1y ago

Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”

pluralistic.net Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” (08 Dec 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ @lemmy.dbzer0.com

pluralistic.net /2023/12/08/playstationed/

570 45

Technology @lemmy.ml

If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing - Pluralistic

pluralistic.net /2023/12/08/playstationed/

132 4

215 comments

I used to have a moral objection to piracy, I thought that if a piece of media is good enough that I enjoy it then the people that made it deserve to be paid for their work.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that even if I do pay for something there is no guarantee that the people that worked on it will get their fair share and paying for media is increasingly a worse user experience than piracy.
- I feel similarly but one of those choices is guaranteed not to help the people you'd like to see helped
  
  I'm not so sure that's true. What if normalizing and removing friction from piracy gets to the point where the streaming services have to react by providing better services and better payouts?
- Nor are you likely to get what you paid for
  
  Or to keep it
- On that note, the only relatively convenient exception I know of is Bandcamp Fridays. They're specific days where Bandcamp doesn't take any share of purchases.
  I wish this were a more common practice, and I wish I could allocate my Netflix/HBO/prime/etc. subscription dollars to support specific titles. Instead, shows get cancelled because people didn't stream it enough on day 1. I want a s2 of Tales From the Loop, but it's still in limbo with no way for fans to show support.
  
  I felt like I was the only one that liked Tales From The Loop.
- It absolutely depends. I'm an indie game developer. I've worked at various studios as an employee, contractor, and as an owner. Depending on the setup if you pay for a game I worked on I could potentially get a bonus, I could see that money directly as profits, or I could see nothing at all. Sometimes just continued survival of the studio in working at is reason enough for me to encourage people to buy the game but sometimes I've not liked where I've worked and encouraged people to pirate from a studio that rips off its employees.
  So really, the best bet is to ask. The best way to support a game developer is to ask how to send the money directly and buy the game on itch.io if available.
  
  In fairness, games are still something I'm willing to pay for and books. I think probably because Kindle and Steam are better user experiences than pirating those.

Piracy isn't stealing anyway. You're not removing the data from the original owner.
- But the original creation cost time and money, which you're not reimbursing the creator for. The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn't cost anything.
  It's like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it's not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn't even happen if everyone acted like this, or the organizers would have to pay for it all by themselves.
  If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you "bought". Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
  
  Would you call it Piracy if I lend a bluray from a friend? I didn't pay for it and yet I've watched it.
  
  The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.
  under what ethical system?
  
  It’s like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it’s not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn’t even happen if everyone acted like this
  That's a systemic problem, something I wouldn't personally care about. The "system" is just so horribly screwed up and skewed against us that I just no longer care if it works or not.
  If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you “bought”. Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
  This rubs me the wrong way too, yes. Though I'm really beyond moral justifications, I just stopped caring.
- How do you feel about jumping the turnstile at a train station?
  
  Counter question: Do you think that running libraries is theft?
  
  Amoral at worst. Public transportation shouldn't have a fee at use. Tax the rich, invest in transport
  
  Depends on the circumstances I guess, but no matter how I feel about it people jumping the turnstile aren't stealing the train.
  
  I dunno, I mean are the train company allowed to take my money and then go "sorry we fell out with the fuel company so we're just gonna keep your money and not take you to your destination. Soz babe x"
  
  You wouldn't download a train?
  
  In that case you're actually using a limited resource: space on a train. And by occupying it you're preventing someone else from using it (assuming a full train). Copying media doesn't cost any resources (ignoring the tiny amounts of electricity) or interfere with anyone else's ability to use that resource.
  They don't compare.
  
  I don't see how that compares. Trains need human labour and lots of resources to function.

This post seems to be largely about the value of product ownership and the harm that DRM brings to the end user, and does a great job at making that point. However, the title seems to have caused a different discussion to spawn in the comments about whether piracy of digital content is justified. This is just a casual reminder to read the article before replying in the comments.
- This is just a casual reminder to read the article before replying in the comments.
  This should anyway be a sticky to every post about third party content.

If you can own nothing, then nothing is theft.
- YOU can't own anything, Big Corp however do own a lot 😉
- You can own it though.
  Physical media still exists.
  
  which also has DRM on it

IP in general is a very difficult idea to support. In theory, it's supposed to reward innovation, but in practice it results in stagnation and price gouging.

This shit again? have people never heard of lending? the thing you get to use for a short duration at a fraction of the cost to buy it outright or create it yourself? The thing you don't actually own and have to give it back? renting?
is this some kind of alternate universe where people think they own every movie or game simply by paying $$. is this kindergarten mathematics? and this is coming from people who can't code for shit and don't realize the scale of things bts.
Get a physical copy that doesn't require internet activation then, assholes.
but but but… that requires actual physical movement and getting out of my basement. �_
- Get a physical copy that doesn’t require internet activation then, assholes.
  I think the point was, it is increasingly hard to find such products.
  And even once you think you've bought such product, DRM makes sure it's still not really yours.
  
  They where using words like "purchasing", and asking just as much for the digital files as for the DVD's. If they where even available.
  So it makes sense people where seeing it as "owning". And then looking puzzled when Sony decided to break into their own devices and delete files..
  I have family that FINALLY see that DRM is a thing in their lives, and they DO NOT like it.
  
  It being increasingly difficult to do that doesn't change the meaning of the word stealing, it just changes whether or not you think it's morally acceptable to do
- Get a physical copy that doesn’t require internet activation then, assholes.
  Just a little bit closer, you're almost getting the point!
- Hi @satan@r.nf, please remember Beehaw's primary founding principal when commenting here: Be(e) Nice.
  It is possible to disagree with someone without using abusive language. If you think they are wrong, attack their arguments (civilly), not the person.
- Or I can pay nothing and get a plain video file that I can do anything I want with, and play on any device without needing a player. And as long as I keep that file backed up somewhere, I'll always have a copy of it.
  The TV business is struggling to learn the lesson the music industry learned a long time ago.
  
  And you provide what return, besides snark
- Get a physical copy that doesn't require internet activation then
  I cannot speak about movies. But physical games now are also just "usage licenses", they are encrypted and if the console is connected to the internet at any momento, your rights to play the game may be revoked (just like digital games or, in this case, digital TV series)

Granted, I only skimmed through the article, and overall I agree with, but that headline is a nonsensical statement. This coming from someone who pirates every movie and show that isn't on Disney+. Whether you own, rent, or lend, you still had to pay for access to it. Piracy circumvents that. I don't own the rental car. If I drove off with it, is that not stealing?
There are plenty of ways to justify piracy. There's a few good reasons listed in the article. I do it because switching between a dozen streaming services is too inconvenient. But even putting morality aside, that headline is just plain dumb, it's illogical.
Edited in case this came on too harsh
- Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.
  But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.
  Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).
  Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. It's a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.
  You can't define "theft" untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders can't even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?
  
  Oh I agree with the article as I already stated in my previous comment, and I hope people read it, because my only argument really is that it has a poor headline. The headline says that taking media that you wouldn't have owned isn't piracy (which is nonsense), the article says that piracy is justified when ownership is as nebulous as it often is with a lot of digital media these days (which I agree with).
- The car goes away when you drive it off. Replacing the car would take power to run multiple assembly and formation machines, and resources for each part.
  When you download a movie, it doesn't go anywhere, you simply use a miniscule amount of power to make a copy.
  No one has lost anything and the product is still available where it was. Copying is not theft. When you steal, you leave one less left.
  How many lemmy commenters can make the same false equivalence analogy in one week?
  
  I know, I know, I figured someone was going to bring this up, and personally that's part of the reason I justify my own piracy (cause I'm broke and movie studios aren't), but two things:
  The cost of creating, copying, and distributing a good isn't strictly relevant to the transaction of said good. If the original owner doesn't want me to have access to a good without paying for it, and I take it anyway, that's stealing. The labor and capital required to create, copy, and distribute that good isn't relevant to that transaction, only my moral justification for stealing it anyway. Which is fine, imo, just be honest with yourself. You're stealing, and it's justified. Stick it to the man
  Assuming that it is relevant, making digital media isn't free. I can get away with piracy only because there's enough people paying for the media to make it worth it for the studio. At least one other commenter pointed this out, but if everyone pirated, who would be making movies and video games? So to keep the system going, imo, only pirate if you weren't going to buy it anyway - piracy or nothin.
  
  If everyone who would buy a digital product pirates it instead, then it's clear that they have been harmed by the piracy. This whole "own" vs "rent" vs etc argument is completely tangental as is the definition of "steal", unless pedantry is the purpose of this post. It's clear that piracy can be harmful.
  "But they lost nothing physical" is an extremely shallow argument that ignores that not everything with value is physical. If I copy your idea as-is and make a product out of it before you, you can always come up with new ideas, right? It's not like you lost something physical. Clearly you haven't been harmed, right?
  If someone who wouldn't purchase a digital product pirates it, then it's less obvious whether the creator got harmed by it. Also, to be clear, the discussion over digital ownership is still important.

If it's not theft then it's fraud I guess

Some are more equal than others

215 comments