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

    In my example privacy invasion definitely occurs. If you disagree with that, then you should review what I initially said.

    If the notion that when people don’t want to share things with you, you have an unqualified right to take those things, and that doing that is just inherently not damaging, then I think your position is unrealistic and incredibly self serving.

    Do you have some point to make here besides claiming you’re just never doing anything wrong when it serves your interests?

    • 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.