• stappern@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My point is nobody is hurt. So it’s not unethical.

    No privacy is being violated by obtaining a copy of a publicly available software.

    • myslsl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your point is wrong. My point is that you can’t always (ethically) just copy other peoples stuff, just like you can’t always just take things from people. My point is not that piracy is never justified. My point is not that you are personally doing something wrong by pirating things. My point is not that you can’t be justified in copying other peoples stuff sometimes without permission. My point is not that piracy or copying other peoples data and documents always causes harm.

      Edit: When was pirating “publically available” software specifically ever central to my point?

      • stappern@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        how? i mean you are just saying its wrong, you haven’t said anything or explained why.

        • myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only response you’ve given is “that’s not harmful”, which is in no way an argument for why it isn’t. It’s not totally inconceivable that taking things, even data, without permission can be harmful and to claim otherwise seems willfully stupid and in this case self serving.

        • myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only response you’ve given is “that’s not harmful”, which is in no way an argument for why it isn’t. It’s not totally inconceivable that taking things, even data, without permission can be harmful and to claim otherwise seems willfully stupid and in this case self serving.

              • stappern@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                they would be wrong, taking something involves moving that thing from its original position to a new position. you need to touch or move the object somehow, without even talking about the fact that you would remove it from somebody else possession.

                none of that happens when you download a copy of a movie or something. none.

                • myslsl@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll take your approach. No, that’s not what “taking something” means, because clearly the definition they’re using for that is more inclusive.