this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
225 points (97.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55423 readers
930 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No, it's not like stealing a physical item from a store.

"stealing" a digital copy of a movie, tv show or a game is like if the item you're stealing from a store is infinitely copyable. Like the replicator from star trek...or that one episode of Sabrina the teenage witch with that box that can make a perfect copy of everything you put inside of it.

Of course I personally would never pirate anything, no matter how much streaming services increase their prices or how much they crack down on VPN usage to get around geo-restrictions, PIRACY IS BAD AND ONLY BAD PEOPLE DO IT.

I've never pirated anything in my whole life!

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

There is no "stealing from corporations"

It's as easy as that

[–] orsetto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago

If they keep raising my food subscription I'm gonna start pirating from supermarkets too

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Piracy is a response to various kinds of market failure, inequality.

[–] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

It is always morally acceptable?

Morality is, literally, subjective. There is no universal answer to that question.

I personally consider anything being sold by a distributor to be fair game, no questions asked. If I pay for mainstream music, films or games, most of the time, zero of that money goes to the workers who created those artworks. It just makes rich owners richer, because they legally own rights. I would go as far as to say it's morally wrong to pay for those things, it's not neutral, it's supporting a cycle of abuse at your own expense. So that's my perspective on your 'giant corporations' question.

Digital copying isn't stealing, unfortunately, because those giant companies deserve to have their hoard of capital expropriated.

Two screenshots. The first is a headline: "The world's richest countries came up with just $22 million to fight the Amazon fires.", the second lists the budget for The Emoji Movie: $50 million.[src]

[–] sunglocto@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

No but i dont care

I've been pirating for years. I just don't want to pay for things

This is me.

I just don't care about the moral or ethical considerations.

[–] FantasticDonkey@reddthat.com 19 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TuxEnthusiast@monero.town 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 hours ago

I do since it's a better service

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

It is always morally preferrable to pirate things made by giant corporations

Fixed It For You.

Regardless of what is regarded as a crime against the state, it is wrongdoing against the public to support corporations that seek to extract more wealth than value they produce.

Intellectual property rights were a (very) temporary monopoly to give creators an incentive to create in order to build a robust public domain.

Copyrights, patents and trademarks no longer do that. So charging for content is now rent-seeking

Corporations, their share holders and the plutocrats who own them pull wealth out of the economy by hoarding it. The whenever you buy from anything but directly from the creator, you are reducing the wealth in the economy since your money goes straight into Scrooge McDuck's swimming coffers.

And our public domain only contains stuff from a century ago. Steamboat Willie became public domain just a year or two ago. Copyright holders and courts even assert all content should be owned and licensed, including SCOTUS. (Though the US Supreme Court is a traitor to the United States and its constitution.)

Pirate everything. Steal from companies for they have already stolen from you.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

While your mega corporation is extremely rich, if tomorrow everyone starts pirating, that corporation will go bankrupt in a year. And all those TV shows you enjoyed won't be produced anymore. No more new movies with cool stunts and special effects. No more games with insane graphics.

As a consumer of that big corpo content you don't have the moral high ground to say "I never cared anyways about your shitty mass-consumer stuff". You care because you pirated it to watch/play it.

So in the end, you only got your cake because someone else overpaid for theirs. Infinite replicability argument does not hold because it costs money to make content. And it's a risky investment, so at times you want to get more back than you invested, cuz other times you'll spend 50 millions on a game nobody wants to play, and lose 40 of those.

By pirating you inadvertently cause damage to the industry and if everyone followed your steps your favorite games/movies would ceise to exist. But for now it works cuz most people don't pirate. So, are you morally safe, anon?

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago

And all those TV shows you enjoyed won't be produced anymore.

Wrong. Just gets sold off and made by someone else. Unless the whole system crashes, which would be a plus, but isn't gonna happen

By pirating you inadvertently cause damage to the industry and if everyone followed your steps your favorite games/movies would ceise to exist.

Cease. Humans are inherently creative, creative works would still be made

So, are you morally safe, anon?

F as r and away: yup

[–] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 6 points 7 hours ago

My moral is always on match with that of the company so in most cases everything is acceptable.

[–] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 hours ago

Given that no one makes a fuss about it when corporations do the stealing, I think so.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Worrying about "property" of any parasite is something that I never bother to do.

Giving money to your enemy is idiotic tho.

There is a class war out there and normies are too busy funding their oppressors

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

Giving money to your enemy is idiotic tho. There is a class war out there and normies are too busy funding their oppressors

Absolutely. At the end of the day, most of the moral ideals being thrown around are, at the end of the day, nice ideas.

Giant corporations exist to get more money and, history shows, media companies will happily brainwash us and buy oppressive politicians just to push their profits up. Furthermore, they serve as a megaphone for the ideas of the owner class, who are historically the core force behind fascism when society is in crisis.

Giving them your resources is fucking suicidal.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 63 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

No, it’s not like stealing a physical item from a store.

I'd argue stealing physical items from massive corporations is also morally acceptable. If you shoplift from a small mom & pop store, you're actively hurting your community, however, if you shoplift from Wal-Mart, you're actively hurting an entity which is hurting your community, therefore helping your community.

[–] Alice@beehaw.org 28 points 12 hours ago

Shoplifting from Walmart hurts my knees because the boss won't believe that our onhand numbers are wrong and makes me check high and low before I can nil pick it 🥲

This isn't an ethical argument against shoplifting btw, this is an ethical argument in favor of nuking Walmart

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 14 points 12 hours ago

Staling sustinence from societal cancer is practically an immune response.

[–] Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 hours ago

Rage bait. Yawn.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 29 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

perhaps the only ethical consumption under capitalism is that which denies capitalists their profit.

[–] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I mean...if the movie is good you should support it. Vote with your wallet.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

I mean…if the movie is good you should support it

What is 'it'? The movie is a published work, it can't be financially supported. Who is being supported with the money you pay?

Vote with your wallet.

Unfortunately, consumer boycott (and conversely, support) usually isn't an effective strategy at this scale you're talking about. Unless you and all your friends are voting with a few thousand dollars, it's hardly going to make a dent in the numbers.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 37 points 14 hours ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If buying isn't owning, then pirating can't be stealing.

[–] noorbeast@lemmy.zip 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I would like to suggest an alternate perspective, that digital media be beholden to protocols not platforms.

In other words lets focus on the drivers of competition...most evidence suggests that piracy goes down in response to easily accessible and affordable market conditions.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 3 points 11 hours ago

most evidence suggests that piracy goes down in response to easily accessible and affordable market conditions.

The assholes know this too. We're about due for another round of deshitifcation, just long enough to restore complacency.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The number of examples of media becoming unreachable to paying consumers keeps growing.

Warner Brothers (Max) is the greatest example of this. Years of content from Cartoon Network just disappeared, leaving the consumer no legal avenue to enjoy some of their favorite shows.

I do not advocate for piracy. I advocate for archiving.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 7 points 11 hours ago

I do not advocate for piracy. I advocate for archiving.

Exactly. And if the assholes make it illegal for librarians, well then yo ho ho.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

When you download music online for free and prevent the company from making a profit off of a creative work by the artist, that they prevented from making a profit & royalties, is that wrong? Doubtful. You can always send the artist money directly if you want to support them.

[–] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 5 points 10 hours ago

the DMCA doesn't protect the artists or any of the singers, it protects the shitty record labels and the money that the executives at those companies get

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 hours ago

It literally depends on your morals… it’s a question only you can answer.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Stealing a physical item from a giant corporate store is also always morally acceptable.

Having power neurologically suppresses empathy. Therefor resources controlled by the powerful will on average be used more harmfully. Taking resources from the powerful reduces total harm done.

You will use a loaf of bread less harmfully than Walmart will use the profit from it.

[–] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Stealing a physical item from a giant corporate store is also always morally acceptable.

not really, it makes the store lock everything up behind plexiglass creating more friction for paying customers too.

Of course, theft wouldn't happen nearly as much if no one was desperate the survive, but even then there'd still be entitled assholes that want even more.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

not really, it makes the store lock everything up behind plexiglass creating more friction for paying customers too.

That's not really harm in the way that hunger or poverty or lobbying against workers protections is harm. That's more like a temporary inconvenience that doesn't stop anyone getting what they need, right?

PIRACY IS BAD AND ONLY BAD PEOPLE DO IT.

I’ve never pirated anything in my whole life!

Good thing you said that, I was about to send some agents to have a "nice chat" with you.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

"stealing" a digital copy of a movie, tv show or a game is like if the item you're stealing from a store is infinitely copyable.

What if it's a physical Blu-ray? Those are infinitely copyable.

[–] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

physical media is a physical it's a finite item. digital media can be copied infinitely

the reason why physical media is getting harder and harder to find is because the copyright nazis can't control it. If they want to memory-hole a scene, they can't change the content of that blu-ray disc with the original version on it

[–] killabeezio@lemm.ee 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Can you further expand on why you think it's bad? I'm generally curious.

[–] ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

PIRACY IS WRONG AND IMMORAL! YOU SHOULD NEVER PIRATE ANYTHING! FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS PIRATE THINGS!

[–] killabeezio@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Was this in the Bible or something? Why is it immoral?

Let me ask this. Imagine 1 person owned many farms of food. They sell their food and they own a huge house on top of the hill. There is more than enough food to feed every person in town. The only way for anyone to get food is to buy it from this one person since he owns all of the farm land and if anyone tries to farm their own food, he uses his money to push them around and makes them stop.

A family is struggling to find work. The father asks the farm owner if he could get some food to eat. The farm owner obviously says no. Pay or no food, he says. The family ends up starving to death.

Would it be wrong for the family to steal food in this case so they can survive? Or is that immoral? Is the farm owner immoral for not helping them? He has plenty of money to last him 100 lifetimes, his belly is full, but he keeps eating. Who is wrong here?

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago

and steal other things as well

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 12 hours ago

The only person stealing is the one who circumvents the DRM and shares it. It’s not stealing to see or hear something.