‚so would you steal a car?‘
nono… hear me out i actually have a thesis/question.
so, if you rent a car, that you don’t own, but ‚subscibe‘ to for a certain amount of time. does that mean by following the logic of this statement, that stealing this rented car is ok?
im aware that this aims at software and the non-materialness of software but still… do i have a point here?
Anti-piracy advocates ALWAYS make this ridiculous analogy, there are infinite copies of the software which you aren’t depriving anyone of, but there is a physical good in the car of which you are depriving.
I think the better analogy would be to ask if it is morally objectionable to pirate the software in the car that you own in order not to pay a subscription to the manufacturer:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23474969/mercedes-car-subscription-faster-acceleration-feature-price
I think this kind of profit maximizing behaviour is a better example for debate because the product (in this case the extra engine power) could only ever be used by the car owner and if the owner pirated the software then they are not depriving anyone else of anything.
The only wronged party are the investors who were trying to extract additional profit from the owner of the car.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
‚so would you steal a car?‘ nono… hear me out i actually have a thesis/question.
so, if you rent a car, that you don’t own, but ‚subscibe‘ to for a certain amount of time. does that mean by following the logic of this statement, that stealing this rented car is ok? im aware that this aims at software and the non-materialness of software but still… do i have a point here?
Anti-piracy advocates ALWAYS make this ridiculous analogy, there are infinite copies of the software which you aren’t depriving anyone of, but there is a physical good in the car of which you are depriving.
im def not anti-piracy i just wanted to explore this thought. not the first one obv. nvm
I think the better analogy would be to ask if it is morally objectionable to pirate the software in the car that you own in order not to pay a subscription to the manufacturer: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23474969/mercedes-car-subscription-faster-acceleration-feature-price I think this kind of profit maximizing behaviour is a better example for debate because the product (in this case the extra engine power) could only ever be used by the car owner and if the owner pirated the software then they are not depriving anyone else of anything. The only wronged party are the investors who were trying to extract additional profit from the owner of the car.
no you dont. sharing doesnt involve the removal of property