If this rhetoric was used in a conservative opinion piece instead of a pro piracy opinion piece, I’m pretty sure it would be banned for calling for violence towards specific individuals.
Guillotine preview image and quotes like:
Sure, Zaslav deserves to be staked out over an anthill and slathered in high-fructose corn syrup. But save the next anthill for the Sony exec who shipped a product that would let Zaslav come into your home and rob you. That piece of shit knew what they were doing and they did it anyway. Fuck them. Sideways. With a brick.
Sure, Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive in all of Southern California, the loathsome David Zaslav, who oversaw the merger of Warner with Discovery.
What a trash article and site. How is this permitted.
I’m pretty sure it would be banned for calling for violence towards specific individuals.
People with no attachment to reality might overreact like that, but the rest of us have reading comprehension on our side.
deserves to be staked out over an anthill
“deserves to be”: this is a phrase commonly used when people are basically venting, but it almost never suggests that someone should actually do the action. Just search for the phrase “deserves to be string up” and you’ll see just how common it is.
As for “over an anthill”, when someone describes an outrageous situation, that’s yet another clue that they’re venting, not proposing an actual action.
Honest people who read the news and opinion pieces should know this, so either you’re new to reading, or you’re dishonest.
Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive
No, I’ve just been living in American for the past 30 years or so and have an understanding of what inflammatory and dehumanizing attacks on individuals and groups does to society. And even if it’s permissible based on the rules of this community, it’s still garbage journalism.
The analogy is that you buy a car (because if it breaks, the car and your entertainment stuff, you will buy a new one to replace it, you will also carry all maintenance) but suddenly you can’t drive backwards anymore because the manufacturer decided retroactively that you should pay extra for that (possibly in a subscription).
I would say it is your good right then to make your car drive backwards regardless of what it may take.
What if the company wasn’t trying to get you to rent the car? What if they tried REALLY hard to get you to think you were buying the car, but once you “bought” it, they start crippling things and telling you you can’t fix it yourself but instead need to pay exorbitant prices for them to “upgrade” it, since, now that you’ve “bought” it, you don’t technically “own” it
But, is the piracy only justifiable if and only if the item you bought was unilaterally taken away from you? This seems to be arguing that: SOMETIMES purchased digital goods are stolen from a consumer, therefore it is ALWAYS justifiable for a consumer to pirate. I think we need a more nuanced take on piracy.
And now that SAG AFTRA concessions were made to give to more payout to actors and other creative folks based on streaming metrics, I think that means consumers should attempt to stream if available to help ensure the creators hit their metrics for payout.
My criteria for what makes something worth purchasing versus pirating is pretty simple: can I purchase a file in a format that I want to be able to use on all my devices without DRM for a fair price. If that’s the case then I’ll buy it. I buy stuff off GOG and Humble Bundle all the time.
As for streaming. If the service is good and has enough content on it to keep me invested then I’ll pay for the sub. For several years Netflix was good enough that I almost completely stopped pirating movies and shows. There was just always something on there to watch. When it got to the point that I had to look for shit that I hadn’t seen before and wanted to watch I cancelled it, and I haven’t picked up any other services since then other than what came with my internet. I’m not going to juggle 14 steaming services and try to keep track of what is available on which one when I can just pay for a VPN and download everything from one source. Especially considering some of the more niche stuff I want to watch isn’t available on any of them a lot of the time.
The bottom line is make not pirating more convenient and cheaper than pirating and I’ll stop doing it.
I have to pay for and setup hardware to store and distribute media I pirate which costs money and time but I guess I didn’t really mean it had to be more convenient AND cheaper just that if there was a service that beat piracy on those two points combined I would use it. Spotify for instance has pretty much all the music I would want so I haven’t downloaded any for a few years.
I usually just assume that Im probably gonna agree with the thing so dont see the need to put more time into it. If it was something that I felt different about then maybe i might have, but as that is probably not the case there’s no need dragging it out for no reason.
Plus, they seem to be on top of the thing, so im gonna make sure to stay out of their way and leave them alone and let them do their jobs.
There’s little left to do at this point, and its not really my place to tell them how to do their jobs. Thatd be presumptious, as I might just as well know next to nothing about it compared to them. Why making it even more complicated than it already is? Its their job after all, not ours, and we have to respect that. Lol what would even the job be, that is not exactly information i would carry around so. Besides, i already have one other job anyway, so…
In the end, the important thing is that they are on top of it, and i bet i would feel more or less the same way even if the whole thing was another thing altogether, as long as i feel the same way as they do about it, and that theyre doing something about it instead of giving it time to grow, maybe into something even worse!
But regardless- something is being done, right now, by someone, right there. you dont see that sort of thing around much these days. Also doesn’t hurt that they could possibly have more insight into the details of the case than maybe anyone else.
I dont know how you guys feel about it, sometimes I’m not 100% sure myself, but i cant imagine i am going to feel any regret having maybe the best guys possible feeling more or less dead on the same way i do about it. Its practically guaranteed, think about it- if it werent for them, I could have never heard anything about it in the first place…
And as if that wasn’t all, here comes the icing on the cake- the same guys who first blew the lid off the whole thing to begin with can likely identify the deeper issues as well, and therefore should know how to change it for the better instead of some shmuck making it worse out lack of insight and proper research… Winnn!
At this point for all we know, literally any alternative could be a better option. In the end, regardless of every little detail of everything about this, they seem to be here to really do something- anything about it, and I think we might consider ourselves lucky that something is being done here at all.
Oh! Doctor Korkorow? Yeah I feel ya, I couldn’t ever really get through his writing either, but I know of him, about him, his opinions, values, dedicated work et c, I have nothing but respect and gratitude for for the dude.
Piracy was never stealing, it was only copyright infringement.
Stealing is a crime that goes back to the 10 commandments, it’s old. When you steal something you take it from someone else, depriving them of it.
Copyright infringement is a newish crime where the government has granted a megacorporation a 120 year monopoly on the expression of an idea. If you infringe that copyright, they still have the original, and can keep selling copies of that original to everyone else, but they might miss out on the opportunity to make a sale to you. Obviously, that’s very different from stealing something.
The irony is, you pirating today has been shown to influence you buying it later on in a sale. And there’s a good argument to be made about your word of mouth praise helping their sales.
As every musician knows, exposure is always better than payment! This is why you shouldn’t offer payment to musicians at your wedding, since they’re getting great exposure already. /s
It’s really not that different. The main difference is the audience size. For an independent musician selling merchandise, it would be equally insulting to them to tell them that they will be repaid in exposure if they give you one for free.
Making a copy of something “to see if you’d enjoy it” or because it’s somehow great for their exposure is mental gymnastics to justify piracy. Let’s just call it intellectual property theft and stop beating around the bush.
Copying isn’t theft. You’re about 40 years late to this conversation and you’re starting from the taste of boots? You’re equating an instantly reproducible, finished product with a service; your analogy sucks.
The entire goal of my comment was to avoid mincing words. As somebody who has first hand experienced copyleft violation, it sure doesn’t feel different on the receiving end. I feel this very personal experience is equivocal to copyright infringement. I’m not licking any boots—thanks for that accusation.
It’s easy to excuse illicit behavior from your armchair by gaslighting with the choice of words, because after all, violating copyright is just sticking it to the man, right? In truth, I feel that my software was stolen for profit and just for me as the little man, there’s no other word that comes to my mind than “theft.”
You should write an open letter to hobbyists. It worked for Gates. If your software was “stolen for profit” and that didn’t result in more people trying it and buying, I have bad news: it didn’t seem like it was worth the money to the people who tried it. JRC does many studies on piracy and the data shows that total sales are not displaced by piracy volume, again and again. You can make the argument that this is only true for games and music (typically the subject of these studies) but this hardline attitude of it being the same as stealing sucks.
Lovely, so your rebuttal is that not only is my emotion wrong but my software sucks, too. I would suggest putting yourself in my shoes and envisioning what a shitty thing that is to say.
To offer a bit of background: the clone my game published itself on Google Play with ads removed. Aside from simply the confusion of a game with verbatim the same name, this further entices users to install it, because Google Play displays a label when an app contains ads.
What is the worth to a user? This is a terrific question, and I have spent years narrowing down the right valuation of ad content and in-app purchase pricing to remove ads. The game currently has 15M historical installs with fairly industry standard retention rates, so it can’t be completely off. But the thing is, that valuation will always be higher than 0.
So where does the steal come from? The cloned app only offered the ad-free experience long enough to gather enough installs, to then revert the change with a swapped out AdMob account number.
I think most of this has been offset by that change now as I’ve seen a similar growth return to my app. But those losses in the interim period are gone forever. Somebody took my code base, republished it in blatant violation of GPL, causing me to lose revenue. I feel robbed and your apathy genuinely perplexes me.
Yup. I’m about to suggest about half a dozen people to watch a movie on Netflix I pirated last night. Leave the World Behind. I highly reccomend you see this to understand my last statement here. I have “suggested” to a few dozen people to watch Hulu for Firefly.
They don’t get my money because I don’t give a flying fuck to support the extortion of the people this tyrrany that’s been running since Crowley and even longer. Looks free but there was never an end to slavery. It just stopped giving a shit about your color. To counter, goes over everyone’s head one way or another. Doesn’t matter. All life will die on this planet in less than a decade.
Biggest personal examples are Minecraft and FL Studio. I asked my parents to buy Minecraft for me after a week of pirating it, and I bought an FL Studio license when I could afford to, nearly a decade after I first used it. I don’t use it much, but it felt right.
Not exactly. The original translation from Hebrew was closer to “thou shall not kidnap,” arresting control of a person’s personal boundaries and will, not a violation of personal property, which didn’t really exist as a concept at the time.
An associate of mine defines stealing as, “taking (either by cloning or removing) something (either digital or physical) of which is not of your original possession”
If anyone has a rebuttal, please help.
Edit: What’s with the downvotes? I’m on your side.
Who cares what your associate uses as a definition, stealing / theft has long established definitions. You can just point and laugh and say that your associate doesn’t actually understand the words he/she is using.
You could say that you define agreeing as “thinking someone is completely wrong”, and that you agree with your associate.
It’s not so much a rebuttal, but ask if they think stealing has any relation to depriving another person of something. Imo, they have a correct, though extremely narrow, definition of stealing that doesn’t leave any nuance for comparing different kinds of stealing. Piracy, or as they would say ‘stealing digital media’ is not a kind of stealing that deprives another person of that thing, so clearly it’s somewhat different than stealing money or physical property.
If they aren’t willing to entertain that there are different kinds of stealing then they’re ignorant of reality and it might not be worth your time to try to change their mind.
Hi, welcome to the Technology community here on Lemmy! Discourse is not tolerated here, so please just tack on your endorsement of piracy and leave your civility at the door.
Whoa whoa, we don’t take kindly to people telling us that. Only a boot-licking, brain-dead, corporate shill wouldn’t outright endorse piracy. Take your nuance somewhere else, pal!
It’s because that’s not a common definition and it’s not even a good one. No normal person would call cloning stealing. Also, this completely misses lending, gifting, downloading a webpage or even renting. All of those would be stealing under this definition.
The war of semantics is about as intelligent as the tweet that went viral where someone criticized trains requiring tickets. “Why are you charging me to get on? You’re going that way anyway.”
It’s just a common tactic to draw attention to the weakness of the company and damage to the company’s interests, and it’s not because people can’t speak out at all. Although it is a bit biased to say this, my disgust towards these big companies will not change.
the way i see it, on big budget productions anyone who is relying on their paycheck to survive already got paid for their work, and the ones collecting royalties or sales percentages are rich enough that i couldnt care less. smaller independent studios or individual creators are the ones that i will always support, and in cases like itch.io games that are pwyw i will take the free download and figure out how much i will pay based on how much i like the game.
well, when reduced to those terms they so seem to be similar concepts but needs and luxuries are not exactly equivalent, not to mention the difference between a tangible possession vs an intangible “experience” which have wildly different relationships, transaction types, and even grey area over what is considered piracy.
also, claiming society has agreed on these exchanges being “right” isnt exactly accurate. society certainly tolerates these exchanges, but to what degree has changed significantly in recent years. theres a good debate over intellectual property ownership, and whether the original idea is more valuable than the creation of the work itself. certain aspects of filmmaking, for instance, are recognized as being more significant to the finished work than some other roles (directors, cinematographers, etc) but the fair compensation of other roles which make no less significant contributions to the relevance of any work is a subject on which society cannot make a fair judgment without knowing the details of every relationship.
in the end, i believe piracy is and should be viewed as an organic market force which should prompt corrections in order to minimize, but due to the nature of the transaction it will never go away.
Don’t you see the problem in your reasoning? When everyone would just pirate, nobody would be able to get paid. The money that pays the wages for the workers isn’t willed into existence, it ultimately comes from the consumer. Bigger studios pay their workers before the project is finished. That money comes from ongoing sales they produced before.
If I’m pirating, it means I either can’t afford the item, it’s too hard to get, or the ways to get it have been made overly complex and frustrating. This means literally no money was ever going in anyone’s pockets to begin with.
How am I preventing a sale that was never going to take place to begin with?
i would see your point if my reasoning were extended beyond where my boundaries are set. my position is based on a lot of factors and isnt a blanket statement that piracy is never immoral or that everyone should pirate all the time regardless of circumstances. if everyone were to pirate, it would certainly change my perspective on it as a broad practice, though not absolutely.
my argument, at least from the perspective of my original comment, was more of a reflection of my feelings that the least deserving are making the most profit off of any given large studio property, and i advocated piracy as a reaction to that given current studio structuring and the state of the entertainment market. and i understand that the profit of previous properties are directly responsible for the amount invested in subsequent works, but there is a certain degree of profitability which makes me feel like any argument about how piracy is hurting business is petty complaining over what is comparitively loose change for those that continue to be paid. i dont quite get a pang of empathy for a few thousand or even tens of thousands of instances of piracy for a property with profits in the hundres of millions considering how many instances were from people priced out anyway.
There is a third party that cares: those of us who pay subscriptions that finance the content that pirates steal. Due in part to rising rates of piracy, our subscription fees go up and/or production budgets go down. In turn, pirates should care, too, because then there’s less in quantity and quality to steal.
At least for piracy of streaming content, I believe what should become apparent to everyone is that convenience drove down piracy and greatly increased gains for everyone, and once corporations got greedy and started rolling out new platforms and fragmenting content between them, everything started going down the drain. Even without accounting for piracy, convenience was lost, multiple platforms mean more fees to get the same content that was originally in one platform, so less people willing to pay. Less income per platform drives down investment in content and drives up cancelations of ongoing projects. Less income than was originally observed when a single platform had condensed content means there’s greater incentive to drive ads and increases prices on all platforms, thus also potentially driving down users subscribing to said platforms.
None of that factors in piracy. If we do factor in piracy, it’s a fact that before fragmentation, subscription rates were high, and after fragmentation, there’s a lot more incentive to pirate content. In some instances, platforms shoot themselves in the foot even further by further charging rental fees or purchases of individual content, as well as region blocks and ads.
Piracy surely is a problem all throughout the history of streaming services (something that could still be argued as not actually something to worry about because those pirates were never going to be customers in the first place, and Netflix was still booming enough to incentivize other companies to roll out their own platforms), but it becomes a symptom of another problem later down the line due to lack of convenience. Even so, the current state of streaming platforms wouldn’t be much different if piracy wasn’t happening. People would simply consume less content due to budget constraints or due to being annoyed at lack of conveniences.
I personally hate depending on a platform that on a whim may decide to remove content I watch. There’s specific songs that have disappeared from my Spotify playlists for no good reason (a lot for geoblocking reasons), there’s shows that just get removed from Netflix, there’s all of game of thrones on prime which I couldn’t watch due to geoblocking and ended up having to pirate it even though I was paying for a platform which had the show. It’s a lot easier, a lot more convenient, to pirate. The content is yours, instantly, until you decide to delete it from your computer. I didn’t mind paying for Netflix for years, and since they incentivized account sharing, I shared the account with 2 other friends and we split the cost. It was super convenient. Now, I have a plex library nearing the 50tb mark with about 40 people watching content on it, everything automated and everyone can request whatever they want, and I simply ask for donations to buy more drives. It’s still more expensive than subscription services due to energy costs, donations not being enough for the equipment needed to store content and run services, and costs of internet, static ips, and domain names, but I’m not planning to stop as it’s overall more convenient, not just for me, but for 40 other people.
Do you give those 40 people back their donation money if you ever close your service? Since in the end, they never got any of the hardware or media they watched over your Plex for their money.
They’re called donations for a reason, it’s a contribution to keep the service growing (not going since I’m personally invested in keeping it going for as long as possible) and nobody is forced to give a dime if they don’t want to.
I’d have to give Amazon, HBO, Hulu, Disney, crunchyroll, etc. Donations as well since they’re contributing just as much, if not more than, Netflix to my collection now👀
Your frustrations with streaming services are very relatable and I completely agree that the space has become increasingly fragmented. I, too, have cut down on some subscriptions where I feel that I don’t get my money’s worth.
I believe your case is a perfect example of intellectual property theft: your 40 customers are paying you instead of paying the copyright holders. If you hadn’t offered them with this solution, it’s not unreasonable to think that they would be more willing to spend that money on purchasing it directly from the legitimate owner. Consequently, it can be argued that your shared library is incurring damages through missed revenue. By extension, even by an iota of a percentage, the service provider or the production studio will need to recoup that in the ways I’ve mentioned.
So while I completely understand your rationale for pirating, surely we can agree that in cases like these, there is some—no matter how little—degree of legitimacy to the assertion that piracy is detrimental to those of us who pay for our subscriptions.
We can agree about piracy being detrimental for sure! We just disagree on how detrimental it is vs corpo’s own actions.
Regarding the donations, it’s “give whatever you want, even 0, and inly when I say we need new gear”, so I wouldn’t say it’s lost revenue since barely anyone donates and it all goes directly to covering part of the cost of new hard drives. I’ve asked for donations twice so far, and none of the times have seen enough donations to cover for 100% of equipment expenses. Just thought I’d clarify on the “donations” thing :)
Piracy isn’t costing these companies any money if people never intended on giving them money in the first place. This argument almost implies that these companies have an inherent right to our money whether we want to spend it with them or not.
There will be a portion of pirates that never intended to spend money, but surely there will also be at least some pirates who deliberately stopped paying a subscription in favor of consuming content for free.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that corporations have some unalienable right to take our money; what I’m saying is that with the recent increase in digital piracy, it’s not unthinkable that it has had some, however small, financial impact on their bottom line.
I feel this is a very nuanced take and genuinely don’t understand how this community has taken offense to it.
You means the ones that endorse piracy because it helps sales instead cannibalize them? The people that abuse the system are outnumbered by the ones that treat it as a trial period.
“With only 10 reviews on Steam, saying a 400% sales increase is an eye-catcher for sure but not necessarily as huge a financial payoff in context as that percent shouts at us,” he explained. “Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but Steam reviews usually hover around roughly 2% to 5% of copies sold, so if we go off of 5% and it has 10 reviews, that’s around 200 copies sold. If a 400% increase occurred, then they’ve now sold close to 1,000 copies. That’s really awesome for an indie dev; a few thousand bucks is nothing to shy away from and can get them going on their next project. I do believe it gave them a boost, but this is very much a PR headline rather than an exponential overnight success.”
There was no need for a demonstration, the article went into detail explaining their numbers. There was no need to sensationalize the information. Thats bordering on fallacious arguments, well not bordering, it IS.
It’s based off of somewhat available statistics, some games release sales data and you can extrapolate and get a decent sample size. So not a wild guess in the slightest. Steam also has all that information internally, you can go verify the claim yourself if you want. But there’s no need since plenty of people have done it multiple times and found the averages based off tiers of sales.
And it’s moot, I can provide dozen more similar claims, there’s even been studies done.
"That’s really awesome for an indie dev; a few thousand bucks is nothing to shy away from and can get them going on their next project. I do believe it gave them a boost, but this is very much a PR headline rather than an exponential overnight success.”
“While they successfully moved the needle and made a PR splash, this is not a sustainable approach,” Laborde said. “It reinforces a mentality that art ‘should be free’ and ultimately devalues their work over time. This works as a one-time attention grabber and audience-expander, but I can’t recommend it long term.”
It did not increase sales. They couldn’t even attribute it to sales.
Such a significant increase in sales certainly sounds impressive, but for Nicholas Laborde, founder and executive producer of Raconteur Games, the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
In fact, encouraging piracy has been practiced for many years now, with a handful of devs embracing it as a valuable marketing tool. For Laborde, though, this is no longer a viable strategy.
There’s hyperlinks in the article in that section with other sources. I can’t hold your hand here, the piece is also a little op-ed too, of course the writer is going to have a bias. Especially when they imply they’ve used it or know its benefits previously.
The creater of Minecraft endorses piracy even, it’s in the one of the hyperlinks, only handholding I’ll give you here.
I think a compromise on copyright could be a good middle ground in future. In the same way that I’m happy to wait for a game to go on sale before I buy and play it, I’d be happy to wait until a movie or series enters the public domain so I can consume it without paying. Obviously not for hundreds of years, or 56 years. But if Netflix/HBO etc shows and movies became free to watch after 6-7 years, most piracy traffic could be easily captured by legal platforms that are more convenient and accessible to more viewers. I struggle to see how it would not further relegate piracy to a niche activity done by very few, or be bad for the content producers in any significant way
Ownership is compromised a bundle of rights. If it’s your bundle, you can split them up however you want, sell whatever kind of limited or unlimited licenses that can come up with, and this applies to real, personal, and intellectual property.
If it’s not theft, why does the greed and unfair practices of the industry matter? Why does there need to be any justification or excuse?
Should definitely have a right to repai; with any other property right you generally have a duty to maintain the access to your interest. I recently unlocked a bunch of premium features in my car. HD radio, comfort window roll down (rolls down 2" with a tap") auto tailgate close (had auto open, but not close, had to hit a button on the lid to close), auto side mirror tilt down in reverse, roll down windows from keyless entry, close tailgate from keyless entry.
If I understand the interface at all, it’s pretty openly accessible (if you have the right OBDii port adapter and software, which ironically you need to buy a license for). Code looked fairly straightforward, and by that I mean it looked like other computer code I’ve seen. Wonder what the original price was for those extras were from the dealership, probably over 10k.
I recently unlocked a bunch of premium features in my car. HD radio, comfort window roll down (rolls down 2" with a tap") auto tailgate close (had auto open, but not close, had to hit a button on the lid to close), auto side mirror tilt down in reverse, roll down windows from keyless entry, close tailgate from keyless entry.
Those “features” are all so pointless they’re bordering on absurd.
Thanks for reaffirming my bias that new cars suck.
It’s shite like that is the reason why I’m planning on staying in the south, so I can just daily my 56 bel air. All it really needs is a AC and I can always just take the heater out and take a normal ac unit apart and put it in. At this rate I’m wondering if that car is going to be more practical than modern cars purely because you don’t have to pay to open the window. Sure it may not have the speed as modern car but like even in my z3 I rarely ever go faster than 60mph.
I probably pay less for fuel and subscribed features in my electric car than you do for fuel in your '56 bel air. I definitely pay less for maintenance
Window opening, seat heating, auto tilting wing mirrors are all standard. My subscription covers games, streaming video, always connected internet, self driving features - so I get all the features of yours and more for the base price and just luxuries on subscription
The ones I want, yes for me, no for others. That’s one of the things I like about the company I bought from, the base model is fine, extras are available that are a genuine ongoing cost (like streaming audio and games) so a subscription is reasonable
Thanks for reaffirming my bias that new cars suck.
I am really concerned the next car I need to buy, which is probably 20 years off, is going to be this trend cranked to 11. With software and hardware I can find alternatives and hack my way around the “you paid for it, but we own it and can do whatever we want to it” mentality that tech companies push, but cars seem like a whole different world when it comes to the “you paid for it, but we own it” mentality.
If it’s not theft, why does the greed and unfair practices of the industry matter?
Because it tears at the fabric of Humanity. It’s a ‘death by a thousand cuts’.
Humanity constantly needing to be on guard and pushing back against being taken advantage of by people who want to charge them multiple times for the same thing in different ways, especially the ones that used to be free, over and over again.
Fighting that is pushing back against unfairness, which is one of the root beliefs of Humanity.
People are always on here arguing about whether pirating is stealing or not. I do think it’s stealing I just can’t bring myself to give a fuck about these large corporations. They have been stealing from the people for years.
What would you call it if you make a contract with a gardener, they make your entire garden and then you don’t pay them. Since it’s not stealing, where is the harm, right?
Yeah I really don’t care if I’m stealing in this context, I care if I’m stealing from independent content creators. Another thing is I know I can’t afford all the music I listen to, but I can afford to go to shows of my favorite artists. Piracy is often completely transparent of any content distribution strategies so I find it a great way to explore music.
I find the reaction to this and hbomberguy’s plagiarism video interesting. Both pirating and plagiarism are forms of infringement of intellectual property rights but one is considered ok and even just while the same voices condemn the other.
What makes ok against a faceless corporation but not ok against an independent creator? Should be wrong in both cases.
Edit: I want to acknowledge that plagiarizing a work and then selling it causes more harm than the simple act of one person pirating a piece a media
While both are infringement on intellectual property, the cardinal difference is that plagiarism is stealing someone else intellectual work and passing it off as your own product. With piracy the pirate doesn't claim they themselves made the game, nor do they resell the game for profit.
Pirated valheim, played 20 hours, bought the game.
Pirated baldurs gate 3 on early access, bought the game with only act 1, that’s how good it is.
Pirated Valhalla, played 5 hours, uninstalled that trash forever.
Started pirating streaming services when they told me that I can’t watch shit anymore because streaming service b and c took the shows, and now I have to pay two different streaming services if I want to keep watching.
We pay for three video streaming services plus Spotify plus Kobo’s monthly plan for audiobooks plus a monthly Microsoft tax for apps and cloud storage plus regular Steam purchases.
Anyway, I just got back into piracy after a 15-year hiatus due to the enshittification of video streaming. It reminds me of how cable TV got ridiculous back in the 90s and so people figured out how to hack the satellite feeds and make pirated VHS tapes to pass around. As Gaben has said, piracy is always a service problem.
I’m still happy with Spotify and Steam. I’m mostly okay with audiobooks, too. However, Amazon is fucking with that service too by making some books Audible-only. For example, you can get Books 2 and 3 of Tchaikovsky’s Children of Time books on various platforms, but not Book 1 because Book 1 is Audible-only! Am I going to reward Audible for that kind of malicious licensing? Haha, no, of course not.
Yes, I know. I said in my comment that I am on Kobo’s monthly audiobook plan. My comment about Amazon is that they are fucking with the market by not allowing other companies like Kobo to sell certain audiobooks.
Oh man, you have to listen to Andy Serkis read LOTR. Or the full cast version of World War Z. These are full audio performances. At the moment at least, some narrators are much better than automatic text to speech.
Just for curiosity, how do you find Kobos selection compared to Libby/Overdrive (or similar), if that’s an option in your area?
I really can’t be happier with either, for audiobooks or ebooks, considering their price (free, through your public library). Drawback being that selections are limited depending on your library (but you can be linked to several, and you may be eligible for several…here in Massachusetts, anybody in the state is eligible for BPL plus the regional networks and colleges (I.e. COFAN). And there are libraries in other states that accept patrons from anywhere. And you can be on multiple waitlists
But, the limiting selection or not being able to get instant access when you want to scratch that itch. I bought my wife and I kindles on Prime day. Those each came with free Kindle Unlimited months. And then there’s Prime Reading as a benefit of being a prime member.
But, while I like ebooks, my wife greatly prefers audiobooks (she’s at 140-something for the year, and rarely uses her kindle because the phone is way more convenient for audiobooks. That’s entirely through Libby, but she’s also counting the Harry Potter books on her friends Audible account that we’ve been listening to with the kids). And the audiobook selection on kindle unlimited is terrible and clunky…they really want to push you to Audible. Though I do really like being able to toggle between reading and book in the same app. But while I do enjoy the occasional sales (been on waitlist for months for “To sleep in a sea of stars”, and then found it on prime sale for 99¢ or something), I can’t justify a “subscription” to “own” an ebook.
Would love a service that had a good selection of ebooks and audiobooks, and compatible with kindle and IOS
I have never tried Libby or Overdrive, though one or both are an option in my area, I believe. I have this vague feeling of unease associated with only having a certain amount of time to listen to the book.
I chose Kobo because they are a smaller company competing with Amazon. They have a subscription where you pay about $15 per month to get 1 credit per month. Since most audiobooks are about $35, it’s pretty economical and I feel like I’m supporting the artists, too. Plus, seeing the new credit every month keeps me reading/listening to literature rather than just doomscrolling.
Kobo’s selection is very good. The very few times I haven’t been able to find a book on Kobo, it is because of some shitty Audible exclusivity problem. I mean, a person is almost compelled to pirate the book in that case, just to punish, in some miniscule way, Audible’s anti-consumer, anti-competetive practices.
That’s not a fair example, because 5 Euros has an intrinsic value. The theft here is of intellectual property. Here’s an analogy:
When you take a book from a book store without paying for it, you are stealing.
When you take a book from a book store without paying for it, make an exact replication of it and return the original, you are stealing intellectual property.
No reasonable person who says “information should be free” is also lumping in PII with that. It’s clear from the context in this thread that they are referring to media and knowledge (seeing how the post itself was about media and everyone has been discussing the justifiability of things like piracy amid the erosion of digital ownership), not about posting where people live and shit, so you bringing up personal information is at best a misunderstanding of what the saying “information should be free” actually means or at worst a logical fallacy and deliberate attempt to derail the conversation.
Also, just saying, personal information is currently free regardless of whether or not it should be or whether it’s legal or ethical. There are thousands of websites indexable by search engines that list people’s information for anyone to take, mostly from data breaches or otherwise scraped from the internet. It’s one of the main ways scammers get your contact info. There are even websites specifically dedicated to archiving doxxes, hosted in jurisdictions with no privacy laws so the victim can never get it removed. Search your own phone number or email, I bet you’ll find it listed somewhere possibly with a ton of your other information. Unlicensed movies are immediately struck off the internet as soon as they’re discovered though, funny how the law takes pirating movies more seriously than the posting of private information that can literally ruin people’s lives and make them a target of assault, stalking, vandalism, etc.
What is exactly “information” in this statement? Is a feature length movie “information” that needs to be shared freely? At 4K freely or will HD suffice for the meaning? Or is it just a plot summary? I’m in the camp that will argue just the latter.
How is creating a popular a novel any different than creating a popular object? Hundreds of hours of labor go into both and the creators are entitled to the full value of said labor.
Say you have an amazing story about the vacation you took last year, and told all your friends about it. You would justifiably be pissed if you later found out one of your friends was telling that story as if they had done it. It’s the same for someone who writes a book or any other form of media.
I bought a book, I lent it to my friend to read. That shouldn’t be different than copying it so we could both read it at the same time and talk about it.
It is completely different. You can’t loan one book to 300,000 friends. By doing that, you’re stealing income from the author who wrote the book. If you, instead, recommended the book to your friend and then they bought it, you both get to read it and the author still gets to make a living.
So if I share that book with 50 friends over the course of the year that’s not taking income, but if it copy it 50 times and share it in a day it is? I could also sell it to my friends or even rent it out to them, that’s all money in My pocket and legal, until I copy it instead.
No, it still is. You’re just physically limited to one person until they finish reading which limits the damage. You can’t physically share it to them in one day. Either way, the author isn’t getting paid for their work.
If you actually like the book, you should encourage people to pay for it so that the author can make more of what you like. The way you’re doing it, the author will have to get another job and won’t be able to write because they can’t pay their bills.
Edit (since OP edited): The point still stands. You can’t sell one book to multiple people and “renting” it is still taking money from the author even if the damage is physically limited to one item.
“renting” it is still taking money from the author even if the damage is physically limited to one item.
I do see where you’re coming from, but not necessarily. If my friend has zero interest in ever buying said book (or can’t afford to) and would never become a paying customer, there is no downside to sharing a copy. In fact, if they like the book enough, they may even become incentivized to buy themselves a copy or look into the author’s other work legitimately when they otherwise wouldn’t have.
This is how/why I pirate most games. I don’t have the type of pocket money to spend on games I don’t know I’ll love, so I pirate them first. If they’re good enough, I’ll buy the actual game on steam later. Spider-Man, Baldur’s Gate 3, Cassette Beasts, etc. are all games I plan to buy when I can afford to. And I can promise I never would have bought Slime Rancher 2 if I hadn’t pirated the first one at some point and enjoyed it.
I’m exactly the same way. The point is that you’re paying for the things you want to see more of. That’s where my prior comments about value matter in this context. If your friend wasn’t interested in purchasing and you share a copy, then there’s no difference on the value side other than, without your purchase, they wouldn’t be able to ingest that content. The risk of the opposite, though, is far greater when there are no physical limitations. Even in the library scenario someone mentioned earlier, the libraries are still paying for the initial purchase and the number of rentals inform their future purchases so the author still retains some value from that and their livelihood is still supported.
Mind you, I’m not against piracy. What I’m against is people pirating and then pretending that it’s not stealing. You may not be stealing a physical item but you’re still stealing value and income from the creator. What you’re doing at least returns value and income to creators whose work you enjoy. I feel like people here ignore that because they’re not personally affected by it.
I own a production company. We make everything from graphics, video, audio, 3D models, to custom per-project hardware builds. A few years ago, a small subset of my team decided we wanted to make a video game for iOS/Android. We released it at 99 cents. On Android, it was available for pirating on day 1 and we had planned for that inevitability so our player stats included a tag in our reporting that recognized that. We only got about 300,000 downloads worldwide on Android and, of those, about half were pirated plays. If 100,000 of those people had paid the 99 cents, that would have been life changing for us, at the time. We could have paid off the house we were using as an office at the time. We blew it off initially as “eh, they probably wouldn’t have paid for it anyways” or “they probably pirated it just because they could and tried it once and stopped playing” but, much to our surprise, the player population that played it the most (over 70,000 that played for at least 10 minutes every day) were the pirates. We even added cosmetic transactions after the fact to try and recoup some of those users and made packs for 99 cents. They kept playing but pirated the packs and used them for free. The game studio side of things died and we shut it down afterwards. If even half of the half of people who pirated and played the game daily had paid any one of the 99 cent costs, we could have funded more content or more games. I find it hard to believe that that many people hated our game but still played daily and didn’t even like it enough to pay slightly more than the cost of a stamp for our team’s work.
You know who pays for our work every time? Movie studios, production companies, video game developers. People shouldn’t be surprised when they’re feeding the very monster they’re complaining about and killing the alternatives and, worse yet, attempting to justify their theft as being moral. Just admit you’re stealing and let’s be adults and figure out a way to not have to keep the existing, shitty system afloat.
Either way the person is losing out, so the end result is the same so it shouldn’t matter in the end. I’m sorry you missed this point. If I can lend someone a book, there is no reason why the situation should be different if it’s digital or a copy. The artist isn’t missing out since they never had the intention of buying in the first place.
But hey, throw insults, that’ll get people on your side.
The end result is not the same. You can’t physically reproduce and share a book fast enough, for free to create the same dent that you can by digitally reproducing something ad infinitum. I didn’t miss the point. Again, you missed the point of the thread that you responded to. You didn’t respond to the main thread on this post, you responded to a comment that the authors of this content deserve the income and value of the media you’re ingesting.
You’re just a dishonest person. I don’t want you on my side. You don’t see the harm you’re causing and then attempt to justify it because you’re a bad person who doesn’t care if you’re hurting people and stealing their livelihood just so you can have something like an entitled child. On top of that, you keep pretending like I missed the point when you keep ignoring the point you responded to. Just go away.
Why are you assuming it’s being done for profit? I already said it was to share with my friends. You can’t take money from an artist if they never had the intention of buying in the first place.
If lending a book isn’t theft, sharing a digital copy isn’t either. Obviously making a business and profiting from it is entirely different, but that shouldn’t have to be specified.
No. My argument centers on people being paid for the work they create. It has nothing to do with profit. If anything, it has to do with revenue. Please keep up. If you don’t know what’s being discussed, stop interjecting yourself.
You responded to a comment that literally says that people deserve to be paid for the things that they create and that you’re stealing that. Learn to read.
There is a difference here between lending or resale of a physical product. Can you sell a second hand book? Typically, yes. Can you do mental gymnastics to draw a parallel to reselling a digital version? Evidently, also yes.
Thank you for saying this. I get downvoted here all the time for reminding people here that the creators of these works need the income from this to survive, pay their bills, and take care of their families. You may not be stealing the movie/book/music or whatever but you are stealing income from the creators. People here don’t like hearing that because it throws a wrench in their mental gymnastics they use to justify piracy.
The only justified piracy is the kind that results from media that is no longer legally available for purchase. In cases like this Sony situation, as this article points out, not only do customers know about this in advance but the industry has been vocally and incessantly warning people about this. Consumers who still have Sony and Adobe money for this stuff are just as much to blame for this. They weren’t willing to not have something on principle so they bought it anyway and these companies took that as a sign that this behavior is ok.
Next time, vote with your wallet and don’t buy their shit in the first place. Find ways to buy things that don’t use this shit and have some self-control and don’t buy the things that do. This whole Veruca Salt “but I want it, daddy” bullshit has put us in this situation and the situation where everything now is a subscription and everyone is harvesting our data. Keep giving them money and they’ll keep giving you more of this horseshit.
Piracy can only be considered to be depriving someone of some good if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pirate would have paid for access to the content had they not had a pirated copy available. Not only is this not true in the majority of cases, it’s also completely impossible to prove in 99.9% of the cases where it is true.
We aren’t talking about plagiarism, the friend would be telling the story about you still.
Spoken word narratives are such an integral part of culture, imagine if your grandpa told you to never repeat any of the stories of his childhood because “he owns the copywrite”. Insane. That’s what you are suggesting.
Ideas are not objects. Having good ideas shared incurs no loss to anybody, except imagined “lost potential value”.
I’m saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create. If a company asks to look iver some of your work before hiring you, says that they aren’t interested, and then you see them using that work afterwards i doubt you would be saying “well, information should be free”.
If you want to write stories, draw pictures, make movies or webshows and distribute then for free ti everyone, then that’s a noble initiative, but creatives depend on what they create for their livelyhood.
saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create.
Here I was thinking we all deserved a giant meteor.
The publisher example is one of a difference in power and you’re saying that IP is there to protect the author. Except this whole video is about how that doesn’t happen anymore. The law is written and litigated by those with power.
Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine—too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away.
That second dot should be when you make an identical copy of the book without taking it from the shelf. When I get an unlicensed copy of a book, the original is never out of place, not for a moment
Piracy was huge in Australia back when films were released at staggered times across the world. If it was a winter release in America, it would release six months later in the Australian winter. Try avoiding spoilers online for six months.
Piracy is less now because things are released everywhere at once and we aren’t harmed by a late release
Now when companies pull shit like deleting content you think you bought, they encourage people to go around them. Play Station can’t be trusted? Well there are piracy channels that cost only a VPN subscription (and only while you’re collecting media, not after, while watching and storing it) and people will be pushed to those
Only if you subsequently distribute it does that “theft” break the law.
Also money doesn’t actually have intrinsic value. It’s just fancy paper. Things like food and shelter and clothing, and the tools and materials with which to make them, that’s what intrinsic value is.
Making a copy without the copyright is against the law, no matter which way you slice it. Egregious large-scale infringement is usually prosecuted, whereas it’s otherwise settled civilly. Nevertheless, both constitute copyright infringement.
Indeed I had the terms confused: it’s incorrect to say fiat currency has intrinsic value; it has instrumental value.
If what you care about is the abstract idea that the idea of something can be owned, whether the book is in the library or in my pocket doesn’t change the fact that the idea of the book is by the author. I can move the book wherever - across even national borders if I want to - and that “intrinsic value” doesn’t change.
Stealing involves depriving the original owner of access or possession of the item. Duplication is not stealing because the item being duplicated is not taken away.
Even if you consider it stealing, then what defense do you have for the people who paid the price that would supposedly allow them to have it permanently and suddenly it still gets taken away? That’s not stealing? Even if we accepted that piracy by people who didn’t pay is theft, why should people who already paid for the media not be able to access it from somewhere else if their original access is denied?
There is more nuance to it than that. The copyright holder still owns whichever copies are made, whether or not they are made with their permission. One could argue that by making a duplicate, you have taken possession of a copy without consent from its owner.
As for your other example about a copyright owner revoking access; this is completely subject to the terms of sale of that item. Without details of the license agreement it’s impossible to say if the terms were breached.
There is more nuance to it than that. The copyright holder still owns whichever copies are made, whether or not they are made with their permission. One could argue that by making a duplicate, you have taken possession of a copy without consent from its owner.
That is an extremely recent construct largely promoted by the big media companies themselves. For the vast majority of human history, intellectual property was not a thing and works could be freely copied, modified, redistributed, etc and it was considered normal. When copyright first came into effect, it was for a fixed period that was relatively short, after which anyone could use the work however they wanted. That was the original intent of copyright, which was only to give artists an exclusive period to profit from their work without competition, not exclusive rights for all eternity. Disney was the one that lobbied for copyright terms to be extended, then extended again, then again, and critically, extended to include the life of the “person” that created it, but since corporations are also “persons” under the law and just so happen to not have bodies that can die, effectively corporate media is copyrighted forever.
Also, those media companies claim to be such big proponents of intellectual property protection, they would never, ever do the exact same goddamn thing to independent artists, with the only difference being that they actually profit from it when the vast majority of “piracy” is for personal use, and that they know for a fact that independent artists rarely have the resources or time to actually do anything about it, right? Riiiiiiight?
If anything, shouldn’t small independent artists get more protection under the law if copyright was really meant to benefit artists and safeguard the creative process like it claims it does? The FBI can arrest and jail you for pirating a movie, but when a corporation commits the same crime there isn’t even a whiff of consequences. At this point we really ought to ask what the real purpose of copyright is after all the changes made to it and who it’s actually meant to protect.
As for your other example about a copyright owner revoking access; this is completely subject to the terms of sale of that item. Without details of the license agreement it’s impossible to say if the terms were breached.
Gee, it almost sounds like the laws regarding what they can and can’t put in those terms of sale are nowhere close to fair and were specifically written by the giant media holding companies to exclusively benefit them and screw over the consumer! Laws and regulations can’t possibly be immoral and corrupt right?
I mean, at the low level, sure. “Bart Simpson”, the concept, was created by a person. Bart Simpson, the character, was developed and built as a collaborative effort of several people spanning the course of decades, and continues to be developed by teams of people.
The copyright shouldn’t belong to an individual. The rights to the intellectual property need to be protected, but so too do the rights of everyone who contributed to building it.
Unfortunately, corporations are really the closest proxy we really have.
Thats what’s really exciting about new media, and small time collaborators, and niche content. HomeStar Runner doesn’t belong to Disney, or Fox, or Viacom. He belongs to the small group of people who created him and his friends. The same could be said for Kurzgesagt, or The Lockpicking Lawyer, or both the Nostalgia and Angry Video Game nerds.
Unfortunately, corporations are really the closest proxy we really have.
[citation needed]
The closest thing we have to “representation proxy to a community of people who helped author a thing” is an author’s guild, for example. And things like the Writers’ Guild already exist, I’m sure there’s a Drawers’ Guild too. Not as close, but more solidly defined, would be a union, oh guess what? We have those, too.
In comparison, a “corporation” has a whole lotta fat.
I think my point is getting lost in the one pro-corporate part of it…the corporation is responsible for nearly all of the risk, and that investment is what ultimately creates the content. They absolutely do deserve some stake in its IP, just not necessarily nearly as much as they currently have.
This is why I love new media. Low enough startup costs that small individuals and small groups could easily creat and own their own content and IP. It’s really the big investments that complicate everything.
It used to be necessary to sell your soul to the establishment to get your content in front of a large audience, but it’s not anymore.
And don’t get me wrong, it’s only in this specific context and conversation that I would call Google the good guys, or at least the lesser of two evils. Obviously context matters.
I think my point is getting lost in the one pro-corporate part of it…the corporation is responsible for nearly all of the risk, and that investment is what ultimately creates the content. They absolutely do deserve some stake in its IP, just not necessarily nearly as much as they currently have.
No and no.
the corporation is responsible for the risk
The creators take more of a risk by going with a corporation. Corporations have hella money, they can afford to spend some on [checks notes] living wages.
I’m not saying the creators don’t. You’re saying the people who bankroll it don’t. I say that’s a bit unfair.
Yeah, the creatives don’t get reimbursed nearly as much as the (top) talent, and them not as much as the owner class. That’s a tale as old as time. I don’t think that copyright is really the demon you’re making out to be here though. It’s also worth noting that only the top talent really gets the good money. Most of the cast is also pretty unequally paid. That goes to the creative side as well…for every Spielberg or Tarentino or Vince Gilligan there are tens of hundreds of very skilled writers not getting their fair shake.
And I think we’re mostly in agreement, I just think that whoever bankrolls should get a fair share of the profits. I think that’s a fair take. The problem isn’t the copyrights, it’s that the bankrollers are getting way more than a fair share.
And again this is the problem new media solves. You don’t need to bend to the studios to get your content in front of a big audience…and even better, you can get your content in front of a niche audience, too, which is something the studios couldn’t really do very well. They used to be the roadblock and you had to play by their rules, and that’s no longer the case.
The corporations exist to extract as much ownership as possible from the creative class, it is not a proxy ownership by those doing the collaborative work. See the recent WGA strike as an example. Unions and co-ops are the proxies, not corporations.
I absolutely agree with you that the arguments you put forward is the way it should be. However, currently, as we see here in the case of Sony, there is a perceived unfairness in what consumers expect from a license agreement and what is in fact in them.
Time will tell if our judicial system acknowledges that it’s reasonable to assume that if you are offered a digital good “to buy” that it will remain available ad infinitum and hence Sony held to be liable.
In a strict legal sense I think you are right. There is some good rationale for copyright, going all the way back to the 1700s, I think. Most artists pretty much need copyright in order to survive. Also, yes, companies should have the ability to freely negotiate contracts, and to have legal protection against someone breaking those contracts. And, yes, these slogans about piracy not being stealing are legally unsophisticated and facile. That said, you can probably sense the “however” coming…
HOWEVER, the context is important. All law is based on an implied social context. When companies engage in practices that poison the market, they break the implied social contract underlying the laws that protect them. The result is retaliatory behavior by consumers. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about media and games or food prices. People will steal when they feel the law, as applied in a particular social context, is no longer fair. It isn’t morally right, but it isn’t exactly wrong either. It’s more of an inherent market mechanism to curtail shitty corporate behaviour, and that’s why governments tend not to interfere too much with individual downloading.
When there is no easy way for consumers to fight back, that’s when governments need to get involved. Ridiculously high drug prices being a good example.
By duplicating, you’re depriving the company to the exclusive right to copy that thing. But I don’t think stealing some nebulous concept of a monopoly like that is wrong.
Taking a product from the shop without paying and returning the item later is still stealing.
There was a story on Reddit where man stole a few grands of $ in products over a few years at his local grocery shop, and one day when he wanted to return what he stole he was arrested on site.
The copyright holder should never have ownership of my copy. If I purchase it it should be mine to use. The shop should not be allowed to come to my house and take it away.
The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept to grasp. If it helps in understanding, try replacing “copy” with “product” and “copyright holder” with “store.”
The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you
Right, I should own my copy. I have purchased this copy and it’s mine now. It’s bullshit for a store to say “now that we no longer sell the thing your purchased previously you’re not allowed to own it anymore.”
Ownership is one condition that a copyright holder might offer, but that’s not guaranteed. Video rental shops would allow unlimited consumption for a limited time period, for example. We can argue all day about the differences and what consumers want versus the conditions under which content producers currently operate. I am personally also extremely frustrated by that, and I vote with my wallet: I do not subscribe to services that I find too restrictive or too expensive.
Where I am in the minority, however, is my position that copyright infringement is illegal, unethical and can in any way be legitimized.
That’s probably going into semantics and what the law says, it’s different for every country.
What’s happening with games and softwares are cracks and repacking, it’s manipulating few parts of the original product to provide partial or sometimes full functionality. This is an infringement of intellectual property and not a counterfeit.
For podcasts, music and movies it’s usually a rip, out of vinyls, lossless or a high definition source. These are copies, not manipulated in any way.
Copyright doesn’t explicitly say anything about distribution. Distribution is usually used to determine the scale of the crime and calculating incurred damages.
IMHO it does contradict what you say. Intention doesn’t matter. If you copy currency , you either have to make apparent its fake currency or you are might get in trouble with law. Intention, aka motive is hard to prove and if proven doesn’t make it legal to copy official currency.
Prostitutes can’t have a romantic life unless they’re paid to do so? This is such a bizarre metaphor, let’s see where it leads 🍿
Also: if there’s no consent it’s not steeling, it is rape. It’s really strange to think how because of someone’s profession we recontextualize the act as steeling and not rape. Ie it’s like saying one is steeling from prostitutes while not addressing the fucking rape. This is your brain on Milton Friedman economics - where your body is capital and it has a price.
Yes, that’s the definition of a service. Just not sure what your point is about talking about prostitutes as if one was steeling a service when they get raped. Steeling from creatives is rape or something?
Stealing is the wrong word for it though as software piracy does not deprive the owner of the thing copied.
There are arguments that it is nett good even as it gets people into an author, singer, game company, while they cannot afford it and they may become a good customer for that author, singer, game company later in life
This new problem where companies revoke your licence to content is the industry shooting itself in the foot so I don’t care about the ethics of it, if they don’t sell me a product for me to own like I own a paper book, I’ll take a copy without licence
How is the owner not deprived of your copy? Have you given it back to them? It’s an odd thing to mince over words like “theft” and “stealing.” If it’s the words that bother you, perhaps consider this: should it be permissible to consume a digital good without consent of the copyright holder?
If the copyright holder wants more exposure, that is up to them to decide. It’s absolutely unreasonable to do so on their behalf and claim it’s somehow doing them a favor. With that logic, any form of theft can be legitimized.
The “taking a physical object” analogy doesn’t even give us anything useful.
Most stores of perishable goods don’t want to hold onto their stock; they want to give it away, ideally in a way that makes them money. In many countries, they will even give away the last excess to homeless people that would not reasonably be able to afford it.
If there’s one orange seller in a town that’s put effort into a supply train to bring oranges there, but someone has shared a magic spell that lets them xerox oranges off the shelf, then that orange seller never gets paid, and has no livelihood; it doesn’t help him that he still has all of the oranges he brought to market, he’s not going to eat them all himself.
I expect the morally deprived will answer “Not my problem.” Yet, it’s going to be an issue for them when they try to run their own business.
Normally people pay to see the circus, but you could just sneak in though. It’s not exactly stalling, so what do you call that? The circus is still there, but you didn’t pay for it.
If lots of people start doing that, the circus probably won’t have enough money to keep on performing. Maybe they’ll get rid of the more expensive bits and just keep the cheaper ones in the future.
That’s a bad analogy because there’s finite space for people to watch the circus, meaning that seating for the show they conforms to fire codes, etc. is finite.
It’s also a bad analogy because someone who sneaks into a circus trespassing, not stealing.
I agree that the analogy isn’t perfect. As you pointed out, people sneaking in are taking space from people who would be willing pay for the service.
If you could somehow sneak into Netflix and take some of their bandwidth or their ability to provide the service to paying customers, then the analogy would work. In reality though, people pirate Netflix shows and movies by torrenting, and that has no impact on Netflix’s bandwidth.
The way I see it, circus and digital videos are a service. You are supposed to pay for both, but you can easily see both of them for free. Comparing these two with stealing just doesn’t work IMO.
You could also compare it with watching a football match from the other side of the fence. Although, in reality, you wouldn’t get a very good view of the game, whereas torrenting movies gives you a great view. Interestingly, the football example doesn’t involve trespassing, but you still get to enjoy a part of the service. All analogies break at some point.
Because the issue at hand is more like if you bought tickets to the circus, but when you went to go see it you were told the circus isn’t there anymore and you don’t get a refund.
That I would definately call stealing, and if I wanted to see the circus the next time it was in town I would absolutely sneak in.
A more honest analogy for the situation was that there are very few incidents of circuses doing that and now people demand it’s morally justified to get free entrance to every circus, concert, fair, museum, …
It’s like you bought a circus membership to watch the circus at a particular venue as many times as you want. You watched the circus a few dozen times, then one day the circus announces they won’t be going to that venue anymore and you can’t watch it anymore.
This is where the analogy breaks down, because the circus requires people and an area to operate in. Digital movies and TV shows should just require my device to watch it on.
To strain the metaphor further: The Circus leaving the venue isn’t leaving town, they’re just moving across the street. But your tickets are only valid for the old venue. Do you expect people to purchase new tickets or just sneak in?
There’s also the people who purchased a lifetime membership to the circus and then were told the next day “The circus will no longer be going to that venue anymore after the end of the month.”
The expectation is that I purchased this media and can watch it as much as I want, whenever I want, for the rest of my life. When companies say “Lol, no. Fine print” reasonable people aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and say “You got me, I guess I’ll purchase more things.” They’ll say “screw that, I can get it for free and keep it forever, what service are you providing that’s better?”
Without details of the hypothetical scenario made here, we cannot know if that’s the case. If the ticket purchaser was unable to see the circus because their flight home was delayed, the circus has no obligation to refund them. If attendance of “Circus 2” is offered to the purchaser due to the cancellation of “Circus 1” under the conditions of the original ticket purchase, then it’s unlikely to be an unfair contact.
There are all kinds of details missing here that we can freely speculate about.
What would you call it if you buy a piece of art and hang it on your wall, then a couple months later the company that sold you the art comes into your home, takes the art away, and says you don’t own it anymore?
If enough companies do that people are going to stop paying for art.
People are also “buying” products that are being taken away from them by the license holders of the purchased work. The article explains this with several examples in different markets.
Because the majority of people do not pirate because they truly believe they are doing something morally good. That’s laughable.
If it really was about going against the licensing schemes these people would all buy on GoG. Instead they rather pirate the games and use Steam for the rest.
The majority of people pirates stuff because they feel entitled to it and are greedy and because it works and is easy to do. They do not respect those who put the work into the music or the movies or the games.
What makes me so angry about it is the hypocrisy. Since these are often the same people who are virtue signalling about how capitalism is bad since employers are too greedy to pay good wages.
Yeah i agree, that most people do not pirate because of morality, but because pirating is more convenient meanwhile being way cheaper, you said it yourself. I do not watch a whole lot of movies or shows, but for example if i could buy Arcane, I would, but instead I can only watch it if I buy a Netflix subscription. I dont like this arbitrary limitation to be honest, you could buy movies back in the day.
For games, it is the case, because steam is actually a good service. People got what they wanted from Baldurs Gate 3 plus it is on a service which gives you tons of features. For example netflix on the other hand just limits how you consume content instead of enabling you other features.
One more thing, when Netflix was the only streaming service, people actually paid for it. Now that it is worse, pricier and there are more competing streaming services, it is way more convenient to pirate.
If that was a normal purchase, then that’s clearly theft.
If it was art leasing, there’s probably a long contract with details about a situation like this. No matter what the contract says, the local law might still disagree with that, so it can get complicated. The art company might be violating their own contract, although it is unlikely. The company might be within the rights outlined in the contract, but they might still be breaking the law. You need a lawyer to figure it out.
Well it was sure we fuck presented as a normal purchase. Adding legal text to where you sign the cheque saying “you may come to my house and take this away at any time” doesn’t make it less bullshit.
More people should let the service provider know that their contract sucks and that they refuse to pay for the service under the proposed conditions. Most people don’t even read the contract, so I don’t think the situation is going to improve any time soon.
That company is also going to show you the agreement you signed that says they can do that, which is the current situation with digital goods. People are still buying them.
Add comment