• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.

    What if I don’t sell it? If someone opts to use FreeCAD instead of Fusion360, did FreeCAD steal income from Autodesk?

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the product and not paying for that use.

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

        What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?

        You should pick your examples more carefully.

        You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?

          That’s wrong and fucked up but also has nothing to do with the argument and point I’m making. It’s a total straw man.

          You should pick your examples more carefully.

          I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷‍♂️

          You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.

          How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s a total straw man.

            Not a straw man at all, but I’ll let it slide.

            I didn’t pick it, so… 🤷‍♂️

            Fair point.

            How am I not acting in good faith? I am taking an objective position. Please point out how anything I’ve said is not objective or not in good faith?

            You may well be arguing in good faith, I’ve started to see that. You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Not a straw man at all

              It is a straw man. It is arguing a point that I never made.

              Fair point.

              I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.

              You’re still wrong, though. Copyright infringement is not theft, the two are distinctly different.

              Only in a legal sense and I’m not arguing the legality or legal distinction between the two things. This is another straw man. “Copyright infringement” only exists as a legal concept because of intangible goods and ideas and how they different from physical, tangible items. Both types have enormous amounts of labor/effort/time required to create them and yet we have to make a distinction because it is different from a legal perspective.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I don’t understand how you can reconcile this with what you just said above.

                It isn’t a reconciliation, it’s an admission that you are right on that point, and that I was mistaken.

                Only in a legal sense

                It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.

                  It’s not just the legal sense, it’s the core definition of the term you’re misassociating.

                  It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.

                  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    It is not. We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen. You’re arguing that, because the media itself isn’t stolen (it is infinitely reproducible), it’s not theft. I’m arguing that it’s income that’s being stolen.

                    We are disagreeing on the definition of “stolen”. Your argument is insane because it implies you can steal potential in a real way. This is incredibly problematic as you are now saying anytime some entity does not make all the money/trade/exposure someone has stole that from them.

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You just said that it wasn’t a straw man (a term whose definition is ‘arguing against a point that wasn’t made’) and then admitted that I never made that point. If I never made that point, then it is, by definition, a straw man argument.

                    We were talking about CAD software, I pointed out how the most prominent player in the CAD market (AutoDesk) have screwed over their customers. People bought permanent lifetime licenses, now those licenses have been degraded and they cannot use their product in the industry. It’s not simply the case that AutoCAD is now an annual subscription priced at a higher cost, but the older product as provided by the manufacturer isn’t the same as what was paid for.

                    If you pirate earlier versions of AutoCAD, you sidestep these issues (for the most part, new versions still pop up with a warning if the .dwg has been edited in an older version).

                    It’s not a strawman argument, it’s a tangental argument that is very relevant to the subject at hand. Pirated versions are sometimes better than the official versions.

                    We’re simply disagreeing on what is being stolen.

                    No, you’re misunderstanding the term “stolen” and “theft”. You should really look it up.