• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    I hate this phrase because it assumes that copyright infringement was at one point the same as stealing - it never was.

    Stealing is a crime, where you take with the intent to deprive. Copyright infringement is a civil offense where the original owner loses nothing.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      I don’t think that that’s necessarily true. Let’s say someone designs a rucksack because they find the existing options on the market uncomfortable. They produce them on a small scale and they get fairly popular. Then Amazon sees it, copies it, mass produces it for less than the original designer could, and makes sure that any time someone searches for a rucksack on Amazon their version appears first in the list. I think it’s reasonable to say that the original designer lost something there

      That doesn’t mean copyright can’t be or isn’t abused, of course

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        Ah, but they didn’t lose the exact item that the thief gained. For legal purposes, that’s important; nobody could be charged with larceny.

        IANAL

      • verstra@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        They’ve lost potential revenue, but that is not the same as if amazon would come to their house and had stolen their only rucksack prototype.

        Potential revenue is not your property.

        It still sucks though.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          Potential revenue isn’t, but intellectual property is. At least in most current legal systems, it is

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        You’re saying that like it isn’t already rampant. IP laws are a textbook example of classist disenfranchisement. It’s a rule for which the capitalists are protected and not bound by, but which workers are bound by and do not receive those protections.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          I chose Amazon and a bag design as the example specifically because it’s a real story (although not a rucksack, I misremembered that part)

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            And what was the outcome of this IP theft? A video mocking a multi billion dollar corporation? They took down the specific product called out, but they still make extremely similar dslr bags to peak Design and they’re definitely still copying other companies designs. This is my point. IP laws only benefit the billionaire class and fuck over everyone else.

    • 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      But see you’re thinking about it the wrong way… Every one of those pirated copies is 100% a potential sale lost.

      Won’t you think of the shareholders?

      /s