If anything, shouldn’t it be encouraged, and even automated? I’m including even the ‘old’ stuff from reddit here. Reddit shouldn’t be the absolute owner of the content submitted by users. When I migrated here, it wasn’t because of me being against reddit users, but being against reddit the company. Copying the content here actually hurts the company in sense that they don’t get to then gatekeep the crowdsourced content.

    • RadDevon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess my example is that, isn’t it? 😅 My point is that you generally don’t have to remind people of your rights in order to enjoy them, and that’s true for copyright. Pick your own favorite right and replace my car analogy with it.

      Now, I just need to find a way to compare cross-posting Reddit content without permission to the Nazis and describe Lemmy as “the Uber of ,” and I’ll have achieved the triple crown of cliche analogies. 😆

      • MrZee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lol. One recommendation: when arguing about copyright, don’t substitute physical goods for material that can be easily duplicated when making an argument. Substitute a patent? Sure. Substitute a different type of copyrighted (or copyright adjacent) material? Sure. But it’s really hard to get past the fundamental difference between stealing a physical good — in which the person you’re stealing from no longer has the item — and copying a good, in which now both people have the item.

        To compare stealing a car with stealing digital goods, it would go more like: how would you feel if someone snuck over and built an exact duplicate of your car and drove it away?

        • RadDevon@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I get it, but I figure if someone doesn’t understand why it’s a problem to blame someone for having their content stolen, they probably won’t understand why it’s wrong to blame them for having other intangibles stolen either. The transition to tangible object was intentional in hopes of bridging that gap. The only right that is exactly the same as copyright is copyright, but that analogy wouldn’t really work for someone who doesn’t understand how copyright works. 😅 It’s kinda the point of an analogy: to highlight the similarities between two things that are similar in some ways but necessarily different in others for the benefit of someone who understand the subject but not the object of the analogy.

          But again, the point isn’t that car ownership is the same as copyright. That’s a (intentional, I think) misunderstanding of how analogies work. They don’t claim that every attribute of the two things being compared is the same; only that there may be enough similarity to bridge a gap in understanding. I can’t see anything so wrong with this analogy that it invalidates the point I was making with it. The point was that having the law commonly ignored doesn’t open the door for victim blaming if they don’t jump through all the hoops armchair lawyers define for them. That’s often the case when the law grants us rights: we just have them at a certain point and don’t have to do anything else. I have a right to continue owning a car that I bought. I have a right not to be punched in the face. I have a right to be involved in my children’s lives. I have a right to continue to own the works I create. These are different rights which apply to different sorts of things, but the principle is the same. If I had made any of these analogies (or any analogy period), a bad faith argument could certainly have found a trivial difference between the two… but it would have been just that: a bad faith argument based on a trivial (for the purposes of this analogy) difference.

          Is stealing a Reddit post the same as stealing a car? No, because as everyone has pointed out, the car cannot easily be copied, but is violating someone’s copyright the same as violating their ownership rights over some item they purchased? Yes. When you violate someone’s right to own the car, they do not retain an identical un-violated copy of their right to own it, just the same that way when you violate their copyright, they cannot retain an identical un-violated copy of that right somehow. Both of these rights have been violated equally, and the tangibility of the object they applied to doesn’t change that.

        • some_guy@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One recommendation: when you tell people how they “should” talk, you sound like a jackass

    • some_guy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You still haven’t, mate.

      Did you read what he wrote or just the first 2 sentences before you thought up that line and clicked reply?

      • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just not worth debating. If I post something online, it’s only reasonable for me to expect that someone might steal it. It doesn’t matter what my personal preferences or ethics are.