• dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    Despite crappy licensing agreements and the tenuous relationship between consumers and ownership of a thing, finding a way to circumvent paying for a thing that is for sale in one form or another, is theft.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      By that definition making coffee at home and taking it with you to work instead of buying is theft.

      Even further anytime you make a product or do a service yourself or get a free alternative (for example, open source software instead of a close-source alternative) instead of buying would be theft by that definition.

      That’s not the legal definition of “theft”, it’s not even the historical or common sense definition of “theft”, it’s some kind of neo-Capitalist Dystopia definition of “theft” that only makes sense if you’re starting from a foundation of there being a “right to make money”.

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        How dare you cook dinner for yourself when McDonald’s is right there? How will the franchise owners or the brand owners be able to buy meals for their children!?

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Look man, I get that piracy isnt an ethically clean solution, but the current state of legal digital media is nowhere near ethically clean either, and I’m far more likely to root for a person than I am for a corporation. Especially since its because of corporations that the digital ownership sphere is so fucked