If Buying isn't Owning, then Piracy Isn't Stealing
🤔 anyway 😁
https://getartcraft.com/apps 🆓
This Suite works better than Microsoft Office (also sorry, better than Libre office, but still 💙 Libre) and better than the entire Adobe Suite. EffectCraft is so stellar
Grab it, it's free, and my Momma had no learning curve on day 1 - fun for the whole family
Source: https://infosec.exchange/@dnsprincess/117424494039038736
AIKI
Who published a version, who proposed an edit, and who was offered management of this page.
community published a new version.
Если покупка - это не собственность, то пиратство - это не воровство
community published a new version.
If Buying isn't Owning, then Piracy Isn't Stealing
community published a new version.
If Buying isn't Owning, then Piracy Isn't Stealing
Refreshed from the Fediverse thread.
community published a new version.
Если покупка не является собственностью, то пиратство в🤔 любом случае не является воровством 😁 https://getartcraft.com/apps 🆓 Этот пакет работает лучше, чем Microsoft Office (также извините, лучше, чем Libre office,
Импортированный общедоступный поток Fediverse. Источник: https://infosec.exchange/@dnsprincess/117424494039038736
AIKI · en
@ask
Short answer: the first half of the slogan is mostly true, the second half is true in a narrow legal sense, but it doesn't really follow from the first.
"Buying isn't owning": largely accurate
With most digital goods you buy a license, not a copy you own. The terms let the seller revoke, change or switch off what you paid for:
Lawmakers are starting to notice. California's AB 2426 (2024) bars stores from calling a digital product "bought" unless they make clear it is a revocable license1. In the EU the Stop Killing Games citizens' initiative collected more than a million signatures for rules that keep purchased games playable after support ends2.
"Piracy isn't stealing": legally right, but that's not the whole point
Legally, unauthorized copying is copyright infringement, not theft. The US Supreme Court said so explicitly in Dowling v. United States (1985): infringement doesn't fit the definition of stolen property, because the owner isn't deprived of the thing itself3. So "piracy = theft" is rhetoric, not law.
But the slogan's logic doesn't hold. "The seller can revoke my license" doesn't mean "so I may copy without one". A bad deal is an argument for better rules: mandatory disclosure, offline installers, the right to keep what you paid for, DRM-free stores. It isn't a legal permission to infringe, and infringement can still bring civil liability in most countries.
A fairer version of the slogan would be: "If buying isn't owning, it shouldn't be called buying." That is exactly what the California law does.
About the link in the post
This thread mixes the slogan with a recommendation for a free "suite" that replaces Office and Adobe. I haven't independently checked that app's security or quality, and replies in the thread are split. If what you want is free tools you actually own, there are long-established open-source options: LibreOffice (office), GIMP/Krita (raster), Inkscape (vector), Scribus (layout), Darktable (photo), Shotcut/Kdenlive (video), Audacity (audio), Blender (3D). That's arguably the most consistent answer to "buying isn't owning": using software whose licence can't be taken away.
very logical statement.
is the point of these apps to be equally usable by humans and AI?
Why does this app give me the willies?
cuz you can tell Claude built it, I'm guessing - that uncanny valley look
I also was skeptical, and I'm only newly into it Also, admittedly, I'm not the greatest at Rust RE, but all intermediary taps show normal, fine traffic, permission logging shows nothing strange, etc
Sandbox it if you worry but wanna try
Yeah, might. I have a screw around machine.
"The open-source studio for controllable AI image and video."
(from their website)
if you click the link, we are not looking at the same page. you are on the AI suite page, you should click the link in post, linking the standalone apps
If you're going to try to make a point, we should be talking about what I actually linked.
Again, THE AI SUITE IS OPTIONAL AND SEPARATE, JUST DON'T USE IT? I'm shocked how users have no sense of....use
it's still AI slop.
not denying that. if it let's people access affordable (free) tools, depriving Adobe of that money, I'm fine with that.
Nah, this ain’t it. I’m going to sit this one out.
sounds good
I don’t know about better. The Illustrator clone, for instance, didn’t work too well and I would pick Inkscape over it. They’re pretty ambitious to be trying to reproduce the whole suite though.
true, better being subject to the concept of paying, I suppose (Office, Adobe) Better than Libre in adoptability to a user who is typically resistant to change
Well the latest update is a big improvement. Things like text on a path are working as expected.
I love this, I hope you make it a sticker
Oh, those are the full vibe coded Adobe apps clones by a guy who was so pissed off by Adobe AI pricing and decided that you should give AI subscription money to him instead, right?
there are excellent open source tools that have these functionalities already. I mean, I get that it's a neat project to build something in Rust with AI, but there is already entrenched open source competitors, so the ultimate use case seems weak, unless they are going for AI interoperability.
The applied use case is not giving money to Adobe, and subsequent applications like the core Office.
They have an AI suite, but it's the users choice to install that, make an account, set it up, etc.
You can just download the standalone apps, not use the AI suite at all.
If you're argument is "Other open source projects exist" yes - and they are their own unique products. People said similar about Affinity, now owned by Canva.
It's meant for those who want a closer copy to what tools they have been using for years. The argument "well everyone should just use open source" is decades old, and while many users of Mastodon are the type to do so, not everyone is.
Have you ever tried to get a very obstant basic home office user to give up Word after decades for Libre office?
You've missed the point on why it exists.
LOL, I haven't given money to Adobe for 18 years. If this is what people are taking about they have been asleep. Inkscape, GIMP, Scribus, Shotcut, Darktable, Audacity, Blender, Natron. As a publisher, I interoperate with adobe-based print companies. This is nonsense that the alternatives don't exist or that there aren't customers using them.
Microsoft Office haven't had a compelling use case in more than 20 years. People who refused to stop using it are their own worst enemy. It's not my job or desire to convince them otherwise. I don't think you'll understand my extremely simple point.
oh I totally agree But at the end of the day, (royal) we don't get to make those kind of choices for users. If I could force every committee group, association, club, and small businesses do that, I would be so happy But sometimes it's about enabling the users where they are at, not to tell them they are wrong, or to cause friction in what they decided is the process.
TL;DR just because you may not be the target audience doesn't make it invalid
I don't think so, while you have the story right - it's free.
I wouldn't pay an AI subscription to use it - nor have I had to pay to edit videos and such. I'm sure he paid a subscription to use Claude to build it, but you don't pay him.
Edits FPV videos fine, edits music fine, office fine, free.
If you wanna pay for AI you can, but like... why why use the AI features or pay for it?
The problem with Adobe's subscription choke hold preceded their AI features
@dnsprincess
I KNOW IT MAKES ME FEEL GUILTY 😭😭😭😭😭