's wrong because it's stealing, and stealing is immoral, and that's why what you're doing is wrong". It's not stealing, plain and simple.

>>59462

Me watching a video that my friend paid for and sent to me is not stealing.

Me duplicating the video that my friend paid for and sent to me is stealing.

What is the difference, here? Well, the first examples is sharing, since the product quantity matches the purchase count.

The second example has an irregularity where only one person paid for a product, but somehow two people own or acquired different instances of the product.

>>59464

>The second example has an irregularity where only one person paid for a product, but somehow two people own or acquired different instances of the product.

That's manifestly not stealing, then. We have a word for what it is - it's copying.

When you steal, the original is removed from circulation, which is the problem with stealing - you're removing a scarce resource that belongs to someone else from their possession without their consent for your own use.

>>59464

Stealing deprives the original owner of the object in question. If I steal your car, you had a car but you don't have it anymore because it was stolen.

>>59466

Exactly, you deprived the owner money he or she otherwise would have made for his or her product.

Glad we both understand.

>>59465

See

>>59467

>>59467

Theft, by definition, is removing the access to a physical good and thereby removing use of said good from the original owner.

Piracy, in the content sense, is the duplication of a data string against intellectual property law.

The first is a criminal offense, the second is a civil. The reason digital piracy isn't criminal is that you do not deprive the original owner of use or access to their property.

The claims of potential sales or gains are immaterial. How can you prove in a court of law that the person consuming pirated content would have consumed the content were it not freely available?

>>59467

>you deprived the owner money he or she otherwise would have made for his or her product.

This line of thought culminates in banning windows for depriving lightbulb manufacturers of sales during the daytime.

>>59469

>Theft, by definition, is removing the access to a physical good and thereby removing use of said good from the original owner.

Is monetary compensation not a good?

>The claims of potential sales or gains are immaterial. How can you prove in a court of law that the person consuming pirated content would have consumed the content were it not freely available?

Ever heard of the"Loss of wages" cases in courts of law? Nothing you asked me is relevant. What is relevant is simply making the case that someone should not have a product you created without first paying compensation. The only thing to do after that is simply prove that the obtained content was done so by illegal means -- in this case, by stealing it -- by not paying for it.

>This line of thought culminates in banning windows for depriving lightbulb manufacturers of sales during the daytime.

No, because the sun cannot be duplicated and no one owns the sun.

Sorry about that, I mistyped. This part is towards you, sir:

>>59470

>This line of thought culminates in banning windows for depriving lightbulb manufacturers of sales during the daytime.

No, because the sun cannot be duplicated and no one owns the sun.

>>59472

>sir:

overegged the pudding and made it too obvious you're baiting replies.

>>59471

And by the way, the point of me bringing up "loss of wages" in this post >>59471

is to establish the point that you actually can make claims of lost potential property or monetary compensation.

>>59471

>Is monetary compensation not a good?

Only when a transaction is present.

>Ever heard of the"Loss of wages" cases in courts of law?

A transaction exists where the employer ensured the employee would be compensated a certain rate for their labor. This contract was violated by the employer not paying as agreed, therefore being liable for the discrepancy in wages.

You are not entitled to anything not legally agreed upon.

>>59474

Not an argument.

Looks like I win.

>>59476

>Only when a transaction is present.

Yes, a transaction the hypothetical person circumnavigated which thereby deprived a supplier of their sought good in exchange for that hypothetical person's sought good -- also known as "theft" since someone took something without reciprocation.

>You are not entitled to anything not legally agreed upon

I totally agree. Why are we discussing this? It seems like we both understand that consent as well as a sacrifice of some sort is required from both parties when a transaction takes place. The point I am making is that when someone acquires a good that someone produced and the producer clearly expresses a wish to receive something in return for it, theft occurs when the producer instead receives nothing.

In this hypothetical case of duplication, the duplicated product would not even exist where it not for the existence of the purchased original. As a result, the owner of the original still retains the rights to the duplicate and thus has the right to compensation for that duplicate as well as the original.

>>59478

Congratulations. Now, when someone else comes along and takes it from you by those same means, shut up and deal with it.

>>59480

so when are you going to send money to pepsico?

>>59480

We are discussing this due to the incorrect equivocation of "theft" with "piracy". You cannot apply the legal application of one against the other.

Intellectual property is ethereal in the sense that it is information. If you could memorize the number sequence that encoded a media file, you could share it from memory. The copy rights to an IP are about the knowledge of that number or data sequence.

In theft, there are only two relevant parties: The victim and the thief. The thief has inflicted damages upon the victim by removing the victim's use of a good.

In piracy, there are three relevant parties: The owner, the pirate distributor, and the pirate consumer. As the act in question is that the pirate distributor has duplicated the intellectual property of the owner and made the information available to the pirate consumer, damage is difficult to prove. The IP owner has not lost anything, nothing has changed. IP law is entirely about claiming future potentials and attempting to prove loss for a transaction that has not, and may not ever, have occurred. This is why legally prosecuting a pirate consumer is almost impossible, but you will see legal challenges against distributors succeed.

>>59467

I expected that line of thought. You're telling me that I supposedly deprive someone of "potential earnings". That's bullshit for various reasons. First of all, how do you know that someone would buy something was it not for it being made available through file sharing? I, for one, wouldn't buy most of the stuff that is shared, the biggest reason being that I don't have that much money lying around, so I don't deprive anyone of any "potential earnings" because there's no potential there to begin with. To assume someone would buy if it wasn't available for free is pure speculation. Furthermore, like >>59470 pointed, everyone can be deprived of potentially earning something. If I draw porn of character X, and then you draw porn of character X too, should you be liable for potentially taking customers away from me? That logic goes for everything. Every time someone does something he is potentially taking away income from someone else, the whole concept is stupidity.

>>59480

>As a result, the owner of the original still retains the rights to the duplicate.

This is absurd. The entire crux of the issue stems from a fundamental nonequivalent difference between physical items and the concept of data having a value. If I were to obtain the parts list and blueprints of some electronic device (data), and then subsequently made myself that device (physical item), there's not a single thing anyone can do about it. Manufacturing said device and selling it en mass is illegal because you're instating yourself as the supplier of a physical item to other people, and thus the originator of the device looses out on profits of the (possibly 1:1) bootleg. Tell other people where and how to go about doing the same thing themselves however and there's still nothing that anyone can reasonably object to, they're just buying switches and resistors and what have you.

With data, you're not receiving any physical thing. The physical space the data on that hard drive takes up is yours, that data being a copy of data from elsewhere is irreverent. If I wanted to, I could hypothetically make a pixel to pixel duplicate by hand and none would be the wiser.

"Oh, it's fine if to view it if your friend payed for it." Every time you or anyone else streams video or looks up images or listens to spotify or what have you, that data now exists locally. You can, and people do, take data hanging out in a temp file somewhere and move it to something slightly more permanent. Every patron who receives copied data from a server somewhere is saving it locally, with just as much ability to copy and modify that data as anyone else with a computer, originator or otherwise. By that point the creator of the original data has no legitimate say in what happens to that data, the physical space that data takes up is owned by the person with the data, and that data can be duplicated to other local storage or a server somewhere for as long as that physical representation of that data exists.

On a slightly tangential point, I don't care what the ethical standing is with all of this, pirates are gonna pirate if they feel that it's worth keeping the seeds up or the download links up, what I care about is accessibility. Paywalls in this context by existence serve to limit the ability to access data. The morals of doing so not withstanding, that's all well and good, but what happens when people die? Or more likely and more commonly, what happens when some artist has a fit and deletes their stuff from the internet, along with their patreon accounts and the links to their previously only payed for content? At that point it's not a question of whether it's morally wrong to distribute that data, it's a question of does that data exist anymore, in some form that's accessible? Don't give me the "But it's the creators right to-", if we all believed that, there would be no classic Doctor Who today.

You might not care for it, but a lot of people do, and after the BBC had the bright idea to burn all of the master tapes, the only form they existed in was if someone was lucky enough to find a distribution tape or two in a barn somewhere. Or that would be, if fans hadn't taped every episode with whatever audio equipment they had to work with at the time. Audio only yes, but at least that means all of the episodes still survive in that form today.

Furry smut doesn't have the luxury of having everyone backing up everything in the highest quality in some later accessible way, exponentially so of it's pay walled (especially so when the likes of e621 go out of their way to not do so). 1280x or censored images plastered with advertising to a possibly defunct patreon account's the best you're getting if something like yiff.party doesn't exist for the majority of content, and even at that when it's a download link to drop box or something people don't bother because it's right there, until the link goes down.

God I suck at this.

One sec, fixing.

>>59482

>We are discussing this due to the incorrect equivocation of "theft" with "piracy". You cannot apply the legal application of one against the other.

The title says "Theft."

I am talking about theft, not piracy.

>Intellectual property is ethereal in the sense that it is information. If you could memorize the number sequence that encoded a media file, you could share it from memory. The copy rights to an IP are about the knowledge of that number or data sequence.

Objects and data are not ethereal. also "intellectual property" laws cover the data portion. You are not allowed to distribute ideas that would lead to the completion of the object, either.

>In theft, there are only two relevant parties: The victim and the thief. The thief has inflicted damages upon the victim by removing the victim's use of a good.

Money is a good. We are talking in circles.

>>59483

>You're telling me that I supposedly deprive someone of "potential earnings".

Well, they certainly cannot get the earnings if you stole, now can they?

I will take "potential sale" over "guaranteed loss" any day and so would any other distributor.

>>59490

>The entire crux of the issue stems from a fundamental nonequivalent difference between physical items and the concept of data having a value. If I were to obtain the parts list and blueprints of some electronic device (data), and then subsequently made myself that device (physical item), there's not a single thing anyone can do about it.

My point is not about the idea or a product. My point clearly addresses a finish product being duplicated and distributed. This is why patents exist.

We can stop here with the irrelevance.

>>59501

>Well, they certainly cannot get the earnings if you stole, now can they?

>I will take "potential sale" over "guaranteed loss" any day and so would any other distributor.

Which still applies to everything. If I sell a competing product, you incur a potential loss. If sharing files is wrong because someone incurs in a "potential loss", then everyone ought to have monopoly over whatever niche they're working in. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that sharing a given file resulted in a loss because supposedly that person would otherwise buy the product. That's impossible to prove though, so there you have it, you need to consider everyone guilty until proven otherwise in order for your faulty logic to work.

Not to mention that there's also the possibility that sharing a given file might result in a gain for the artist, as you'll undoubtedly concede that there are people who support artists after they're made aware of the art through sharing. If you're going to consider "potential loss", you'll have to take into account "potential gain" too. If I'm guilty of potentially making the artist poorer, am I also not responsible for potentially making the artist richer? This is the sort of inane conjecture that you get into when you start talking about "potential loss".

>>59339

IP is anti-capitalist

>>59499

Not that guy, but

>The title says "Theft."

The tongue in cheek ":^)" is supposed to be a tip off that the title's tongue in cheek.

>Objects and data are not ethereal. also "intellectual property" laws cover the data portion. You are not allowed to distribute ideas that would lead to the completion of the object, either.

I agree that ethereal's a strange way of putting it, IP laws covering the data portion's not really correct. You can buy posters for movies owned by someone that's not the IP owner right now and scan it just fine. If you look around there's also plans and dimensions for a whole multitude of things that can be purchased just as easily.

>Money is a good.

No it is not. Money (Unless we're talking about physical currency that's not in circulation anymore, like a $1 bill from 1896) is, and I quote, (for amerifats anyway) "(For) legal tender for all debts, public and private." A representation of the worth of a good and/or service. Not a good or service in its own right.

>Well, they certainly cannot get the earnings if you stole, now can they?

>I will take "potential sale" over "guaranteed loss" any day and so would any other distributor.

Like the other anons have pointed out, and what people point out every time the argument comes up, "potential sale" only applies when there was a potential for a sale, not when the person was never going to pay for it anyway. I can guarantee you that the overwhelming number of people partaking in the content are firmly in the "Never would of payed for it anyway" camp, or at the very least "If the worth of the thing in question lined up with how much I value this" Which for this is borderline zilch, unless in extreme volume, variety, and quality. Kinda like streaming services. Many other anons have gone into detail already on this point.

Where I jump in,

>My point is not about the idea or a product. My point clearly addresses a finish product being duplicated and distributed. This is why patents exist.

That wasn't my point either. My point was the futility of equating physical items (goods and products) with data (what yiff.party's distributing). You didn't read all of what I had put down did you? There's a reason patents eventually expire.

You can't compare the moral dilemmas of theft (real theft of physical things mind you, not to be confused with piracy in the context of digital data) and what we're identifying as piracy. This is also a point other anons have explained in length, so I'll stop here.

>>59501

You do realize that "piracy" or "copying" or whatever you autists are arguing to call it, has statistically been proven to have a minimal impact on profits.

People who perform these acts were never your customer to begin with, otherwise they wouldn't have done it, and as >>59505 said, you cannot know if they were ever going to buy it or not.

>>59229 (OP)

>press

What, you mean kotaku?

>>59520

sorry, to call them press was wholly wrong of me, "third world gaming blogging" is more appropriate

>>59505

>Furthermore, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that sharing a given file resulted in a loss because supposedly that person would otherwise buy the product.

You are refocusing my arguments for me, which is fallacious. I never said that "sharing" -- previously defined as one person making a purchase and (temporary) moving its possession over to another individual -- would cause a loss.

I specifically said that "stealing" -- defined in this context as duplication of a product which is then transferred to another's possession -- inflicts a loss, and it does because another instance of the product itself was created, but given to a consumer without consent of the owner and without payment to the owner.

If you create a new vehicle that efficiently runs on some common gas and show me the blueprints, you "shared" the blueprints and the knowledge of the vehicle's configuration with me but you still possess that instance of the blueprints and retain ownership of the product (assuming you bought a patent).

If I then duplicate your blueprints and go to create my own instances of that car and start distributing it to consumers without your consent, I then stole your product.

Why? Because now you not only had your right as a distributor and owner violated, but you have to compete against your own product under a price tag of "Free" (or at least a lower one) vended by another distributor of whom you gave no permission. This "Free" price tag directly cuts into sales you otherwise would have because the people that now own instances of the product obviously want the product, which means that they either would have paid for it (loss of monetary earnings since they got it for free from an unauthorized distributor) or never bought it all because they had to pay for it (loss of monetary earnings because they did not want it) -- which is how thieves typically behave. Guess what the difference is and which one is criminal?

Lastly, the general point is that no one wants to work for free. If everyone hypothetically began stealing -- oh, I am sorry, forgot semantics -- "pirating" a product known to be sold by a distributor, what gives you the idea that the distributor would continue creating the content if he is just going to get robbed for it each time?

Robbed every now and again is still preferable to always being robbed, so these laws exist to mitigate the robberies and protect the distributor.

Your turn.

>>59508

>You do realize that "piracy" or "copying" or whatever you autists are arguing to call it, has statistically been proven to have a minimal impact on profits.

Burden of proof calls for evidence or at least a stronger argument,

>>59524

https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf

Have a 304 page report commissioned by the UN themselves that was suppressed because it didn't show the results they wanted.

Which is copying doesn't affect jack shit in the industry. Who knew that making a quality product is a surefire way to get someone to pay for it, instead of forcing their hand and making them pay for it through anti-consumerist methods like copy-protection.

>>59525

This looks fun to flip through.

>Which is copying doesn't affect jack shit in the industry. Who knew that making a quality product is a surefire way to get someone to pay for it, instead of forcing their hand and making them pay for it through anti-consumerist methods like copy-protection.

Your point is irrelevant on the basis that how much of an impact the thievery has on a business or distributor is not proper justification for any impact at all.

The simple fact that you acknowledge -- with this response of statistics to show the level of impact -- that the impact even exists wins me the argument,

>>59525

Also, this:

"Proportion of illegal downloaders / streamers"

"This comparison is hampered by differences in definitions."

The study is flawed, by declaration of the study. You lose.

>>59525

Despite the study being flawed, here is its conclusion about the displacements caused by online copyright infringements:

"148

Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU

7.7

Conclusions

With regard to total effects of online copyright infringements on legal

transactions, there are no robustly significant findings. The strongest finding

applies to films/TV-series, where a displacement rate of 27 with an error

margin of roughly 36 per cent (two times the standard error) only indicates

that online copyright infringements are much more likely to have negative

than positive effects."

I think we can stop this discussion completely at this point.

You are correct, the impact is minimal. I acknowledge this completely, but the impact is there.

>>59501

>I will take "potential sale" over "guaranteed loss" any day

But this is also erroneous. "Pirate and if you like it, buy or donate to the creator" is something that happens a lot with video games. It's not as often as people that pirate and then never buy it, but the fact that it DOES happen means your "guarantee" thing is bunk.

>>59523

>"sharing" -- previously defined as one person making a purchase and (temporary) moving its possession over to another individual

By that definition sharing of digital data, purchased or not, is not possible. Despite what cut & pasting data would have you believe, it's not possible to truly displace data from one physical location on disk to another location on another disc, you can duplicate it and delete the original, but that's still a copy. So to share data like you suggest, the only way to do it (without literally moving physical media around) is to be a step behind duplicating it anyway.

>because the people that now own instances of the product obviously want the product

You yourself admit a line later but still refute for the some reason people whom "never bought it all because they had to pay for it" and rationalize that as "loss of monetary earnings because they did not want it", what kind of backwards ass logic is that? The point of a free market is that a individual can choose to pay for things or not pay for things, whether that means not having it at all or finding alternate means of getting it. There's a world of difference between "I like it, but I'm not going to spend money to this, but if made free I'd get it" and "I'm going to go out of my way to get this for free regardless of how much effort goes into getting it."

I'm getting the vibe that you're confusing possession of physical items in the literal sense, possessing the concept of something in the legal sense, and data being distributed between drives in a computer system or over a computer network with each other. The latter two are not explicitly the same thing, but you keep flip flopping between them as though they were, and all three cannot be considered to be equivalent to each other when discussing the moral implications of gaining possession of something via unintended means. Stealing a physical item, bootlegging a product, and pirating data are all fundamentally different issues, regardless of how much multimedia companies and "morally upright individuals" try to convince governmental bodies and societies at large that the former and latter of those three are the same thing. We've had millennia to establish societal norms of what is right and wrong when it comes to possession of stuff and ideas, but only 20-30 years at best to establish the same for data. It's pretty easy to point fingers when there's no precedent for something.

>>59534

>Despite what cut & pasting data would have you believe, it's not possible to truly displace data from one physical location on disk to another location on another disc, you can duplicate it and delete the original, but that's still a copy.

Stop the word games. The context clearly has been established to refer to distribution of copies of the work or product.

>You yourself admit a line later but still refute for the some reason people whom "never bought it all because they had to pay for it" and rationalize that as "loss of monetary earnings because they did not want it", what kind of backwards ass logic is that?

You know none of that is mutually exclusive, right?

The first bit is me explaining the example reasoning behind not buying from the buyers perspective.

The second is me explaining it from the distributor's perspective.

>There's a world of difference between "I like it, but I'm not going to spend money to this, but if made free I'd get it" and "I'm going to go out of my way to get this for free regardless of how much effort goes into getting it."

... Yes, and both are still thievery. What is not being understood here is that all thievery is thievery. Why you stole it is irrelevant.

>I'm getting the vibe that you're confusing possession of physical items in the literal sense, possessing the concept of something in the legal sense, and data being distributed between drives in a computer system or over a computer network with each other.

Not at all, because all ownership is ownership and all possession is possession.

The only thing that changed was context.

>The latter two are not explicitly the same thing, but you keep flip flopping between them as though they were, and all three cannot be considered to be equivalent to each other when discussing the moral implications of gaining possession of something via unintended means.

Stop injecting morality in a simple debate about what is and is not. Morality is irrelevant; I never said what is "good" and what is "bad" here because none of that matters. What matters is what thievery is.

The whole issue I have with this thread and my opposition is that you want t pretend that what is happening is not happening by play words games with everything and playing games of semantics. '"I prefer the term x, thank you," but what you prefer to call it does not make it so.

You are thieves, Own it. This is all I came here for. I did not care about how much of an impact it had. I did not say anything about what was good or bad. I just want honesty and consistency. But, this constant dancing around shows me that you know it as well as I do that you may indeed be committing acts that are questionable in nature.

>>59533

"Pirate and if you like it, buy or donate to the creator" is something that happens a lot with video games."

Steal it and then pay for it if you like it?

Go rob a jewelry store and then come back and offer payment for the jewels you robbed and tell me how that works out for you.

>It's not as often as people that pirate and then never buy it, but the fact that it DOES happen means your "guarantee" thing is bunk.

"My point makes your point about loss stronger, but it means your point about 'guaranteed loss' is debunked."

So, the people that never paid for the game are not guaranteed losses?

>>59543

>Go rob a jewlery store and then come back and offer payment...

Nice false equivalence

How many times do we have to keep telling you that copying data is in no way equivalent to that of theft. There is no profit loss because you cannot prove that there was profit to be gained and there is no physical loss of product.

>>59543

It's 100% absolutely a question of morality. If it didn't matter, then there'd be no issues with thievery or piracy because then doing so wouldn't matter in the slightest.

The concept of ownership and possession is not cut and dry, even when we'd otherwise believe it to be. Does letting a friend borrow a movie mean it is now his? Yes and no. Does playing on a arcade cabinet in a bar mean you possess that cabinet? Again, yes and no. Does viewing a image online mean you have possession of that data in that moment? Yes, and it literally takes a instant to move that data elsewhere.

You say this is a debate about "what is and is not". In order to define those, you need to define what you're arguing about. Thievery and piracy and bootlegging are moral issues centered around obtaining different kinds of thing by non intended means. It's comes off as a word game, as you put it, because it's a complex issue that cannot be distilled to "yes and no". Calling a whale a fish because it swims doesn't make it a fish.

If you want honesty and consistency, then that's knowing that piracy and thievery are not the same thing. Good or bad, that's been my point from the very beginning.

>>59543

>All these words mean exactly what I say they do and there are no exceptions

>Everything you say just makes my argument stronger if I twist it around with logical fallacies

>My redditposting power is over 9000!

You are a whiny little baby who is intellectually void, and simply not worth debating with. Literally everyone in this thread disagrees with you, so why don't you go jump off a tall bridge and save us having to listen to your inane jabbering anymore.

Pay-walling art is fucking retarded and just insulting to your patrons.

They're giving you their money, and supporting you, fucking hell, at least do a raffle occasionally and offer to draw their characters.

>>59548

>Nice false equivalence

Go take x without paying for it, then come back and offer y as payment and see how that goes.

Looks fine to me.

>How many times do we have to keep telling you that copying data is in no way equivalent to that of theft. There is no profit loss because you cannot prove that there was profit to be gained and there is no physical loss of product.

"There is no x because you cannot prove that x would exist."

1. Theft is not dependent upon profit gain or loss in any case. It dependent upon who owns the product and how has permission to redistribute it as I have said many times by this point.

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>59566

Well, we can simply consult a dictionary if English is too hard for you:

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it:"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/steal

Stop projecting and ad hominem is not an argument. Looks to me like you are losing your positioning, here.

>>59550

>It's 100% absolutely a question of morality. If it didn't matter, then there'd be no issues with thievery or piracy because then doing so wouldn't matter in the slightest.

If you want to change the subject to morality, then find someone else.

I am simply making the points that include acknowledge of what theft is, who is doing it, and who it affects.

>The concept of ownership and possession is not cut and dry, even when we'd otherwise believe it to be.

If x is in my possession -- "The state of having, owning, or controlling something (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/possession) -- then I therefore own x.

Next.

>Does letting a friend borrow a movie mean it is now his?

No, because he borrowed it. Seriously, people, consult a dictionary sometime. It will make your life easier. It becomes theft when he neglects to uphold the agreement to return the product to the lender and keeps the product. This is common sense.

>Does viewing a image online mean you have possession of that data in that moment? Yes, and it literally takes a instant to move that data elsewhere.

The issue -- once again -- is about the rights and permission to distribute the data. Please grasp this concept so we can move on. None of you will address the subject of "unauthorized distribution" because you have no arguments for it and everyone here including my self knows this.

>Thievery and piracy and bootlegging are moral issues centered around obtaining different kinds of thing by non intended means.

No, you want to make it amoral issue because you have a better chance of muddy the waters there with subjective definitions of "good" and "bad" while I want to remain objective and simply form arguments on basis of what is agreed to be the meanings of terms and concepts.

>Calling a whale a fish because it swims doesn't make it a fish.

Well, considering that the definition of "whale" is not defined so loosely, no one would make that argument in the first place.

The definition of "theft" is fairly clear to comprehend.

>If you want honesty and consistency, then that's knowing that piracy and thievery are not the same thing.

Piracy: "The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work."

Theft: "The action or crime of stealing."

Are you telling me that unauthorized use of someone else's property is not theft?

Let me help you out:

Synonym for theft: "Appropriation."

Appropriation: "the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission"

What was the definition of "piracy" again...?

"Unauthorized use," right? Hmm...

>>59593

>People keep defaulting back to "Watching" instead of actually addressing my points about distribution.

Done with the straw-mans.

Here I am actually indulging your arguments about "piracy" in a thread about "theft" and because the definitions are not on your side, you ignore that argument as well as the one about theft.

I gave you clear-cut definitions of what is and is not "theft" and "piracy" and still you dodge with "b-but iz not always theft!" when you know as well as I do that I defined "sharing" a long time ago:

Watching a movie with some friends is sharing.

Watching a movie that your friend duplicated and then gave to you is unauthorized use and unauthorized distribution.

>>59590

You want to have a discussion over a subject matter without making reference to or acknowledging root causes / reasons for the argument? If that's the case, I can't help you then.

>Does letting a friend borrow a movie mean it is now his?

>No, because he borrowed it.

If we only acknowledge commonly held belief about it, yea. But there's more to it then that. We establish that the movie (the box + disc and contents therein) belongs to person A and that it still belongs to person A when they let person B borrow it. But, we can say the sentence "Person B has my movie." Lets break this down, Person B has possession and current literal ownership of the movie because person A gave them physical possession to keep hold of. Both parties agree that even though this exchange happened and still persists, that person A is still the owner. Even if person A doesn't have physical possession of the movie, person A's ownership doesn't change, because the two parties agreed to such. But person B is the one that can playback the movie currently and not person A because he has current ownership of the movie.

So in this scenario, person A has ownership of something he does not possess, and person B has possession of something they agreed he doesn't own, but has literal ownership over that movie right now despite that. Both persons A and B have ownership of that movie, but it's agreed between the them that person A has "ownership" and person B has literal ownership to do with as he pleases. Whether person B should do literally whatever is another matter entirely. You can't do this with data because the physical space it takes up is not what's in question, hence why you can't equate it with theft.

>The issue -- once again -- is about the rights and permission to distribute the data.

This is yet another issue that's long and complicated that you seem to insist is easy and cut 'n dry. If we go by law book definitions of such, then it's still is long and complicated because of the multifaceted nature of what counts as ok ownership or not, even with just physical items. Citing commonly held beliefs on something doesn't make it the end all be all of what is and isn't. Being that theft and piracy is a moral issue, it goes back to whether it's moral to do so. In the Doctor Who example, is it wrong that the fans taped the episodes without permission from the BBC, or was it better in the end because we now have those episodes available in audio form despite the BBC destroying the original tapes. (To which the BBC uses to recreate those episodes in animated format, so clearly they're happy they did.) Laws and rights and authorization have zero say in the face of whether it can be done or not. Whether it is right or wrong to do so (why the concept of thievery and piracy exists in the first place) is a matter of morality, which is why I don't understand why you actively want to ignore this.

1/2

>>59598

2/2

>I want to remain objective and simply form arguments on basis of what is agreed to be the meanings of terms and concepts.

Based on what you've typed thus far, you've made zero effort to be objective on the topic. Commonly held beliefs (what is agreed to be the meanings of terms and concepts) and what is and isn't (statements made to the best of our ability based purely on how aspects of the problem interact with each other) are not the same thing, and confusing them with each other is going to result in a headache because popular opinion frequently does not line up with what makes sense when broken down, because what makes sense almost always cannot be distilled to a binary answer. Why I keep bringing up "subjective definitions of "good" and "bad"" is because, like I've said multiple times by this point, defining what piracy and thievery is necessitates bringing up the morals of doing so, because again, part of the root to both lies in just that.

What you seek doesn't exist, if you're being purely objective. Despite all of the textbook definitions in the world that can only cover a limited scope for the sake of not having pages be taken up by one words definition, obtaining things by illegitimate means, whether that be theft of physical goods, piracy of data, or bootlegging of a particular product are multi faceted issues with no 100% clear answer as to what they entail. The fact that data being fundamentally different to physical items necessitates a entirely new word to define obtaining it illegitimately, to what we seem to have settled on piracy despite old timey connotations not being applicable to it's use in relation to digital data, should be a tip off that you're not going to get people to agree with you, you're not going to come to a consensus, and you're going to run around in circles trying to prove "Piracy and theft are totally the same thing because I said so based on these snippets of definitions made by people with just as much ""objectivity"" as I do told me so".

So to remain as objective as I can,

>Are you telling me that unauthorized use of someone else's property is not theft?

It depends on what we're talking about, and the circumstances of what you're accusing as theft, and how we're defining property, and whether the thing your defining as property is actually property or not.

If it were that easy, judicial systems around the world wouldn't be nearly as complicated as they are, even in the face of people who feel as though they have it all figured out.

>>59598

>>59599

None of that included a single definition, source from a dictionary, source from a legal document, or source from even a lawyer.

As soon as you said, "Commonly held beliefs," your argument became subjective.

My argument is objective as I have stated facts, sourced my declarations, and shown you the established meaning of words.

"Some people consider it to mean x" is not an argument and is not relevant.

"Hurr durr the dictionary is subjective" is not only untrue, it is not an argument.

The dictionary is created by communal agreement as to what a word means upon development of the language. You can choose to ignore the meanings and come up with your own, but then you cause confusion because no one knows what you are talking about.

So, enough with the semantics.

At least I actually have backup for what I say. Where is yours?

>>59602

Please take your autism elsewhere.

>>59600

It was subjective from the beginning, despite your insistence to the contrary. The issue at hand doesn't exist in any physical form, it's purely conceptual. Thus all you can use is either textbook definitions, which is flawed because of both the objectivity of the person defining it and the limited nature of a written definition, or try to break it down to its base components and put the pieces back together on a case by case basis.

If you require "Hard unmoving evidence" on this subject matter, you won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

>>59601

>The dictionary is created by communal agreement as to what a word means upon development of the language.

Please refer to

>Commonly held beliefs (what is agreed to be the meanings of terms and concepts) and what is and isn't (statements made to the best of our ability based purely on how aspects of the problem interact with each other) are not the same thing, and confusing them with each other is going to result in a headache because popular opinion frequently does not line up with what makes sense when broken down

as to why this is not a rock solid basis of argument. It's perfectly reasonable to have a large group, even a overly vast majority, sometimes especially over a vast majority, to be incorrect on something for a variety of reasons. In this case, it's a issue boiled down to it's base end points (skewed by small but influential groups of people to their own gain over generations) that covers a number of, but not all, situations that it might arise. Try to cover all of what it could entail by "communal agreement" and it starts to fall apart fast.

I would think a anon of 8chan would be well aware of popular belief being complete and utter bullshit more so than not.

Ultimately, it is piracy and it is stealing content. I don't blame you for feeling guilty about committing wrongdoing, but it doesn't mean that you should rewrite the rules so that you could pretend that you aren't doing it.

>>59607

Can't rewrite something that was never truly written down.

You're quick to assume I care for pirating myself in the slightest. My part in this is more distant observation and the occasional skinny dipping purely for the sake of finding out if certain content's available. I care far more about future availability then skirting paywalls. I have zero issue with paying for content when it's worth the money being asked for, but no one (save millionaires) has enough money to get all of the content they want even at reasonable rates.

How can it be piracy if the vast majority of this porn I'm fapping to doesn't have "Do not distribution without permission" written on it?

>>59606

>The dictionary is bullshit.

This conversation is over. If you cannot even grasp basic dictionary definitions, I cannot help you.

>>59606

Okay, Einstein.

How you go create your definitions of words, create your own dictionary, and see how far you get with all this semantic-play?

Your snowflakery is not going to get you far in the legal system. "B-but I consider it something else" is not an argument.

Everyone that functions in this society and that uses this language understands and consents to the meaning of each word as they use it. If languages had no objective agreement, then you would not be able to communicate with me.

You use every other word as the dictionary dictates until things get inconvenient for you.

>>59612

>>59613

My argument still stands to be that something commonly held to be true is not the end all be all of what something is. Words get redefined all of the time, words change meaning depending on context, and words have changing significance as time goes by.

You're right, in a legal situation, going "B-but I consider it something else" isn't going to get you far. That's why legalese exists as a concept, long winded and hyper specific wording of statements because more common language use gets muddied up when you're interpreting what I'm writing as something entirely different to what I intended to write due to a difference in language use.

>Everyone that functions in this society and that uses this language understands and consents to the meaning of each word as they use it. If languages had no objective agreement, then you would not be able to communicate with me.

The fact we're having this conversation is proof that we're not effectively communicating. All languages are subject to interpretation and misconstruction, to what extent typically depends on the subject matter and disparity between the two parties on the knowledge of the subject matter. The root of all arguments stem from miscommunication, typically but not always oral and/or written.

The fact there's enough common ground between different dialects, accents, and upbringings that we can all consider ourselves engilsh speakers is quite frankly astonishing.

Words aren't defined by dictionaries, words are defined by how they're used, which in turn write dictionaries. A lack of words / use of words for things they aren't applicable to as defined by the same common use case / words being loosely defined to begin with is where we get these kind of issues from.

>>59609

Here's my rule. If I bought it, then I can copy it as much as possible. If I didn't buy it in the first place, then I'm stealing.

>>59621

Is stuff previously purchasable lost to all time then?

>>59622

Sometimes, but it either becomes public domain or abandonware.

>>59623

Public domain's a dead concept for the rest of eternity if disney has anything to say about it, and abandonware gets muddy fast with rights changing hands and the rest of it. Plus we'll never get to that stage without as much redundant back up in as many places as possible.

>>59620

>My argument still stands to be that something commonly held to be true is not the end all be all of what something is.

Well, unless you have something else to go by, the dictionary is we have.

This nonsense about "words changing all the time" is not an excuse to disregard the meanings that we presently have because they inconvenience you. And even if it were true that words and their meaning shift "all the time," we would have no way to effectively communicate a single point about anything.

>The fact we're having this conversation is proof that we're not effectively communicating.

Only because (((you))) refuse to acknowledge the standards I have laid bare multiple times. The reason why communication is breaking down is because of people like you that want to shift definitions of words when you start losing ground. The answer is "no."

>>59621

Sorry, but your personal rule is not legal.

Try again.

>>59622

No, what question is this?

Look at a painting in a museum.

The test of time tells what is the original and what is not.

>>59621

If you bought a product, you bought (((that instance))) of the product. You do not own the product itself. Copying the product illegally produces another instance of that instance, which is not your job to do as someone not acknowledged to be -- what? -- a (((distributor))).

So long as that product remains within your personal grasp, you may do as you please. When it gets distributed, enjoy your jail time.

> Obtain an image you paid money for and show it to your friends.

> Feds break into your house and arrest you all for piracy.

What I'm trying to say /fur/, is that you're all my friends.

>>59625

>unless you have something else to go by

Which still has been to explain in length with examples of what I'm trying to get across what and why things work and not work purely based on the implications of doing or not doing whatever it is I'm trying to explain. Expecting something to be perfectly defined for you by others is a fallacy of ignorance to the possibility that they might be wrong. In order to try and prove I'm wrong, you need to show why I'm wrong, not that someone else is right on something that doesn't directly apply, or is incorrect.

>The test of time tells what is the original and what is not.

This only matters with physical items, with data it's all 100% the same (save for read/write errors) and not something real to begin with. The origin and materials the object's made of doesn't matter with data, what the data string is matters, something that can't be pinned down due to the fleeting nature of data to begin with.

>If you bought a product, you bought (((that instance))) of the product.

This is exactly the kind of muddying of definitions of ownership I was referring to earlier.

Legality's just as subject to the whims of its users as language is, whether something is legal or not doesn't define whether it's correct or incorrect.

Basing your arguments on pre-defined definitions and legal implications serves to show that you don't care in the slightest that there might be non standard answers to the problem, only that group think is the only way.

>>59467

>hurr durr lost potential sales

Just because I pirate something it doesn't mean I won't buy it. By the same token, if I can't pirate your shit, it doesn't mean I will buy it.

It's because of useful idiots like you that we have shit like the DMCA and DRM. I bet you're gonna argue next that buying used or borrowing from a friend is stealing because 'the creator doesn't get money'.

>>59482

>Intellectual property is

intellectual property is a bullshit term covering several types of laws, of which none make sense and run contrary to their purported goals (trademarks are used to protect squatters and bully small businesses (see Wizards of the Coast, The Tetris Company), patents discourage looking at prior art (less damages if sued), copyright was pitched by the stationers (who paid writers peanuts for manuscripts and rights) in a desperate effort to retain their veto over publishing).

Intellectual 'property' will never make sense. A picture is just a bunch of pixels. You can copy it for less than $0.01. It can exist in more than infinite places at a time, and just as many people can view it at the same time. Once you give away a copy, it's no longer yours; you can't fucking expect to be able to dictate what people can and can't do with it.

And comparing pictures to actual property such as a car or a bike is the most retarded idea I can think of.

>>59628

I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes reality in the future.

>>59629

>Which still has been to explain in length with examples of what I'm trying to get across what and why things work and not work purely based on the implications of doing or not doing whatever it is I'm trying to explain. Expecting something to be perfectly defined for you by others is a fallacy of ignorance to the possibility that they might be wrong. In order to try and prove I'm wrong, you need to show why I'm wrong, not that someone else is right on something that doesn't directly apply, or is incorrect.

So, nothing else? Got it. Dictionary, it is.

>This is exactly the kind of muddying of definitions of ownership I was referring to earlier.

... Wot. Are you going to sit there and tell me that copies of a products are the exact same thing as the product itself? Deleting a copy of a file from a computer does not delete the original file itself. Why? Because that copied file is an instance:

"an example or single occurrence of something"

>Legality's just as subject to the whims of its users as language is, whether something is legal or not doesn't define whether it's correct or incorrect.

Basing your arguments on pre-defined definitions and legal implications serves to show that you don't care in the slightest that there might be non standard answers to the problem, only that group think is the only way.

Sorry that you do not get to tell other people what words mean when the society has agreed upon the meaning of a word, snowflake?

This is not a result of "muh group think," this is just you not comprehending -- or just ignoring, rather -- basic definitions of words.

Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am a product of someone else's ideas. It just means that I disagree with you and you have the task of convincing me otherwise if it bothers you so much. Otherwise, stop bitching and throwing out games of semantics and make a decent argument.

How about finally addressing my point about unauthorized redistribution?

>>59630

>Just because I pirate something it doesn't mean I won't buy it.

It does not mean that you will, either.

>By the same token, if I can't pirate your shit, it doesn't mean I will buy it.

It does not mean you will not.

Where are you going with these? Or were you just attempting to sound smart? :/

>It's because of useful idiots like you that we have shit like the DMCA and DRM. I bet you're gonna argue next that buying used or borrowing from a friend is stealing because 'the creator doesn't get money'.

... Wot. I think you have the wrong guy. I was the anon that made that distinct explanation of how "sharing" is simply multiple use of or exposure to a product in its singularity. I specifically made the point about "unauthorized redistribution" where duplication of the product is where thievery and piracy (the same damn thing) occur. You do not have the right to duplicate and redistribute someone's material no matter how much you -- or anyone else -- want to argue that you do.

>>59607

So you feel guilty for pirating the content in >>59473 then?

>>59629

radical idea: if your product is that trivial to copy, you're trying to sell the wrong thing. the thing of value isn't the product (for which supply is theoretically infinite, dwarfing the finite demand and rendering the value effectively 0 on the margin), but your talent.

>b-but i need to be paid to do art

why if only there was a way of paying you for the labor of creating art, instead of for the art as a commodity. perhaps some system of patronage distributed in monthly sums, with the resultant art being made freely available?

>>59629

>Which still has been to explain in length with examples of what I'm trying to get across what and why things work and not work purely based on the implications of doing or not doing whatever it is I'm trying to explain. Expecting something to be perfectly defined for you by others is a fallacy of ignorance to the possibility that they might be wrong. In order to try and prove I'm wrong, you need to show why I'm wrong, not that someone else is right on something that doesn't directly apply, or is incorrect.

So, nothing else? Got it. Dictionary, it is.

>This is exactly the kind of muddying of definitions of ownership I was referring to earlier.

... Wot. Are you going to sit there and tell me that copies of a products are the exact same thing as the product itself? Deleting a copy of a file from a computer does not delete the original file itself. Why? Because that copied file is an instance:

"an example or single occurrence of something"

>Legality's just as subject to the whims of its users as language is, whether something is legal or not doesn't define whether it's correct or incorrect.

>Basing your arguments on pre-defined definitions and legal implications serves to show that you don't care in the slightest that there might be non standard answers to the problem, only that group think is the only way.

Sorry that you do not get to tell other people what words mean when the society has agreed upon the meaning of a word, snowflake?

This is not a result of "muh group think," this is just you not comprehending -- or just ignoring, rather -- basic definitions of words.

Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am a product of someone else's ideas. It just means that I disagree with you and you have the task of convincing me otherwise if it bothers you so much. Otherwise, stop bitching and throwing out games of semantics and make a decent argument.

How about finally addressing my point about unauthorized redistribution?

>>59630

>Just because I pirate something it doesn't mean I won't buy it.

It does not mean that you will, either.

>By the same token, if I can't pirate your shit, it doesn't mean I will buy it.

It does not mean you will not.

Where are you going with these? Or were you just attempting to sound smart? :/

>It's because of useful idiots like you that we have shit like the DMCA and DRM. I bet you're gonna argue next that buying used or borrowing from a friend is stealing because 'the creator doesn't get money'.

... Wot. I think you have the wrong guy. I was the anon that made that distinct explanation of how "sharing" is simply multiple use of or exposure to a product in its singularity. I specifically made the point about "unauthorized redistribution" where duplication of the product is where thievery and piracy (the same damn thing) occur. You do not have the right to duplicate and redistribute someone's material no matter how much you -- or anyone else -- want to argue that you do.

>>59635

will you stop fucking redditspacing

>>59636

You can always fuck off and stop posting/reading.

I am sorry that you think I am somehow obligated to comply with your OCD/Autism.

>>59637

i

don't

believe

i

will

do

so

good

sir.

your

pretentious

writing

style

clashes

badly

with

your

total

lack

of

concern

for

readability,

however.

>>59638

>Your pretentious writing style.

Right, because spacing my text totally is arrogant of me.

Woe is my conceited perception of myself due to my spacing.

... I really think you find something else worthwhile to do with your furry life than whine about "muh spacing" on an anonymous board. Maybe take a shot at discussing this subject with us? Maybe lay off the ad hominem? Maybe stop being a damned furry?

/shrug

>>59639

maybe stop reddit spacing

>>59633

>It does not mean that you will, either.

>It does not mean you will not.

That's the fucking point; you take piracy as lost sales.

>You do not have the right to duplicate and redistribute someone's material

Of course not; it's someone else's copy. First you get your own, then you can do with it as you wish. No law made by greedy publisher kikes is going to stop that.

I could fill pages explaining why copyright is a sham to disenfranchise authors and the public pushed by morally bankrupt rent-seekers, but I doubt you'd have enough braincells to understand it.

>>59641

>you take piracy as lost sales.

you can't take piracy as lost sales.

>>59641

>That's the fucking point; you take piracy as lost sales.

Wait, I think you seem to believe that I am disagreeing with you.

I am not. I am the same anon the made this same case, which is why I was confused as to why you were repeating to me as if I did not understand.

>First you get your own, then you can do with it as you wish.

No, because the creator of the product retains distribution rights. why are none of you understanding the concept of "unauthorized redistribution?" This is not difficult to comprehend.

>I could fill pages explaining why copyright is a sham to disenfranchise authors and the public pushed by morally bankrupt rent-seekers, but I doubt you'd have enough braincells to understand it.

Well, considering that "I could, but I will not" means you did not, I am obliged to call "bullshit" and move on.

>>59640

Well, you see it has not stopped. What now? Bitch some more? SJW tactics do not work with me, anon. Try something else.

>>59646

I hope you get over your autism soon, tbh

>>59635

>Are you going to sit there and tell me that copies of a products are the exact same thing as the product itself?

With physical items, no. With data, yes. This is why there's a disparity. All data that's not from the original save location is a copy, a 100% exact copy. The nature of data being that the physical presence is of no importance makes whether I save it or the originator deletes it irrelevant. If it still exists on a drive somewhere, it still exists, "original" or not. There is no significance of a "original" when you make a copy of digital data, they're exactly identical.

>Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am a product of someone else's ideas.

Not you, your examples and reasoning, the basis of what your entire stance by your own insistence is based on, becomes a jumbled mess when your throwing dictionary definitions around as unequivocal fact, despite the very unstable nature of the meat bags who created them. It's the difference between getting pre-made parts meant for other things and a different time period and forcing them together into a new whole despite not functioning well together and getting raw materials to construct the same thing purpose built for its use case.

>How about finally addressing my point about unauthorized redistribution?

I have, directly and indirectly multiple times now if you had bothered to pay attention.

>The very opening point about bootlegging for personal use vs mass distribution

>The point about the poster

>Any time "gaining possession of something via unintended means" or variances crops up, it's effectively the exact same thing worded differently and more centralized to a individual instead to a large swath of people.

>The second time I brought up the BBC, literally "In the Doctor Who example, is it wrong that the fans taped the episodes without permission from the BBC,..."

>"Is stuff previously purchasable lost to all time then?"

I'll even throw one more in on the pile, as yet again many anons have pointed out, by the very nature of the internet once something is released into the wild, it's gone. No amount of belly aching about "the rights of the distributor" is going to change the fact that because data can be 100% perfectly copied to local storage virtually instantaneously, anything released online is going to be freely distributed eventually, if there's interest in doing so. The only thing anyone can do is not post things on the internet, start distributing movies on laserdisc, music on vinyl exclusively, and only distribute art in books again. Even then there's ways to get imperfect copies into digital form from them and start the whole thing over again.

Whether you can is not in question, the legality is irrelevant because of the inability to enforce it, and the only legitimate thing standing is morality, where I've already pointed out is the root of the issue. The answer to "Is it wrong?" is frequently, but complicated.

>>59643

>I am obliged to call "bullshit"

Of course, be a silly good sheep. Nevermind:

-the billions of taxpayer money wasted in enforcement and lawsuits

-the ever-growing pile of orphan works (shit no one can use because right holders can't be found) upon us

-the preservation efforts of modern media growing increasingly more difficult

-the tragedy of the anti-commons (can't get license because right holders not cooperative)

-the chilling effects from takedowns/lawsuits (especially if your work involves copyrighted material (e.g. reviews, news, parody))

-the steep barrier of entry posed by prohibitive licensing fees

-the jewry of academic journals impeding research (copyright is supposed to promote it, not paywall it)

-the projects killed by litigation (even if innocent, lawsuits stall progress and take years, and all money will go towards fighting the lawsuit)

-and the threat to people's freedom of speech (if you use any portion of a copyrighted work you're infringing; fair use is worthless unless you go to court, and you won't be spared by automated takedown systems)

That's on top of copyright being contradictory and self-defeating (let's lock up knowledge/art for 14 28 56 life+50 life+70 years, that will sure help society build on the works of the past).

But what would someone on a board of degenerate humanoid cartoon animal worshippers know?

>>59665

>(let's lock up knowledge/art for 14 28 56 life+50 life+70 years)

This is false. So long as somebody in the corporation that is the rights holder keeps renewing the copyright, they will own it forever.

This literally means that NOTHING WILL EVER ENTER PUBLIC DOMAIN EVER AGAIN.

>>59680

>So long as somebody in the corporation that is the rights holder keeps renewing the copyright, they will own it forever.

You can't renew copyright. The kikes at Disney/Fox/Time Warner/etc. would have to lobby for a new copyright extension in order to keep their copyright.

>>59285

There was a EU funded research published recently, it was about piracy, and it concluded that piracy does not affects sales. In other words, putting effort towards stopping piracy will not generate extra revenue for you, all while putting stress on your psyche. The report was suppressed because it didn't turn out to prove the point they were trying to prove. You can read about it here: https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-study/

>I want to own my creations

You own them by default, that's how copyright laws work universally. You can waive some or all rights by choosing a specific license for specific piece. That will not stop anyone from using your characters either way, unless you can foot the bill for the litigation.

>>59397

>pay for a file

>leak it

>get banned

>use different credentials to pay for the next file

>repeat ad infinitum

>>59413

>muh exclusives

Just how old are you? 12? If you view exclusivity as anything other than reason for boycott then you should neck yourself.

>>59437

The graph right there says otherwise - a trained professional who draws for a living will ask an order of magnitude less for a magnitudes better artwork than a furfag artist.

>>59684

>copyright infringement is a civil suit, not a criminal one

Absolutely not. If you infringed on a small scale and you weren't really aware, and didn't make a whole lot of money, you will most likely get hit with a civil suit. Uploading shit willfully to the internet is most likely grounds for a criminal suit.

Regardless, you don't wanna get sued either way. Statutory (read: imaginary) damages vary from $750 to $30000, and in case of willful infringement up to $150000 (assuming US).

>orphan works may as well be public domain

Not finding rights holders =/= work has no rights holder. You can get sued anytime, which is why orphan works just sit there collecting dust.

There were several attempts to pass laws that would allow one to deposit a certain sum at the copyright office to make use of an orphan work. The money would be given to rights holders should they be found. Ultimately, they were shot down by publisher kikes/photographers because "that's stealing you should always have to contact me reeeeeeeeee", even if no valid contact info is available.

why is there that f*male slut with the witch's hat and not the owlboy with the witch's hat

>>59734

>You should preface your legal speech with "IANAL"

I thought this being a vietnamese basket-weaving board would be indication enough that you shouldn't assume people are lawyers/doctors. Maybe you should go back to leddit.

Also great argument you got there. I'm sure if your doctor told you bleach is good for you you'd drink it, right?

Just a reminder that the sperglord in this thread reddit spacing it to death is an SJW FTM tranny furfaggot "artist". You can't win against tumblrinas.

>>59735

Do you expect kotaku to have good taste?

>>59753

>rights holder won't sue me for uploading the shit, then no one will stop me

let's see, if you needed some music for a video, would you pick a song of uncertain origin whose right holders you can't contact and risk getting sued (and likely go bankrupt)? Or would you pick a song that you know you can get permission for? Hopefully you have enough of a brain to see the problem.

>edicate yourself

Maybe you should learn to spell first before sperging out.

If you upload shit being aware you're infringing, you can get sued by the state. It will realistically happen only in egregious cases (think TPB, Megaupload), if you've been at it for a while, and disregard the company's warnings/have a civil suit going on already, especially if you've made quite a bit of money.

>they're not going to hunt you down on behalf of a corporation

<host website with movies/songs/games a la TPB

<companies send c&d your way, complain that you cost them 923894721894 sales, stole $2389237489 trillion billion dollars, and holocausted them

<get sued by companies/gubmint

what's puzzling is none of the people who oppose yiff.party have even one clue or information that would lead to some identity of the staff that run the site, other than the whois that your average joe would take for granted. said info is even published around social sites.

knowing the past results of people posting doxx info, large portion of such info is probably used to send death threats, because somehow there's still belief that sending death threats have worked in the past as a way to stop someone and think it will not be used against them.

having an alias or name linked to said threat makes one look very professional in both crowds too, i'm sure. if anything, it gives insight on how someone chooses to deal with a problem. imagine if someone ends up sending one with info linked to their real name and it turns out to be someone who claims to be a professional.

>59765

>If the rights holders do contact you

If you're doing serious work that requires an investment (e.g. documentary), and not an autistic Minecraft video on Youtube, they'll file an injunction, stopping you right in your tracks, and probably sue you because of the 'irreparable harm' you caused them and the benefits you derived from the work you exploited. That's something no one wants to risk, hence orphan works sit undisturbed.

>Thats different

it's fucking not. If you knowingly host copyrighted shit, you're breaking the law. Easy as that. Safe harbor provisions are not a free pass to play retard. They also don't apply you if you yourself are uploading to your own server. (Megaupload was just a file host, and its seizure was a political move).

>jewtube

they follow the DMCA and respond to takedown notices. Completely different from hosting by yourself.

>jewtube isn't the one that is issued a CAD, only the user

Users receive "copyright strikes" and takedown notices, not C&Ds. That shit only happens after you file a counter-notice (dox yourself basically) and the video gets reinstated.

>taking down TPB didn't even work

because they hide the location of their servers and keep changing domains, and numerous mirrors sprang up. In my example I was talking about having a server out in the open internet without any measures to evade LEA, which would get you shut down pretty fast.

>If the rights holders do contact you they'll just issue a Cease & Desist

Of course, because companies don't have bottomless pockets to sue everyone and they don't give a shit about random 12-year olds. The RIAA also learned that pissing off your audience is a good way to cause a boycott, which is why they stopped suing grandmas and 12-year-olds on P2P networks.

>TPB is a directory

>what is secondary liability for 500, Alex?

But that's all beside the point, which is that copyright is cancer that contradicts its goal and needs to be put down for good. Copying is not and will never be theft regardless of what MAFIAA spooks, redditards, tartlets, and tumblrites say.

>>59745

That's corporatism, not capitalism. Additionally, Marx doesn't approve of homosexuality. Stop cherry-picking the verses you want to follow.

>>59773

*sniffs your paws* OwO

>>59777

yea

piracy is not stealing because non-scarce rescources cannot be controlled and excluded and are therefore not property

>yiff.party is nowhere close to that

the argument concerned orphan works, and yiff.party doesn't deal with them

>>59773

>They would have to prove that they lost money because of it tho

if they sue for actual damages, they get your profits too. Also

>what is statutory damages

>It's not megaupload's fault

I said megaupload's seizure was a political move. Literally any other cyberlocker could have been shut down instead.

>You can also file counter-DMCAs

<You can also file 'here's my dox please rape my ass' counter-claims

Besides opening your ass to lawsuits, there's practically no punishment for abusing DMCA claims, which is more than messed up since it allows anyone to dox you or hold your work hostage.

>courts are the ones who decides, not congress.

TPB's owners were prosecuted for contributory infringement, actually.

>why so hostile?

Nobody understands shit about copyright; people think it's a fundamental right that protects authors and allows them to make money, and they call you something worse than a nazi commie if you call them out on that bullshit. So it's pretty much a knee-jerk reaction at this point.

>*licks ur muzzle* :3

I'm not into that m8

>>59798

>Not necessarily

nearly none. Just make some sockpuppet accounts and fire away. If you're not retarded, you'll fill them in with bogus info and hide your tracks.

In case of a legitimate claimant, you have to prove the other party did it to screw you over (i.e. acted in bad faith) to get them in hot water, which is pretty much impossible without going to court if the other party is not retarded. Given most people would rather not go to court (and spend $100k+ and several years in a lawsuit), claimants get away scot-free.

>>59745

Under communism it's the same rotten cronyism, if you got right connections you're above the law. However under capitalism you can become rich with enough effort, and will be able to bypass some things with money. Under communism you're shit out of luck.

>>59809

>you can become rich with enough effort

and luck. it's entirely possible you put the maximum effort in and get nothing out.

>>59811

It's also possible to get rich half assing it and not doing shit, like most famous people online.

Just jump on bandwagons and make videos of people who hanged themselves.

>>59791

>TPB's owners were prosecuted for contributory infringement, actually.

A loss that the law do not allow this, PB is a special case with so much corruption the filth still stink after years that farce is done, in fact if it was possible various company would have accused lot's of other site like PB of the same thing, but it diden't happen, wonder why

Kat accusation are about money laundering and tax evasion btw, not the same thing, murica literally pulled law out of their asses and attempted to force them on international cases, diden't worked too well so far

>>59812

In which case you've just proven that, yes, under capitalism getting rich is 100% the result of luck. Meritocracy is a fairy tale made up by those who were born rich and powerful to make everyone else believe they are superior beings.

>>59595

Has anyone told you to go argue with the legal definition? If you get caught pirating you get charged for copyright infringement, not larceny. The difference is the whole point of inventing copyright law. That's why COPY is in the word. Copy is not theft.

>>59842

Nice try, but communists like Stalin were opposed to homosexuality. You are bourgeois by default.

>>59776

It's completely incompatible with communism as the bourgeois LGBT identity places itself with higher importance than child-producing heterosexuals. A society with them is a dead one considering that they decriminalized the intentional transmission of HIV.

>>59872

>Communist leaders oppose something

>Therefore communism, itself, opposes it

You do realize there are plenty of capitalists who oppose homosexuality, too. Including prominent leaders like the President and the VP (who holds these beliefs a lot more openly).

>>59872

>they decriminalized the intentional transmission of HIV

No they didn't. Stop being such a whiny bitch.

>>59844

people who work on oil rigs come back rich for it since they have no expenses while they are there and make 30$ an hour+hazard pay

>>59890

the president and vice president of what?

>>59903

Also I need to note here that the money they make is practically inconsequential, it's a minor point in all of this because once you start to own the majority of shares in any company you literally start to own and run the fucking world, as your ability to vote on what is done in the company with regard to any policy, things produced, how the company behaves in public, etc, completely overrides everyone else's.

>You missed the point entirely. You could literally have the most money in the world in your bank account, and your power would still look utterly fucking pale in comparison to the power of the people who actually own the shareholder majority in these giant corporations

this may or may not be true, but it is in fact moving the goalposts, the hourly there is BEFORE hazard pay and while they are working they have NO expenses, it really is a lot of money, they in fact, do become rich of nothing but their hard work

>>59890

>You do realize there are plenty of capitalists who oppose homosexuality, too. Including prominent leaders like the President and the VP (who holds these beliefs a lot more openly).

The gay rights movement expanded in capitalist countries like the US, not the USSR or European countries, so I don't know why you guys insist on biting the hand that feeds.

Anyway, there's disagreeing with the lifestyle and providing institutional punishment. Soviets did the latter, Republicans did the former. If you want to argue that being denied gay marriage (which is just a tax break for couples, gays are statistically richer with or without it) is equivalent to Soviet enforced executions and imprisonment, well...

>No they didn't. Stop being such a whiny bitch.

Scott Wiener of California did. You can't have an altruistic economic system like Communism with a selfish demographic who places their interests before everyone else; primarily harming themselves through obtaining STDs . Even if people do survive from it, the treatment is expensive to manufacture and it'll be a drain on others that don't obtain it. Let's not even go into how additional rights before everyone else like unisex bathrooms and enforced pronouns. That's why Stalin and Mao acted against it. An compassionate ecosystem can't run with selfish people without removing them.

>>59926

>You're missing the point, capitalism's overlived it's usefulness and it's time to be replaced. Some minor concessions like giving gays more rights are not an accomplishment of capitalism, but rather, just that, a concession, to keep proles happy. If this didn't happen they would have riots and stand to lose more control potentially losing their capitalist status. Truly repressive suystems of government always fail (like Rome) so in order to keep people happy and content being exploited, some concessions have to be made to the working class. It's a game of sacrificing short term gains in order to keep long term stability, exploitation, and profits.

I do agree that capitalism is garbage, but because it gave a powerful platform and wealth to the morally-bankrupt individuals who routinely screw the populace over. Those "concessions" were efforts made to protect their wealth and status. A lot of Soviets like Maxim Gorky were worried about manipulative LGBT activists within their system as a lot of members from the ruling class had that identity, so they eliminated them first before they could usurp power. I thought that it was discriminatory and unfair, but I've started to notice how a lot of LGBT people on twitter are active political activists who want to replace the current government so that they could benefit themselves more. If it's ran like Google, then I want no part of it.

>>59912

"Hard work" is extremely subjective. I'm sure there are plenty of janitors and field workers who work just as hard, but get paid below minimum wage. You also have to take into consideration that not everyone can just up and get hired on an oil rig and earn that same amount of money. It's a complete guarantee that, given the relative level of skill involved, combined with the scarcity of the number of jobs, that there are FAR more people qualified to do it than actually do it. That means that actually getting the job means knowing someone, which means it was all 100% luck in the first place, before that work even started.

Nobody is going to argue that rich people don't do ANY actual work. What is being said is that 1)They are paid more for objectively less work than others perform, and 2)They are given the opportunity to become rich, which extremely few people have. Both of these apply to people who work on oil rigs.

>>59923

Homosexuality was illegal and resulted in jail time and "rehabilitation" (aka forced castration) in many capitalist countries back in the 40's and 50's. Don't try to censor history to advance your agenda; we're not that stupid.

And they still didn't decriminalize infecting people with AIDS, no matter how desperately badly you want it to be the case, so you can claim being a bigoted retard is justified. They merely lowered the charge to be equal to that of infecting someone with any other disease. Having it be otherwise is a violation against constitutional rights against "cruel and unusual punishment".

I'm also not sure how you can possibly correlate "gays are richer" with "gays all have STDs which require expensive treatment". But then again, it's pretty expected for someone pushing an agenda this hard to twist logic into a pretzel to serve it.

>>59926

It's a retarded lot anyway, as everyone owns the "means of production" to some capacity. The bigger issue is that communists do not understand production and economics.

They're genuinely of the opinion that a man who willingly sells his labor to a factory so that he might make triple what he could make on his own is being exploited.

The bigger issue right now is copyright, and intellectual property in general.

That's where the biggest pains are coming from. That's where the biggest corporate trash originates.

>>59971

Yes, this was the case standard for most everywhere back then. Next you'll tell me the Romans executed the Jews, so therefore republics are inherently antisemetic.

Capitalist countries were the first to allow gays to live their life as they saw fit.

Well, really, that's more on individualist nations than capitalist, but they're almost entirely hand in hand

>>59974

>Capitalist countries were the first to allow gays to live their life as they saw fit.

This is false in both senses though

1. If we go historically, you're looking at the Greeks or Romans or something, which were slave societies - not capitalist.

2. If we go more modern, the brief Soviet legalisation was earlier than most capitalist countries. Even if it was later repealed, it still clocks up "first." We then enter a series of semantic games - whether you place more emphasis on "the first" or a very specific interpretation of "their life" as being the whole of their lives instead of to their [then] present lives,

Also the mainstream timeline is more nuanced (For example Bulgaria legalising in 1968, well before it was officially legalised in Scotland in like 1980) but that's not as fun as semantics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_under_communism#LGBT_rights_in_former_Communist_states

As a final point while I contemplate my navel, the ideological correlation is probably weaker than one that looks at the overall state of a country. i.e. the UK is both more economically developed, and thereby didn't become communist and became more socially liberal, while Russia was a backwater and thus became communist and retained restrictive public opinion towards homosexuality. Because there are so few examples of an already developed (i.e. UK/France tier) country becoming communist (the closest being either postwar Germany - stretching 'developed' since it was a ruin, or Chile, stretching 'developed', 'becoming' and 'communist') distinguishing correlation from causation is unreasonably difficult.

>>59977

>1. If we go historically, you're looking at the Greeks or Romans or something, which were slave societies - not capitalist.

So was America and the HRE. Slave society is not an economic system.

>2. If we go more modern, the brief Soviet legalisation was earlier than most capitalist countries. Even if it was later repealed, it still clocks up "first." We then enter a series of semantic games - whether you place more emphasis on "the first" or a very specific interpretation of "their life" as being the whole of their lives instead of to their [then] present lives,

Stalin removed it because you were bourgeois parasites.

yiff.party should be removed temporarily until things die down, there could be a lot of trouble coming down the road.

>>59984

Streisand effect would occur and it would be even popular. Artists would brag about it dying to their watchers and everyone would know about it.

>>59974

>this was the case standard for most everywhere back then

Even if we accept this, then it means the case standard for right now is begrudging acceptance and (partial) equality. This means that if, hypothetically, a capitalist country flipped to communist, they aren't going to suddenly roll back those rights and throw gays in gulags again. Which means that communism and homophobia, and capitalism and homo-tolerance ARE NOT CORRELATED OR RELATED.

QED. You lose. Good day, sir.

>>59981

>You're a manipulative clique who want control over others

Stop talking about yourself.

>>60042

>Even if we accept this, then it means the case standard for right now is begrudging acceptance and (partial) equality. This means that if, hypothetically, a capitalist country flipped to communist, they aren't going to suddenly roll back those rights and throw gays in gulags again. Which means that communism and homophobia, and capitalism and homo-tolerance ARE NOT CORRELATED OR RELATED.

They are related because Marx, Engels, Stalin, and several other soviets condemned the act, stating that it was bourgeois behavior that was detrimental to their society. Although Lenin legalized it, he said that the celebration of it was bourgeois. Which means that LGBT pride would be thrown out of the window.

>"It seems to me that this superabundance of sex theories [...] springs from the desire to justify one’s own abnormal or excessive sex life before bourgeois morality and to plead for tolerance towards oneself. This veiled respect for bourgeois morality is as repugnant to me as rooting about in all that bears on sex. No matter how rebellious and revolutionary it may be made to appear, it is in the final analysis thoroughly bourgeois. It is, mainly, a hobby of the intellectuals and of the sections nearest to them. There is no place for it in the party, in the class-conscious, fighting proletariat.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 101)

>Stop talking about yourself.

Not helping when you want to revise the rules so that it can specifically cater to you. The ideology shouldn't have to make sacrifices, you should.

>>60056

A factory is not the only means of production, mate. You have hands.

You confuse "options" and "consequences" with "willingness"

Simple fact of life is that you have to make an effort sometimes. Even the communists understood supporting people who are inherently lazy and refuse to work is a bad idea.

Regardless: You have more choices than just working for someone. As said, you can build your own, say, chairs. You'll build them at a lower rate than the factory will, and you're not going to make as much as the factory owner is offering to pay you, but if you truly desire, you can work that way and made money to survive.

I've read Marx. He's an idiot who doesn't understand the very simplest basics of economics, production, or property, popularized by retards who also do not understand those things, and confuse long windedness with intelligence.

>>60064

>You have hands.

this is why you shouldn't use terms of art like "means of production" unless you know what they actually mean. this is embarrassing.

t. third party.

>>60065

Except that as Marx defined it it is just the means to produce. Because Matxs was an autist who couldn't even understand his own shit

>>60064

>you can build your own, say, chairs

you can't, though. To build chairs means obtaining wood, which you can't do because tarquin up the road inherited the rights to the forest from his father and will have the police beat you up if you so much as walk in his grounds, let alone steal his trees. the fact it can be done in theory doesn't make it doable in practice. it's like saying "oh, you could still be a feudal lord under capitalism - just offer serfs your terms and conditions and see if they come forward" - even ignoring legal proscriptions on those working practices, that's just not how historical epochs work.

I don't know why I'm doing this, we live in a world where the term socialism is so debased that it can be anything from the Khmer Rouge to Tony Blair, meaning any conversation anyone tries to have is just going to result in people talking over one another, but the post is typed so I might as well hit "New Reply" now and obtain my (you).

[New Reply]

>>60068

You can always cut the trees on your own land, or just buy some wood.

I know it's strange, but products cost money in materials.

Incidentally, this is another thing Marx doesn't seem to understand.

Just because a product has a cost to produce doesn't mean that the value is just what was produced.

And I don't mean labor costs on that, either. You sell things at a profit. No business anywhere, ever, sells products with the intent to merely break even.

>>60069

>You can always cut the trees on your own land, or just buy some wood.

I knew this reply was going to be bad, I didn't know it was going to be this bad.

I'm not a communist and I have no interest in seeing where this particular rabbit hole ends. I'm off for a wank. (and not to a different kind of rabbit's hole, either.)

>>60069

>No business anywhere, ever, sells products with the intent to merely break even

That's part of the problem inherent to capitalism (which might also be an inescapable issue with human nature). No business strives to achieve any sort of balance in the world; it's all "expand or die". Why does a businessowner NEED to continually make more profit than he needs to survive, and more than the last [insert arbitrary section of time]?

This delusion of "oh, things will always get better, for everyone, over time" fuels such things like the total fucking nonsense that a minimum-wage job shouldn't pay a living wage. Because nobody but teenagers and people "working upwards" will ever have one, or at least that's the theory. Reality, however, bears that out as simply false. There are more minimum wage jobs that pay below the poverty line, than there are "entry level" workers available to work them! And this number is always increasing. Oh! But if the American birthrate continues to increase as well, this wouldn't be a problem! It's expand or die, and unfortunately the Earth is at motherfucking carrying capacity +50% so we can't expand, so we're all going to die.

Capitalism is flawed. Maybe it's better than communism, maybe it's not. But you can't ignore the problems by deflecting to something else!

>>60114

>if the businessman does not expand he will be outcompeted by those who will

But that's illogical. People are creatures of habit. If they go to one restaurant they will usually continue going there so long as there isn't a significant and detrimental change. They aren't going to suddenly decide to switch to some other restaurant just because that other one is making a gbjillion dollars every year and recently rebuilt to be double the size.

>>60337

Everything you talked about is what happens (scratch that: what IS HAPPENING) under economic "conservatism", but go ahead and explain again why liberals are the bad guys, because /pol/ told you so.

>>60382

>You cannot use capitalism to fix capitalisms problems

It's funny because that also applies to communism, become a collectivist or something, never go full retard communism.

>>60382

>/leftypol/ hates liberals

Oh, I forgot. You guys circlejerk Marx over there like /pol/ does for Hitler. My mistake.