The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • Rough_N_Ready@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Piracy was never stealing. It’s copyright infringement, but that’s not the same as stealing at all. People saying it’s stealing have always been wrong.

  • alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If there is no easy way to own what you buy, then piracy becomes a moral obligation to preserve culture for future generations.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You want something, but you don’t want to pay the cost (either monetarily or because they have made it too hard) and so you take take it. Fuck these assholes companies who try to milk people for every last penny, so I have no moral qualms with piracy, I do it myself.

      But, fuck, can we stop trying to paint it as some noble thing? Effectively zero pirates are doing it to perseve culture, instead it’s fulfilling personal desire.

      This is chaotic neutral at best, not neutral good.

      • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there’s an exception to be made in your argument for abandonware. There are classic arcade games that wouldn,'t exist any more but are widely available due to MAME support.

  • WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago
    • When you take 5 eur from my pocket - you are stealing.
    • When you take 5 eur from my pocket, make a copy and put my original 5 eur back to my pocket - this is not stealing.
  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Gonzako@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s two very different cases. Using exposure to extort services out people is different than copying something to see if you’d enjoy it.

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • poopkins@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.”

                • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

  • that guy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I look forward to this gem being repeated along with “enshittification” by the dunning krugers at large

  • theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Heads up! Plex media server with the Plex clients on all your devices is such a smooth experience. Highly recommended. And their “Watch together” feature is so nice for people that prefer to stay in bed and spend the winter binge watching next to a warm body.

  • iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve seen this quote repeated over and over these past few weeks, while noone brothers to actually explain what it means and why. This article is no different unfortunately.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People want at the same time that wages are higher but they also do not want to pay, for example, software developers appropriately.

      No one wants to be part of the problem, though. So some people justify their copyright infringing by claiming it’s some sort of movement for justice and rebellion against corporations.

      • calm.like.a.bomb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you ever bought something online (movies, games) that you can’t save/download and then the company you have the money to removed that? That is stealing from you. Simple.

    • kurwa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you spend money on something, let’s say one of those movies from PlayStation, you don’t actually own that movie, there is no file given to you that is yours. You are just given access to it. And then, out of no where, they can take that away from you.

      When you pirate something, you are just creating a copy of the file, you aren’t taking away the original file.

      So, the argument here is that morally pirating is okay because no one is losing anything, aside from potential sales for the company I guess. But on the flip side, the company is essentially stealing from you because they took your money, and you aren’t allowed access to what you bought.

      The most morally just position in this case would be that if you were one of those customers who paid for and then lost access to said movies, and then you pirated them back, you could say that the company had already made their money on you, and you’re owed those movies.

      In my opinion, I don’t think pirating from any million / billion dollar company is bad even if you didn’t “own” it originally.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What does that even mean?

    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.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.