Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2012-07-16 06:55 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2012-07-16 06:55 pm
[ SECRET POST #2022 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2022 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
__________________________________________________
17.
__________________________________________________
18.
__________________________________________________
19.
__________________________________________________
20.
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #289.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
no subject
no subject
stealing (vernacular)
1. piracy
2. tax evasion
3. ????
4. profit
Or something to that effect? Any documented source that states that "piracy" and "tax evasion" are "subcategories" of "stealing"? Any reliable source will do. Because if it's even remotely true I'm sure you could find one. I'm positive I could find one that was like:
duck
1. mallard
2. mandarin
3. other subcategories of duck
or
sports
1. swimming
2. running
3. you get the point
So, like, anything like that?
no subject
no subject
...I'll take that as a no, then.
no subject
no subject
word that encompasses all the "taking-things-that-aren't-yours" things we're saying is 'stealing'
There isn't one. That's what I've been saying the whole time. You've been making the case that "stealing" is synonymous with an ephemeral "property bad" that means literally anything to do with the attainment of, access to, or deceitful retention of property for personal use when required by contract to do otherwise. I'm making the case that "stealing" has a much, much narrower definition, and that we should call things that are not stealing by what they really are.
...Is that so terrible? Truly?
no subject
There is. It's called 'stealing.' Steal a glance, a kiss, an idea, credit, steal time, glory, a base, someone's heart, boyfriend or hairdresser, "stolen valor"... it's a widely-used word. That's why they use it in this argument as opposed to saying "downloading is larceny." And then all the argument is usually over whether downloading is victimless or truly the ephemeral property bad that is stealing.
no subject
And yet, you can't find a single source to back it up when it comes to this supposedly all-encompassing word that defines both piracy and tax evasion as "subcategories of stealing in the common parlance".
So no, I don't buy your argument. At all. Nor do, as I pointed out, many people. With zero evidence I don;t have to.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-17 07:54 am (UTC)(link)Everyone who uses the word stealing to mean taking something you shouldn't. Many people. It's such a common understanding of the word people tend to to explain it because it's like looking at the sky and going "it's commonly blue"
Here's a stupid fucking source for your ridiculous pedantic argument
http://youtu.be/HmZm8vNHBSU
I'm not sure if this is specific to my country's DVDs/videos/whatever. But the implication here is that people GET that the general term is stealing.
You are not allowed to download or rip this DVD. BECAUSE IT'S STEALING
no subject
This is the exact same video I used to prove your argument incorrect. You'll notice that the vast majority of the comments disagree with calling piracy stealing, resulting in the negative rating. The video-makers themselves know that the difference in intent and result between piracy and theft exists, which is why they say "you wouldn't steal a car" in the first place, because is the assumption is that while you likely wouldn't steal you likely would infringe on copyright. The core of the video is the acknowledgement that in the common perception, piracy =/= stealing. Were this not so, they would not have to make the video in the first place to enforce the notion. It is the case that so many people recognize that piracy =/= that they have to produce propaganda to try to convince them.
So yeah, you've demonstrated precisely the opposite.
You are not allowed to rip the DVD. BECAUSE IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. (Though the MPAA would really, really like if you'd conflate it with stealing, because it's easier for them to demonize pirates!)
no subject
Is a pretty popular meme in response to that statement.
no subject
Which proves the point, no? What they mean by "fuck you I would if I could" is that they would download a car - i.e. access a functional copy without the permission of, say, Toyota, while the original car sits in the dealership waiting for sale.
Whereas, if there's no difference between that and walking breaking into and making off with one in the parking lot, why wouldn't they do so? After all, they're the same! They're stealing!
The very fact that they would do one and not the other pretty much drives home the point that they aren't the same.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-17 06:12 am (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
no subject
And fanfiction can be described as home invasion. Diana Gabaldon proved it.
Tax evasion isn't "having something that isn't yours", it's falsifying legal documents so that you appear to owe less by contract to the gov... oh, forget it. Nevermind.
No, I get it. You've already pointed out that the lay public has no concept of nuance and no problem equating vastly different actions, effects, and consequences because they make them feel bad, and they have to do with property. "Stealing = property bad", according to the lay people you're representing. Not any dictionary I've ever read, but I may just be behind the times.
Okay, stealing = "property bad". Tax evasion and piracy are both "property bad", therefore stealing. I follow the... ...logic.
no subject
Wait. If you lie about how much you owe and keep the difference how do you not have something that isn't yours?
Also I feel "vastly" is incorrect word choice but I don't have the same kind of commitment as you and therefore do not plan on arguing it out over a thread.
no subject
Because the government represents you as part of a legal contract - tax dollars are "public"; if everyone is required to pay $5 for coffee at an anime night, and you were all "oh shit I forgot my wallet, I only have two bucks" and you gave them two bucks and they let you drink the coffee, but really you had five bucks on you the whole time, do you now have coffee that "isn't yours"? Is drinking the coffee exactly the same offense as swiping all the coffee money afterward? Obviously not.
But it's a good question. And the answer is a lot more complicated and untrivial than "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR, WOULD YOU? SO WHY ARE YOU DRINKING COFFEE WHEN YOU ONLY PAID $2???!!!". That sort of bunk trivializes the discussion into meaninglessness.
Really? You don't feel that breaking into someone's home and stealing their jewelry is "vastly" different from accessing an unlicensed copy of a manga online? You think they're "trivially" different, or "not different at all"? Really? Or are you just saying that because you are committed to making that argument, because that's the only possible way I could see someone arguing that the two were quite similar or identical.
no subject
And there is a difference between someone giving you a break on the price and you just taking the coffee.
The method of breaking and entering and the method for illegal downloading is different but the purpose is the same. I'm not arguing that the method is similiar or identical but that the goal is. The goal to get something that isn't yours.
no subject
And yet, it's plain that Gabaldon, the authors who agree with her, and the many people who don't feel that piracy is stealing, would disagree. It's difficult to argue feelings, though. They're subjective.
And there is a difference between someone giving you a break on the price and you just taking the coffee.
But you obtained that "price break" by misrepresenting the funds available to you. Which is what one does when one tax evades. So... when I put it to you by analogy you admit there's a difference between stealing and tax evasion? Okay then. I concur, obviously.
but the purpose is the same
No, it isn't. It absolutely isn't. Stealing the jewelry deprives the owner of jewelry. When that advertisement claims "you wouldn't steal a car" it does so, ironically, because it knows that the intent to steal and the intent to pirate are quite different, and the end results are entirely different. They're both wrong, yes. But one takes property someone else owns, the other accesses an unlicensed copy, which may or may not result in a loss of earning potential for the intellectual property right holder (assuming you would have paid for it had you not been able to). In the case of stealing the jewelry, the jewelry-maker still got paid, and is not hurt by this crime whatsoever. In fact, if the original owner has to buy a replacement, the jewelry-maker profits.
Both are wrong, both are crimes, but they are not both stealing.
no subject
no subject
It's time for bed -____-