I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.
You would be considered to be stealing from the rights holder.
The rights holder authorises your use of their property when you pay the license fee. If you don’t pay the license fee you are considered to be stealing their property.
Just to be clear, I agree with the sentiment of this post. Legally speaking though, this defence would be cut down in moments.
Of course it is no viable defense, but stealing is the wrong term, because stealing is used for the theft of physical goods missing somewhere else. This would be along illegal usage semantically, or as another comment pointed out copyright infringement.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that I’m the US at least, it’s still not theft, but copyright infringement, which also means it doesn’t get handled in criminal court, but is instead handled as a civil lawsuit.
Actually it’s worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.
I’ve never used one myself but I’ve heard talk of various ones either A) taking the public (real) like number and extrapolating the dislikes based on an old like/dislike ratio available for the video from before the dislike removal (doesn’t work on new videos) or B) the extension includes a feature where the user can like/dislike the video within the extension and then the dislike number is extrapolated using the public (real) like number and the extension’s private like/dislike ratio. In either case the number is not connected to the “real” dislike count that YouTube would have access to internally
true, it definitely depends where you live. If you’re in the US then it’s definitely a case of most don’t work, because most elevators at this point have been made after 1990, but if you live somewhere else then it can definitely be a case of some, or even none
but that said there definitely are functioning crosswalk buttons that work so being pedantic about some, most, etc, is irrelevant because as long as there are any that dont work its relevant to the topic
Downloading and watching is a crime. One night be able to say they didn’t know what they were downloading but likely the file name and site or torrent is a good clue that’s bullshit.
Your probably discussing chance of getting caught. You likely will see a DMCA complaint or something like that to your ISP at worse for downloading but enough of these might get your service terminated (some ISP don’t care.)
Sharing the files and usually sharing a lot of files publicly or semi publicly will get you more attention and that will get the media companies more likely to take you down as a distributor.
VPN and smart browsing habits will reduce a lot of this risk though.
Think of downloading is one star in GTA. They will chase you if they are you. Uploading is two stars when they start shooting at you. Profiting of it is like three stars and that’s when they get more aggressive. You can get busted at one star but it’s just very unlikely.
Copyright infringement laws vary but even though simply downloading copyrighted material is against policies, it’s hard to enforce and most copyright holders don’t always find grounds for a lawsuit or it’s straight up not worth pursuing.
You downloading a movie off a website is the same as a friend of yours sharing the same movie with you on a USB stick.
Actions against unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials (especially if it’s for profit) on the other hand are much more easily enforceable.
I’m not comparing renting to owning, I’m pointing out that they are different things, and each has an appropriate place. The image in the OP makes a blanket statement implying that all payment equals permanent ownership.
It is certainly true that there are things people pay for that they should have more rights of ownership over, but don’t (even, and maybe especially, if they are led to believe they have ownership rights that they do not).
But even ownership of, for example, my car, does not extend to me the right to reverse engineer my car and build another identical one, and then sell that.
When you enter into a contract, where you pay for a product or service, there are a wide variety of rights you do or don’t receive, depending on the agreement.
Edit: Since your employer pays you for your labor, they own you, right?
My employer is paying for my time. Saying that they may own me for that is just absurd and makes no sense. They are paying for my labor, not for me physically. Lol. Buying your car doesn’t give you the right to reverse engineer it, true, but it doesn’t deny you the right to drive it whenever you please. No one is reverse engineering movies and TV shows, they just want to be able to watch the fucking thing whenever they want and without having to connect to the Internet, they want to own it, meaning watching it whenever forever. that’s all what people asking.
Let me restate the thing I was originally responding to:
Piracy can’t be stealing if paying for it isn’t owning.
This statement is so childishly oversimplified that it’s just wrong. It might make people “feel better” about piracy (in particular, their own piracy actions), but it does so based on a plainly invalid argument. That’s what I have been trying to point out.
Are there problems with the way media sales are handled? Absolutely. When Amazon is able to pull your purchases back out of your access that they made consumers feel that they would have unlimited and perpetual access to (even if the very fine print said otherwise), that’s a huge problem. If a particular piece of media just isn’t available anywhere except for via streaming (or, frankly, anywhere at all outside of piracy), that’s also a problem.
OP’s post doesn’t address any of that. The suggestion is that “If I have paid for something, I (edit: should) have full, unlimited, and perpetual ownership rights to it.” That’s just not true; the landscape of commerce is far more complicated than that, and it’s a mistake to just join into a weird hug boc about it.
Besides which, rent-seeking (which taps from an economy without contributing) is a more harmful act than piracy. (I hesitate to use crime since the state has commonly shown to have sucky opinions on right and wrong.)
I guess it all depends on how one interprets ops cryptic message. Lol
I read it as “I paid for it by pressing the ‘purchase’ button on a movie, so now it is mine”. You’ve probably read it “I should own the right to all of the movies and tv shows on Netflix since I’m a subscriber”. I don’t agree with the second, but sure as hell believe the first one from the bottom of my heart.
I don’t know if it’s the creators so much as the owners of the copyrights.
One of the problems with the system is how easy it is for big entitys to consolidate ownership of content.
I can’t believe we are actually talking about this. There is a difference between owning and renting. I’m financing my car, I’m paying to own it. After the payments are done, it’s 100% my car. Movies say “purchase” and literally outright don’t let you download and own a copy of the movie that you just paid full price for. I remember trying to purchase a TV show on YouTube and it stated that it’ll “expire” after two years of time of purchase. Bitch, you’re asking me to pay $100 for this shit. They have option to “rent” and to “purchase” and the expiration is on both, except one expires in 24 hours and the other in 2 years. Fuck that
Seems I hit a nerve. I don’t disagree with what you’ve put. The biggest issue here is the fact they say purchase rather than rent. I’d much rather I purchase a movie and own it but that’s not the business model they offer. In reality, if the continue with their current model they should rename it.
Right, but they won’t change the name, because they know your average Joe would just walk away from it, so they just keep it sketchy and keep fucking people over.
Major reason not to buy ebooks from amazon: you can’t lend, give, exchange, sell them and you may lose all of them if you anger the right people. They are not yours, you are not buying them, you merely paid for conditioned access to them.
Steam is a glowing example of how to prevent piracy though. Because even if I own the games I can still loan them out. I can play the games across all of my devices. Steam has gone above and beyond to give you a reason to not pirate. I buy my games because the convenience steam provides without hindering my actual ownership of them.
Fully agree with you! My point was that it isn’t just the likes of Amazon that do this. If we look to piracy it’s growing in areas where a paid for service is either split across several providers or isn’t convenient.
I no longer pirate games or music as the paid for services are way easier to use and value for money.
The movie and tv companies started to have this when Netflix started but now there’s too many services and even on the same service the catalogues are different depending upon location. So instead of getting a share of revenue they get nothing.
This is inaccurate. You are not buying it (the media), you are buying the right to stream it (as long as the seller provides the media as a stream). You don’t “buy” a movie unless you are paying for it’s ownership, which would be millions of dollars. For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM). And you generally don’t have a right be able to “buy” or have access to all media.
But all that doesn’t automaticly make it amoral. this comment is gonna be downvoted to hell
edit: There are probably gonna be more responces, so this will address everything else I have to say. What I wrote is how things are legally, more or less. I don’t like that either. I do consider piracy stealing (under current laws) and morally right. Stealing is just not that great term for digital stuff. Please don’t try to (uselessly) sway me and don’t infight
For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM).
I’d like to point out German law (maybe this expands to EU and other countries) with traditional media.
Traditionally you bought movies and music on physical discs. You had a guaranteed right to be able to sell it to other people, as well as make personal copies of it for private use/backups.
DRM has always tried to oppose this right. And obviously, in the last decade(s) a lot went into service-oriented streaming and temporary access instead of owning even on a partial or theoretical level.
Legally, piracy is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. That’s a totally different ball game with different implications.
While stealing even cheap items quickly lands you in legal hot water, just downloading (without uploading) doesn’t. I don’t know of a single case where someone got a significant fine or even a lawsuit for just downloading (and not redistributing) content.
The legal main difference between stealing and illegaly copying is that when you steal something it’s gone.
This changes the damages calculation a lot, since the only damage you caused by copying is the opportunity cost: Since you copied it, they didn’t sell it to you. But you might have already bought it in the meantime (then the damages 0), or you might have not bought it at all (then the damages are also 0).
Also, stealing is criminal law, while copyright is civil law, which makes it legally entirely different.
Looks nitpicky, but if you talk about current laws, nitpicky is the whole game.
If I’ve bought the right to play the game, what’s “the game” that I’m entitled to if they decide to take away what makes it the thing I agreed to have access to?
That’s kind of their point, because we are not in fact buying the media the argument is that piracy has some moral element. Put another way there is no option to own it outside of piracy.
Yeah kinda, but there deosn’t need to be an option to own media. You are not entitled to that. It’s up to the creator/owner how to use/sell their things. It’s whole another question if it should be that way
The entitlement comes from it existing, once you put something out there it belongs to the public forever. Laws around this are designed to create incentive but it does far more to lock out folks who could benefit/enjoy it but otherwise would never experience it. I don’t think you have a right to have the Mona Lisa in your house but you have a right to see reproductions forever and I want that for digital art too.
A person vs art, that’s the line where our opinion would differ I guess. Art/media is part of the world/history and it feels wrong to lock out large parts of it essentially forever. Let us pay for things and have them, it’s that simple. Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so. But again this all crosses into opinion, you can’t own a person and be a good citizen at the same time but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn’t buy to begin with.
And they are created by human beings, who have every right to decide what their creations are worth to them and under what terms other people can use their creations. I whittled a pretty cool dragon out of a stick once. It’s technically part of the world/history. That doesn’t mean anyone else has a right to it.
Let us pay for things and have them, it’s that simple.
Absolutely, if I am willing to sell you that thing for the price you are offering. If I am not, then the deal doesn’t go through. That is how deals work. You cannot rent a car for $60/day and then decide “actually I’m going to keep this forever.” That was not the deal you agreed upon.
Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so
Yes, I agree. In this case, though, the person who “has it” is the owner. Not the person who signed a deal saying “I myself will use this under the terms we have both agreed upon” and then proceeds to break those terms. Copyright law (in the US) is bullshit and needs a whole lot of reform, but if we’re talking about media made recently? By a still living human? Yes, they should own what they create.
but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn’t buy to begin with
Yes, I imagine this applies to both you and I as pirates. But as a productive member of society, I am fully aware that I am not entitled to anything owned by anyone else. I will not die if I don’t see that new movie I want to, and I am aware of that. I know that me pirating is both immoral and illegal, and directly hurts others. I am willing to admit that.
Thanks for the well thought out response, I believe your dragon may belong to someone else and it may rightfully be theirs, someday. I get what you’re saying in terms of practical day to day, but there is a harmful nature to copyright which is not discussed and I think that’s more important to come to terms with morally vs any harm caused by piracy. I also believe the harm piracy does cause can be mitigated with a more aware system. Once something is created you are in a power struggle to own it that you will lose with absolute certainly if the thing is not destroyed after your time with it.
sharing is never stealing since you are not removing anything from somebody :) yall can keep spinning it but a a bag full of all the stuff i shared would be a bag weighing 0 grams.
no i havent, i mean you can technically call it sharing but i just let somebody take a look at my 0 and 1 and they arrange them in the same way. again nothing is being transferred other than knowledge of where those 0 and 1 go.
That is a dishonest characterization. The video file obviously has value, or you wouldn’t be interested in it. We aren’t talking about a singular bool, but the configuration of the bools of that specific file, which whatever company owns and which they sell the right to view.
Well first of all, yes it is stealing to take something that does not belong to you. The definition of stealing is not beholden to the consequences of the actions itself.
Furthermore, if you pirate to avoid paying a subscription, then yes they are losing something. I’m a massive pirate. I steal all my media. I feel no guilt and I also have no delusions about what I am doing. I do it to save money.
Yes you are taking something. Of course you are. You are a taking a video file which you do not have the right to. Why do you need to convince yourself there is nothing grimy about doing? Like jesus christ, just be grimey. Wht you gotta lie to yourself?
undefined> You are a taking a video file which you do not have the right to
no im not. my man you can repeat this all day but it doesnt make it true. you dont TAKE anything through the internet. this is FACT. you cant make up physics…
you can look at something and make an exact copy of it. no objects get transferred. its not a thing.
For most of us sods it’s a choice between pirating content or not engaging in it at all. While the upper management of Sony or Disney might live in their profit-focused bubble, everyone else involved with a product would rather we actually participate in their patch of human culture.
But I’m happy to not watch your show or listen to your music, if my presence offends you.
The difference is, your culture is not getting out there.
The reason we all know Joffrey is a git of a king and the Red Wedding was a day to call in sick is because the GoT series was massively pirated and HBO ignored it. It also why we had a decade of gratuitous boobs on television. It also accounted for HBO being stupendously rich for a while.
It’s kinda like depending on the wind for sailing, your crew on deck are going to be hot because there isn’t much breeze. The more you tap consumption of your art for money, the narrower the gateway and the less it becomes culture, until you end up like Prince (the musician) with most of your work locked away in a vault, unknown to anyone.
But you seem like a the law’s the law sort of fellow, and would be simping for the state even as it was torturing your fellow statesmen.
GOT wasn’t funded through culture. Also they most certainly didn’t ignore it, they just failed to stop it.
Do my a favor and stick your assumptions up your mother’s asshole. I’m a pirate, I just don’t have any delusions about what it is. I’m not so egotistical that I need to convince myself that it’s not stealing just because I’m doing it.
I find your pirate cred dubious. You came onto a pirate thread to throw shade, which smacks to me of Christian vigilantes wandering into a gay bar to start trouble. Or a guy online compelled to send his dick-pic to women online for internal insecurities he can’t consciously fathom.
You’re not here to protest the problems with stealing, not in the current economic clime. You’re here because you need to shit on others, and are trying to justify it by opposing piracy when even the IP holders know it’s losing game that only hurts themselves. It’s the legal firms they’ve tapped who are over eager to show they’re earning their pay.
You want to evade my assumptions, go crawl back into your hole, or do some proper fucking research. (Start here, and enjoy.).
But so long as you’re raising a stink and I’m nearby, you’re going to have to choke on the toxic vitriol of my ideology. I won’t suffer your moralizing in silence.
this meme is a criticism of that. it shouldn’t be like that. if I buy a chair, I own the chair. I can then choose to sit on it, burn it, or give it to my neighbor, whatever. if I buy a movie, it’s suddenly not like that – but not because of some inherent quality that would make it impossible, but only because they say it is like that. but they have one weakness: it’s only like that if we actually stick to those rules. they’re all arbitrary anyway! we can therefore treat a bought movie just as it should be: a physical copy that we actually own. we can then decide to watch it, to lend it to our neighbor, to play it for everybody to see on the street, to cut it and remix it and do something new with it. will they come and claim we’ve “pirated” their media? yes of course, but this is nonsensical, dead law, that has to be broken again and again by just – ignoring it, and making it not so. if I buy a movie, I do own the movie, and the company that says otherwise can get fucked. that’s what this is about.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
⚓ A community devoted to in-depth debate on topics concerning digital piracy, ethical problems, and legal advancements.
I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.
You would be considered to be stealing from the rights holder. The rights holder authorises your use of their property when you pay the license fee. If you don’t pay the license fee you are considered to be stealing their property.
Just to be clear, I agree with the sentiment of this post. Legally speaking though, this defence would be cut down in moments.
Of course it is no viable defense, but stealing is the wrong term, because stealing is used for the theft of physical goods missing somewhere else. This would be along illegal usage semantically, or as another comment pointed out copyright infringement.
Of course it isn’t. Copyright laws were written by the same kind of people who decided that corporations gets to “people.”
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that I’m the US at least, it’s still not theft, but copyright infringement, which also means it doesn’t get handled in criminal court, but is instead handled as a civil lawsuit.
Legally speaking they’re not going after you solely for piracy pretty much ever, at least not in America, unless you’re making a profit from it.
Here I am wondering why there is still a downvote button in the YouTube comments… it does nothing!
Actually it’s worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.
Youtube promoting controversial comments: https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbmU2cHZwN3U0NXl4MXhhYXE5Y2c5bzJvZDJqYTVjdmphYmQ4aDhyOCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/KDVswimTNahWzcd7sV/giphy.gif
The downvotes are still counted, just not displayed. You can re-enable it via browser extensions.
Pretty sure those extensions all use some sort of estimate methodology, the dislikes aren’t available via any apis or anything
Interesting, I wonder exactly how they work, then?
I’ve never used one myself but I’ve heard talk of various ones either A) taking the public (real) like number and extrapolating the dislikes based on an old like/dislike ratio available for the video from before the dislike removal (doesn’t work on new videos) or B) the extension includes a feature where the user can like/dislike the video within the extension and then the dislike number is extrapolated using the public (real) like number and the extension’s private like/dislike ratio. In either case the number is not connected to the “real” dislike count that YouTube would have access to internally
Hey GPT4 watch this video and tell me what its ratio of likes to dislikes would be
For videos. The commnt dislike has done nothing for years
Oh, didn’t realize it was referring to comments. Yeah, that one’s pointless!
The same reason that a lot of crosswalks have fake buttons. So you feel like you have control.
and why elevators have non functioning close buttons
Some elevators.
All the ones near me have fully functional close buttons.
true, it definitely depends where you live. If you’re in the US then it’s definitely a case of most don’t work, because most elevators at this point have been made after 1990, but if you live somewhere else then it can definitely be a case of some, or even none
but that said there definitely are functioning crosswalk buttons that work so being pedantic about some, most, etc, is irrelevant because as long as there are any that dont work its relevant to the topic
While simultaneously undermining your sense of trust in the world
This💯
Heh, never thought of this argument.
Unsure if anyone can clarify. But my understanding that simply downloading a watching isn’t an issue.
Selling illegally copied content is what can cause real legal issues.
I’m uncertain of any cases of anyone getting in trouble for simply watching copied content.
Example… 1st user pirates movies or videos and uploads them to YouTube or any streaming company.
2nd User then streams or downloads them to watch them offline. I’ve yet to see the 2nd user in this scenario face legal consequences.
Vs
2nd User then streams or downloads content and makes money off it. Here I see the 2nd user have legal issues.
Again I’m just a regular guy going based on regular guy logic.
Downloading and watching is a crime. One night be able to say they didn’t know what they were downloading but likely the file name and site or torrent is a good clue that’s bullshit.
Your probably discussing chance of getting caught. You likely will see a DMCA complaint or something like that to your ISP at worse for downloading but enough of these might get your service terminated (some ISP don’t care.)
Sharing the files and usually sharing a lot of files publicly or semi publicly will get you more attention and that will get the media companies more likely to take you down as a distributor.
VPN and smart browsing habits will reduce a lot of this risk though.
Think of downloading is one star in GTA. They will chase you if they are you. Uploading is two stars when they start shooting at you. Profiting of it is like three stars and that’s when they get more aggressive. You can get busted at one star but it’s just very unlikely.
Copyright infringement laws vary but even though simply downloading copyrighted material is against policies, it’s hard to enforce and most copyright holders don’t always find grounds for a lawsuit or it’s straight up not worth pursuing. You downloading a movie off a website is the same as a friend of yours sharing the same movie with you on a USB stick.
Actions against unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials (especially if it’s for profit) on the other hand are much more easily enforceable.
That’s why I claim ownership of every hotel room I’ve ever stayed in and every car I’ve ever rented.
I also believe in free housing and transit access as a right.
Seriously? You’re comparing renting to owning? lol How about the car you actually paid for to own? Is that not your car either?
I’m not comparing renting to owning, I’m pointing out that they are different things, and each has an appropriate place. The image in the OP makes a blanket statement implying that all payment equals permanent ownership.
It is certainly true that there are things people pay for that they should have more rights of ownership over, but don’t (even, and maybe especially, if they are led to believe they have ownership rights that they do not).
But even ownership of, for example, my car, does not extend to me the right to reverse engineer my car and build another identical one, and then sell that.
When you enter into a contract, where you pay for a product or service, there are a wide variety of rights you do or don’t receive, depending on the agreement.
Edit: Since your employer pays you for your labor, they own you, right?
My employer is paying for my time. Saying that they may own me for that is just absurd and makes no sense. They are paying for my labor, not for me physically. Lol. Buying your car doesn’t give you the right to reverse engineer it, true, but it doesn’t deny you the right to drive it whenever you please. No one is reverse engineering movies and TV shows, they just want to be able to watch the fucking thing whenever they want and without having to connect to the Internet, they want to own it, meaning watching it whenever forever. that’s all what people asking.
Edit: some typos and missing words
Let me restate the thing I was originally responding to:
This statement is so childishly oversimplified that it’s just wrong. It might make people “feel better” about piracy (in particular, their own piracy actions), but it does so based on a plainly invalid argument. That’s what I have been trying to point out.
Are there problems with the way media sales are handled? Absolutely. When Amazon is able to pull your purchases back out of your access that they made consumers feel that they would have unlimited and perpetual access to (even if the very fine print said otherwise), that’s a huge problem. If a particular piece of media just isn’t available anywhere except for via streaming (or, frankly, anywhere at all outside of piracy), that’s also a problem.
OP’s post doesn’t address any of that. The suggestion is that “If I have paid for something, I (edit: should) have full, unlimited, and perpetual ownership rights to it.” That’s just not true; the landscape of commerce is far more complicated than that, and it’s a mistake to just join into a weird hug boc about it.
Piracy in this context refers to copying data, not paying to rent physical items or places, and it’s a strawman argument to say it doesn’t.
Besides which, rent-seeking (which taps from an economy without contributing) is a more harmful act than piracy. (I hesitate to use crime since the state has commonly shown to have sucky opinions on right and wrong.)
I guess it all depends on how one interprets ops cryptic message. Lol I read it as “I paid for it by pressing the ‘purchase’ button on a movie, so now it is mine”. You’ve probably read it “I should own the right to all of the movies and tv shows on Netflix since I’m a subscriber”. I don’t agree with the second, but sure as hell believe the first one from the bottom of my heart.
When you rent a hotel room or car you’re preventing others from using that hotel room or car.
When corporations write the laws, the laws help corporation.
Our current system of copyright is flawed and only serves the interests of corporations.
indeed
who do you think got the law created to begin with?
the “creators” of the content, of course. they saw an issue, complained to politicians and the politicians agreed.
it made sense, and it’s IMO quite fair
but if i dont own the shit when i pay for it, then fuck 'em.
I don’t know if it’s the creators so much as the owners of the copyrights. One of the problems with the system is how easy it is for big entitys to consolidate ownership of content.
How does that work though if you rent a car? You don’t own it, but still stealing if you “steal” it.
I can’t believe we are actually talking about this. There is a difference between owning and renting. I’m financing my car, I’m paying to own it. After the payments are done, it’s 100% my car. Movies say “purchase” and literally outright don’t let you download and own a copy of the movie that you just paid full price for. I remember trying to purchase a TV show on YouTube and it stated that it’ll “expire” after two years of time of purchase. Bitch, you’re asking me to pay $100 for this shit. They have option to “rent” and to “purchase” and the expiration is on both, except one expires in 24 hours and the other in 2 years. Fuck that
Seems I hit a nerve. I don’t disagree with what you’ve put. The biggest issue here is the fact they say purchase rather than rent. I’d much rather I purchase a movie and own it but that’s not the business model they offer. In reality, if the continue with their current model they should rename it.
Right, but they won’t change the name, because they know your average Joe would just walk away from it, so they just keep it sketchy and keep fucking people over.
You’re preventing its use by someone else (assuming you bring it back in one piece).
how does everybody misses this very crucial point???
Piracy is like a digital photocopier to an NFT
Major reason not to buy ebooks from amazon: you can’t lend, give, exchange, sell them and you may lose all of them if you anger the right people. They are not yours, you are not buying them, you merely paid for conditioned access to them.
It’s the same with steam games and other online stores. You are granted a licence to use the software; not to own it.
Steam is a glowing example of how to prevent piracy though. Because even if I own the games I can still loan them out. I can play the games across all of my devices. Steam has gone above and beyond to give you a reason to not pirate. I buy my games because the convenience steam provides without hindering my actual ownership of them.
Fully agree with you! My point was that it isn’t just the likes of Amazon that do this. If we look to piracy it’s growing in areas where a paid for service is either split across several providers or isn’t convenient.
I no longer pirate games or music as the paid for services are way easier to use and value for money.
The movie and tv companies started to have this when Netflix started but now there’s too many services and even on the same service the catalogues are different depending upon location. So instead of getting a share of revenue they get nothing.
yes and thats bullshit :)
Touché.
Amen!
This is inaccurate. You are not buying it (the media), you are buying the right to stream it (as long as the seller provides the media as a stream). You don’t “buy” a movie unless you are paying for it’s ownership, which would be millions of dollars. For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM). And you generally don’t have a right be able to “buy” or have access to all media.
But all that doesn’t automaticly make it amoral.
this comment is gonna be downvoted to helledit: There are probably gonna be more responces, so this will address everything else I have to say. What I wrote is how things are legally, more or less. I don’t like that either. I do consider piracy stealing (under current laws) and morally right. Stealing is just not that great term for digital stuff. Please don’t try to (uselessly) sway me and don’t infight
I’d like to point out German law (maybe this expands to EU and other countries) with traditional media.
Traditionally you bought movies and music on physical discs. You had a guaranteed right to be able to sell it to other people, as well as make personal copies of it for private use/backups.
DRM has always tried to oppose this right. And obviously, in the last decade(s) a lot went into service-oriented streaming and temporary access instead of owning even on a partial or theoretical level.
Legally, piracy is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. That’s a totally different ball game with different implications.
While stealing even cheap items quickly lands you in legal hot water, just downloading (without uploading) doesn’t. I don’t know of a single case where someone got a significant fine or even a lawsuit for just downloading (and not redistributing) content.
The legal main difference between stealing and illegaly copying is that when you steal something it’s gone.
This changes the damages calculation a lot, since the only damage you caused by copying is the opportunity cost: Since you copied it, they didn’t sell it to you. But you might have already bought it in the meantime (then the damages 0), or you might have not bought it at all (then the damages are also 0).
Also, stealing is criminal law, while copyright is civil law, which makes it legally entirely different.
Looks nitpicky, but if you talk about current laws, nitpicky is the whole game.
If I’ve bought the right to play the game, what’s “the game” that I’m entitled to if they decide to take away what makes it the thing I agreed to have access to?
There are lots of cars you can’t get parts for dude.
That is answered in the 95-page TOS
That’s kind of their point, because we are not in fact buying the media the argument is that piracy has some moral element. Put another way there is no option to own it outside of piracy.
Yeah kinda, but there deosn’t need to be an option to own media. You are not entitled to that. It’s up to the creator/owner how to use/sell their things. It’s whole another question if it should be that way
The entitlement comes from it existing, once you put something out there it belongs to the public forever. Laws around this are designed to create incentive but it does far more to lock out folks who could benefit/enjoy it but otherwise would never experience it. I don’t think you have a right to have the Mona Lisa in your house but you have a right to see reproductions forever and I want that for digital art too.
I have no legal option to own you. Is it moral, then, for me to turn to illegal means to own you?
Now replace “you” with “content you created”, and tell me how it’s different.
A person vs art, that’s the line where our opinion would differ I guess. Art/media is part of the world/history and it feels wrong to lock out large parts of it essentially forever. Let us pay for things and have them, it’s that simple. Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so. But again this all crosses into opinion, you can’t own a person and be a good citizen at the same time but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn’t buy to begin with.
And they are created by human beings, who have every right to decide what their creations are worth to them and under what terms other people can use their creations. I whittled a pretty cool dragon out of a stick once. It’s technically part of the world/history. That doesn’t mean anyone else has a right to it.
Absolutely, if I am willing to sell you that thing for the price you are offering. If I am not, then the deal doesn’t go through. That is how deals work. You cannot rent a car for $60/day and then decide “actually I’m going to keep this forever.” That was not the deal you agreed upon.
Yes, I agree. In this case, though, the person who “has it” is the owner. Not the person who signed a deal saying “I myself will use this under the terms we have both agreed upon” and then proceeds to break those terms. Copyright law (in the US) is bullshit and needs a whole lot of reform, but if we’re talking about media made recently? By a still living human? Yes, they should own what they create.
Yes, I imagine this applies to both you and I as pirates. But as a productive member of society, I am fully aware that I am not entitled to anything owned by anyone else. I will not die if I don’t see that new movie I want to, and I am aware of that. I know that me pirating is both immoral and illegal, and directly hurts others. I am willing to admit that.
Thanks for the well thought out response, I believe your dragon may belong to someone else and it may rightfully be theirs, someday. I get what you’re saying in terms of practical day to day, but there is a harmful nature to copyright which is not discussed and I think that’s more important to come to terms with morally vs any harm caused by piracy. I also believe the harm piracy does cause can be mitigated with a more aware system. Once something is created you are in a power struggle to own it that you will lose with absolute certainly if the thing is not destroyed after your time with it.
And replace “you” with an exploitive company that doesn’t give two shits about anything but making a number go up.
Piracy is always stealing. Y’all can keep trying to spin it if it helps, but its pure copium.
sharing is never stealing since you are not removing anything from somebody :) yall can keep spinning it but a a bag full of all the stuff i shared would be a bag weighing 0 grams.
And yet you still shared something. Those files exist. This is an extremely weak argument honestly.
no i havent, i mean you can technically call it sharing but i just let somebody take a look at my 0 and 1 and they arrange them in the same way. again nothing is being transferred other than knowledge of where those 0 and 1 go.
Something is being tranferred, and that is the picture which you do not own nor have any right to own.
no its not. if i tell you “hey the 0 gos to the right” i havent transferred shit to you. information is not goods.
That is a dishonest characterization. The video file obviously has value, or you wouldn’t be interested in it. We aren’t talking about a singular bool, but the configuration of the bools of that specific file, which whatever company owns and which they sell the right to view.
Is it stealing when they don’t lose anything?
Well first of all, yes it is stealing to take something that does not belong to you. The definition of stealing is not beholden to the consequences of the actions itself.
Furthermore, if you pirate to avoid paying a subscription, then yes they are losing something. I’m a massive pirate. I steal all my media. I feel no guilt and I also have no delusions about what I am doing. I do it to save money.
undefined> es it is stealing to take something that does not belong to you
you are not taking anything . literally nothing.
im just looking at the thing and making a very good copy with my hard drive. literally taking a picture of something.
0 objects will be transferred to me in this example. nothing,nada,nulla.
Yes you are taking something. Of course you are. You are a taking a video file which you do not have the right to. Why do you need to convince yourself there is nothing grimy about doing? Like jesus christ, just be grimey. Wht you gotta lie to yourself?
undefined> You are a taking a video file which you do not have the right to
no im not. my man you can repeat this all day but it doesnt make it true. you dont TAKE anything through the internet. this is FACT. you cant make up physics…
you can look at something and make an exact copy of it. no objects get transferred. its not a thing.
If semantics is the hill you want to die on you’ve already lost.
deleted by creator
Sure, but there’s a huge difference between stealing a physical object and copying data without permission.
For most of us sods it’s a choice between pirating content or not engaging in it at all. While the upper management of Sony or Disney might live in their profit-focused bubble, everyone else involved with a product would rather we actually participate in their patch of human culture.
But I’m happy to not watch your show or listen to your music, if my presence offends you.
Entirely besides the point. As for the last point, that’s pretty funny😂 if you’re pirating it it literally makes no difference.
The difference is, your culture is not getting out there.
The reason we all know Joffrey is a git of a king and the Red Wedding was a day to call in sick is because the GoT series was massively pirated and HBO ignored it. It also why we had a decade of gratuitous boobs on television. It also accounted for HBO being stupendously rich for a while.
It’s kinda like depending on the wind for sailing, your crew on deck are going to be hot because there isn’t much breeze. The more you tap consumption of your art for money, the narrower the gateway and the less it becomes culture, until you end up like Prince (the musician) with most of your work locked away in a vault, unknown to anyone.
But you seem like a the law’s the law sort of fellow, and would be simping for the state even as it was torturing your fellow statesmen.
GOT wasn’t funded through culture. Also they most certainly didn’t ignore it, they just failed to stop it.
Do my a favor and stick your assumptions up your mother’s asshole. I’m a pirate, I just don’t have any delusions about what it is. I’m not so egotistical that I need to convince myself that it’s not stealing just because I’m doing it.
I find your pirate cred dubious. You came onto a pirate thread to throw shade, which smacks to me of Christian vigilantes wandering into a gay bar to start trouble. Or a guy online compelled to send his dick-pic to women online for internal insecurities he can’t consciously fathom.
You’re not here to protest the problems with stealing, not in the current economic clime. You’re here because you need to shit on others, and are trying to justify it by opposing piracy when even the IP holders know it’s losing game that only hurts themselves. It’s the legal firms they’ve tapped who are over eager to show they’re earning their pay.
You want to evade my assumptions, go crawl back into your hole, or do some proper fucking research. (Start here, and enjoy.).
But so long as you’re raising a stink and I’m nearby, you’re going to have to choke on the toxic vitriol of my ideology. I won’t suffer your moralizing in silence.
The mere notion that piracy might be stealing sends you into a paragraphs long tirade. Pretty stupid. I simply don’t care that it’s stealing.
this meme is a criticism of that. it shouldn’t be like that. if I buy a chair, I own the chair. I can then choose to sit on it, burn it, or give it to my neighbor, whatever. if I buy a movie, it’s suddenly not like that – but not because of some inherent quality that would make it impossible, but only because they say it is like that. but they have one weakness: it’s only like that if we actually stick to those rules. they’re all arbitrary anyway! we can therefore treat a bought movie just as it should be: a physical copy that we actually own. we can then decide to watch it, to lend it to our neighbor, to play it for everybody to see on the street, to cut it and remix it and do something new with it. will they come and claim we’ve “pirated” their media? yes of course, but this is nonsensical, dead law, that has to be broken again and again by just – ignoring it, and making it not so. if I buy a movie, I do own the movie, and the company that says otherwise can get fucked. that’s what this is about.
I would steal this argument, but if it can be reposted here for free, then I don’t think anybody really owns it. 🤔
Amen.