preach

You've just let the world know you're pirating though

Because for some piracy isn't simply about being a cheapskate but also about activism

So true! Here, have some internet points and validation!

I don’t want some validation, internet points, 2 minutes of fame to sound / look cool.

No, you just need everyone to know you don't care about sounding/looking cool to sound/look cool. Totally different.

"A smart person would pirate quietly without letting the world know" While posting "I do it & I don't want some validation..."

They are screaming because they rather pay for convenience, but that is not how it works.

You just said admitted to pirating, you little muppet.

Now for most sources of media it's more ethical to pirate their content than obtain it legitimately.

Though granted, if you want to hurt the company more than by pirating their content, you can by not pirating their content.

(Sadly, as seen with The Wizard Game, people are not so motivated to walk away from their beloved franchises. So ⛵️🏴‍☠️🦜⚔️🌊)

While I do have no morals when it comes to copying smb elses hard work(I am a programmer, basically my job) I Support games when they are good. Movies are rarely any good but the cinema isn't as expensive for me anymore than when I was a student.

And most important you can't refund bad movies in the cinema.

I still think it should be illegal to sell someone elses work though. This also means profiting from it when you use it in your product/development environment.

TL;DR:

Piracy can be a means of demonstration to show the flaws in copyright. Which obviously needs to be public.

I think some still feel some level of guilt about it and naturally, whether consciously or subconsciously, rationalize it with ideas like this. I guess the progression from that is posting about it to show that “yes I pirate, but I’m not a bad person because rationalization”.

You’re so right! Here have an internet point.

Especially when the statement makes no sense

if you create an argument for the moral implications of piracy then you aren’t a REAL pirate (how do you define that, even?)

YARRRR! I’m not a wannabe. I’m an irate pirate!

The same reason that a lot of crosswalks have fake buttons. So you feel like you have control.

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.

The downvotes are still counted, just not displayed. You can re-enable it via browser extensions.

But all of those are excuses?

You're only partly right. You example services. Of course it is not possible to own services. Piracy is only applicable to products. The point of the Twitter guy is, that companies intentionally stop selling their software etc. as products to sell you the same thing as a service, so that you cannot own it.

what do you mean trying to justify? discussion of shitty anti consumer tactics in digital media is perfectly valid

I was gonna say the same thing but then I saw the 2200-something upvotes.

This community is doomed to be exactly like the low effort meme sub r/piracy if people keep upvoting this lazy content.

The entire issue with these arguments, though, is that the opposition parties just answer those claims with “then you shouldn’t be ingesting that content”. If you aren’t willing to pay for it, then you don’t have the right to view/listen/stream it. Free market a-holes will always, correctly, bring up that the market works by putting out products and people paying for what they support and not paying for what they don’t support. The problem is that you can’t pick and choose which pieces or parts you support or don’t and there’s no way to give companies that type of feedback because they don’t care.

I've never understood the "piracy is morally acceptable" argument, personally. Best I can agree with is that piracy is not morally bad in some cases. Especially since me pirating something has no impact if I never would have paid for it in the first place. But it can often times be morally wrong (people who refuse to buy games from indie studios despite having the money to do so would usually fall into this category imo), and I can't imagine any scenario outside of the preservation of media where it's actually morally good to pirate things.

Like, I'm all for people not buying things that they don't support. And I feel no sympathy for large companies that make more money in a day than I'll make in a lifetime losing out on sales. But when did it become my right to play Hogwarts Legacy or watch a show without paying for it?

Here's my justification:

I paid for a product. I'm getting that product, by hook or by crook.

This is a pretty sorry justification. Just cut the shit and steak what you want, don't blow smoke up our ass about segmentation.

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.

I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.

Of course it isn't. Copyright laws were written by the same kind of people who decided that corporations gets to "people."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Piracy is always stealing. Y'all can keep trying to spin it if it helps, but its pure copium.

Very cool, didn't know we can do that!

As an artificial intelligence, I don't have personal opinions or feelings. However, I can provide an analysis of the argument. This assertion appears to be examining the complex relationship between ownership, copyright, and piracy. While it's true that purchasing certain types of media doesn't confer full ownership rights in the traditional sense (you cannot replicate and distribute a DVD you bought, for instance), it doesn't necessarily justify piracy. From a legal perspective, piracy is considered a form of theft as it involves the unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material. The argument could be seen as an attempt to redefine or question these understandings, but that doesn't necessarily change how they're treated by the law.

It is called the Akashic records.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

What.cd was(kinda) my modern day library of Alexandria for a short while.

If they do that how will they pay the artists millions of dollars.. And how will they buy their latest private jet or yacht or whatever.

The mental gymnastics are in response to copyright holders' gymnastics. They remove content, relocate it, put it behind tiered subscriptions, or sometimes effectively delete it from all legal avenues after owners/subscribers paid for it. So if paying for a subscription isn't owning it, as described in Amazon's fine print for example, then what do you do? It's a long-term rental subject to removal upon any licensing transfers. Sure, we get greedy once set up, but if legal options don't actually offer you any legal ownership due to legal gymnastics, then yeah, I'll do the mental gymnastics right back at them.

Not judging you for your reasons, but you don't speak for everyone so calm down with the "we" pronoun.

There's people on both sides of the scale here.

I used to pirate stuff because I couldn't afford it or because I prioritized spending my money elsewhere since I could get stuff for free. Then as I got a job, I could afford to pay for lots of things and legal options became more convenient than piracy, so I just stopped pirating.

Now I'm back on the ship because pirating has become more convenient than subscribing to a bunch of different fragnented and anti-consumer services just to access a handful of content.

Some people just want shit for free (which is ok, been there), some others value service and convenience first and foremost.

Seriously I don’t understand all the mental gymnastics on an anonymous internet forum, just admit it was easy to steal and you didn’t feel like paying for it lol

People will feel more guilty about piracy than speeding, even though the latter kills thousands of people every year.

But also, are you absolutely sure it’s theft for me to walk into a Hertz and take a vehicle? Like if they’re not in the business of selling vehicles then surely it can’t be theft to take one…

I live in Japan. I could wave money around begging for a copyright owner to take it, but they refuse to take it and I can't access the content.

If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase ... I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

I don't think this particular line of thought makes for a very good argument without more info. The other case makes sense. But for this one, people aren't obligated to sell you things. If you own something sentimental or private to you that I want, you're not obligated to sell it to me if I want it and I'm not justified in stealing it from you if you don't want to sell it.

For ex: Think of embarassing photos of yourself, private letters between you and others etc.

Or the service is no longer supported. I remember buying some PS3 games digitally but can't access them on my PS5. Load of BS.

Well technically you are also leasing from GOG. You can't resell them and you are legally not allowed to distribute their offline installers.

Kind of depends which angle we approach it from. Someone does have to first purchase the game to get a DRM free copy to make (legal) copies to share. It's not really stealing outright, and publishers understand that they're giving their customers the option to share their games with others when they sell on GOG.

In this view, then it's kind of like paying it forward. Those who cannot afford it can use it for free. Those who can are encouraged to pay, get their own copies and pass it along to others at disadvantage, like sharing infinitely replicateable books.

Admittedly it's a more optimistic view assuming most people would do that. But, if pirates pay for Stardew Valley, it means there are people who abide by this.

It’s the same with steam games and other online stores. You are granted a licence to use the software; not to own it.

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 even know if it’s technically copyright since if you’re not sharing it you’re not infringing on their market, marketing, or product.

Good counter metaphor. When Audible disappears my book, and I can't do anything about it, that is theft.

so lease deez nutz

This is some cope shit. We're stealing, it's not morally correct for most of us. No one cares enough to stop though, that includes me.

That's my YouTube comment. You and so many others are making me feel like a badass. 😎

Eyyy, I'm the guy in the screenshot! Holy attention Batman!

Thank you for mentioning Libraries! As a librarian, I'm always getting shocked faces when I tell patrons what is accessible with their library card

I used to pirate a lot of stuff, when I couldn't afford it. Now I only pirate things that I a) already paid for (and want a more convenient way of using it or to ensure it can't be taken away) b) can't obtain any other way, or c) don't know if I will like it, so I use the pirated version as a demo of sorts

Well I'd argue that two things can be wrong at the same time and I see OPs image mostly as a humorous jibe at the dubious practices that have risen with digital content. When you buy a Disc you can resell it, and the company can't knock on your door and say "Excuse me, we'd like the disc back but we'll keep your money". With a digital movie you just obtain a license to view it that you can't resell and can be taken away from you at any time (the cases I know of are admittedly rare till now and caused at least some public unhappiness and in some cases even law suites IIRC). All at the same or even higher price than before.

Then there is the fact that I'm all for using the correct terminology. When you steal something that something is lost to its previous owner. Piracy isn't stealing it's copyright infringement. Companies just prefer to call it stealing because it sounds more evil. Same with the billions of losses through piracy that they complain about. They are based on the wrong premise that every copy is a lost sale, which just isn't true. Take you for example: you can't afford it, so you personally don't loose them anything. And maybe you even buy some stuff you wouldn't have if you hadn't pirated it, or something else from that company before that you really liked. Then I remember people from my school days who had all the movies, all the games, anything. But when you asked "How is it?" they mostly answered "Oh, I haven't played it". I doubt this kind of "collector" would do the same if it actually cost them money, even if they had the means. In short those number are inflated to make the problem appear bigger than it really is.

Is it still a problem/ morally wrong? Probably, but it does put things in a different perspective for me.

And no, I don't need to justify anything to myself. My limiting resource is time, not money, so I buy my fish in the supermarket instead of trying to catch it on the high seas ;) Doesn't stop me from grumbling about them, obviously

Copyright is not a natural law - there is nothing natural about for example not telling a joke to somebody else without first tracking down the person who invented it and agreeing on payment for being allowed to tell it.

And, no, I'm not exagerating: as soon as it is created that joke legally has a copyright, owned by its creator, and sharing it (and that includes "public performances" such as telling it to your friends) requires the authorization of the owner of that copyright in that joke.

The only reason you don't see people fined for telling jokes is because it's not enforced because it's not worth the trouble (plus it would quickly turn people against Copyright).

So, now that we've shown that Copyright does in fact go against the natural human tendency to share - literally it's anti-natura - then that means it's an artificial construct created by man, so a law, written by lawmakers, with all the problems that rules made by politicians have.

Now, if you look at the justification for creating such an artificial restriction on the naturaly human tendency of sharing what you heard, it's to "incentivise creation", which "benefits all because the copyrighted work will go into the Public Domain at the end of the copyright period".

This makes sense, and it might even have been true in the beginning but it's not anymore:

• You see, when this Law was first made the copyright period started as 25 years, which meant that copyrighted works did indeed go into the Public Domain to be freely enjoyed by all, but over the years that period has extended (go look at the various time when that period was extended and you will find the "strange" "coincidence" of it happenning when the first Mickey Mouse movie was about to go out of Copyright in the US) and is now around lifetime of the creator plus 50 years (more in certain countries, such as the US), which means that almost none of the creative works we grew up with (in our childhood) will never go into the Public Domain before we're dead and burried.

Think about it: under the current Copyright Legislation, for every single one of us and for all effects and purposes the "contract" between Society and cultural creators were Society enforces an artifical limitation to the natural human act of sharing and in return cultural creators make works which although at first requiring payment to enjoy, will one day be free to enjoy has been broken - we will never freely enjoy those works we've known since our childhood, the payment that Society (in other words: all of us) was supposed to get for that artificial limitation to sharing.

If a contract has been broken the injured side (that would be Society) doesn't have an obligation to abide by it.