It is illegal and immoral. It steals the rightful intellectual property of directors and developers who are only trying to make a living. If you want to be a thief so badly, then rob a federal bank.
I’m a big fan of paying the people who make things for me.
But digital piracy is the only thing keeping archive copies of obscure media around today. Even libraries aren’t keeping up. Plenty of media creators have revived their thing that found an audience after decades forgotten - through piracy, and only successfully revived it thanks to archivist pirates, since they had thrown that thing away.
It’s not black and white.
Patronage funding, early access, streamlined delivery, and white glove support are the funding models that are working for creatives today.
That’s even worse. Stealing from small creators. I don’t see how active archiving relates to piracy, nor its connection to fan service.
The Internet Archive, even outside of their Wayback Machine, is effectively built on digital piracy in many ways if anything. The reality is that any sort of media, whether it’s physical media that was destroyed, or digital media that was deleted or had it’s host platform shut down, could possibly never be accessed again unless it’s archived, even if that archival was done with piracy.
Mother 3 could be considered impossible to play legally in many ways, with most of the cartridges being sold unofficially with the English ROM hack being preapplied, and the originals starting near 75 dollars on eBay, and Nintendo isn’t making any money off it anymore, so in many cases unless you’re a collector, it’s best to just pirate the game with an English ROM translation.
The Internet Archive also has an archived online library of books that you’re free to borrow from, similar to an Overdrive-like platform of sorts, which is great for finding information that isn’t publicly available, or to read a book that is simply rare used and not sold anymore or where another copy isn’t to be found.
I don’t see the comparison. Archiving is beneficial for the freedom of information, but pirating is beneficial for the pirate.
What I just said was that archiving for preservation often is done with piracy. You need to get the content one way or another to archive, especially with the vast library on there.
Yes, you pay the author.
Which is sometimes not even an option offered and sometimes licencing rules will mean that no matter how many people pay for it, it’s going to be lost to the world without piracy.
Btw, it’s cute that you think it’s the author you’re supporting, rather than the exploitative and greedy publisher. Downright adorable! 🥹
Archiving digital media is making backups and copies. That is what archiving those things is intrinsically, immutably.
Making backups and copies is also what the IP owners would refer to as piracy.
You cannot be pro-internet-archive and anti-piracy at the same time, at least not fully. They are contradictory positions.
You got that from my post? I no longer think you’re engaging in a meaningful discussion here.
The difference being that money is finite and digital media isn’t.
deleted by creator
Abundant and infinite mean two different things though. Money is abundant, not infinite. If you had unlimited money, as you said, it’s intrinsic value would be zero
First, piracy is not illegal everywhere, and a personal copy is the most legal way in almost every country to archive what you have bought.
As for the morality of it, it’s your problem, not mine.
And the most important question is: What can I do when whole countries do not sell their music or TV shows? I’m thinking of Poland or Japan for example. I cannot legally buy media from those countries because they don’t care about foreign customers. How can they lose money if they don’t sell anything?
If you want a concrete example that happened to me yesterday: I want to buy a subscription to https://pilot.wp.pl/tv/. I want to give my money yet they refuse it. What can I do?
deleted by creator
Have an upvote!
You are wrong of course and “intellectual property” is a bullshit concept. Owning information is what is immoral. It’s also no stealing as you’re making a copy and not taking anything away.
I’d rather spend another $1000 on harddrives than give a single cent to streaming services or filmstudios.
People pirate for different reasons, and the legal definition of it changes nothing really. There’s…
- People who will absolutely not ever pay for anything
- People who will pay as long as they get their money’s worth, who may also be open to supporting the creator directly (Patreon, Nebula, Bandcamp, Floatplane, Liberapay etc.)
- Preserving content in a usable format (e.g. vinyl record plastic breaking down, old 8track players becoming uneconomical to repair and rare to find, playstation magazine CDs that will never be available online despite being susceptible to CD rot)
I’m in the last two camps personally. I wanted to also share my opinions on the points you mentioned directly…
It is illegal and immoral
I think It is illegal and immoral to sell consumers a license to use a product, under the guise of them owning it without explicitly and clearly stating such at the point of purchase, i.e. consumer electronics where you may “own” the device but only have a license to use the operating system, digital game purchases on consoles which can be revoked at any time by Sony/Microsoft or the publisher, services like Amazon Prime Video where a digital box set you purchased (that can only be watched via Amazon’s website) can be deleted by Amazon at any time, leaving you no recourse.
It steals the rightful intellectual property of directors
In my opinion, it should not be right for directors at the likes of UMG to profit from music made by artists who have died.
and developers who are only trying to make a living
The developers do not make anywhere near as much money as they should for their efforts, and quite frankly they are going to get paid regardless of whether you as an individual decide to purchase or pass on a product.
If you want to be a thief so badly, then rob a federal bank.
IMO the people in the first camp probably aren’t interested in money if they have chosen not to purchase their media to begin with
I’m curious as to the reason behind the post though, has someone pirated your content before?
Thank you for an actual intellectual rebuttal. This may actually make me reconsider the morality aspect, but it is still outside of my moral bounds and therefore I can never condone it.
This started because of a post that I saw about a big piracy community being shut down.
Defederated from another popular instance, not shut down.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/piracy is still there, just not viewable through your instance where your account is.
People who will pay as long as they get their money’s worth, who may also be open to supporting the creator directly
The point is, isn’t the producer right to make the price? You can always not consume what they produce. This category is the most obnoxious; would you ever go to a restaurant and expect to decide the prices?
It’s the very same argument for producers that willingly release their contently freely and let you support them, eventually. It’s their choice.
Of the three you quoted preservation is the only one I find acceptable. If the producer no longer care to distribute their product, then they probably don’t care to what it happens to it either.
I think It is illegal and immoral to sell consumers a license to use a product, under the guise of them owning it
For me the main difference is that nobody is forcing you to accept the transaction. I could accept this kind of argument for drugs for example, where you either take it or die/have serious repercussions. But pirating a movie you would have very much lived without just because is easy to do so it’s particularly problematic.
they are going to get paid regardless of whether you as an individual decide to purchase or pass on a product
Except they aren’t. Or at least, of course they’re payed the same, at the moment. But in our economy prices are signals. If a market will appear smaller then it is because of piracy then after some timesfewer developers will be hired, and each of them will be payed less because you’re “falsifying” the signals. Or even worst, the producers will start to use alternative form of monetization. That’s one of the reason the modern web is based off ads or free-to-play games with microtransanctions are so damn common.
IMO the people in the first camp probably aren’t interested in money if they have chosen not to purchase their media to begin with
The people in the first category should also think about the allocation problem. Those products which they like to consume but not pay for, still had a cost of production. The problem is they want ti consume, without supporting production, and that’s not gonna work for a society.
Are people downvoting because this is actually a popular opinion and doesn’t belong here or because they disagree with it?
I upvote if I’m having a good day, and downvote if I’m having a bad one.
No
Can we not dissect every downvote like it’s an affront to your personal freedom?
OP appears to be a genuinely awful person in every possible metric, so I frankly just don’t want to give them the dopamine hit.
If the money actually went to the people that made the content then there would be an argument, but it doesn’t, it goes to a bunch of assholes who conned the actual content creators from their hard work.
I can’t get most of the content legally. What is my option?
When my friend wanted to watch “Breaking bad” a few years ago, he subscribed to a streaming service, it had only the second and third season. He paid for it, but piracy is the only option for him.
Even if you are in the USA, 87% of video games before 2010 are currently impossible to buy.There is no way to buy media forever. Even DVDs go bad and get worn out, then you’re back buying something you already own.
Piracy is not immoral, it is the free market pendulum that always forces media to care the tiniest bit of thought toward consumer experience.
I started pirating stuff I have subs and apps for, it’s simply a horrible experience right now. These episodes of this season are on this one, and these are on another service that I have to switch to.
Now which service has the other episodes? Oh now they moved to a different app, and I’m still paying the old app.
The vast majority of time I’ll just go torrent and plex something than chase it to many different apps, even if I have those subscriptions
These episodes of this season are on this one, and these are on another service that I have to switch to.
This kind of thing just encourages 🏴☠️🚢 the rest of the season IMO.
In almost all cases it’s just easier to just grab the whole box set, pop it on a personal media server and not worry about the streaming service faff - or even look for a modern “pout lock car” equivalent to stream from.
It was nice when everything was on Netflix and HBO, before all the entertainment companies decided they want a piece of the streaming pie, with prices continuing to increase. I used to follow the cordcutters community back on tiddeR and they were starting to get sick of this too.
So on a morality point of view, I’ve downloaded epubs of books of an author where I’ve previously bought copies of their books multiple times, either because the originals wore out or I gave a copy away. I still have copies on my shelf or in storage, I just want to have copies on my Kindle.
I’ve bought things (or had bought for me) things on VHS and DVD formats and no longer have a player for either. So yeah I downloaded stuff I wanted to watch again
There are things only available on DVD and not available to stream. There are things that were available to stream which have since been removed and have been taken down. Why not pirate stuff to watch it again?
For a long time the Beatles weren’t on Spotify etc. I had their stuff on their official paid for tapes growing up, then on CD when I was older. So in the interim I pirated it when I lost the original digital rips I made from the CDs. And until they release their mono albums officially I’ll be hanging on to my pirated copies.
Notice a trend in the above? I very rarely pirate new media. But I treat the internet like an archive (I’ve not even gone into the stuff that is no longer available anywhere except YouTube or piracy). Quite often I’ve paid the creator('s masters) more than once for their work. I feel no guilt.
If I were to do it, I would only do it from large established companies or products that are extremely popular anyway, as the percentage of sales lost due to piracy is probably very little in that case.
If you were to do it, then you would be a criminal.
Illegal and immoral are not the same thing.
That’s why I used two adjectives.
Oh no! Someone shared a file online, take away their liberty!
If the product studdenly stop release, then it sometimes could be count as moral, because, when there are lots of digital products rely on the digital distribution (e.g. online game shop) then suddenly shut down, people will no longer to enjoy the digital products on that specific devices.
Please search “3ds eshop closeure”
Edit: “rely on”, not “relay to”
Against indie devs yes, against Ubisoft and EA no.
Define a “living”. then tell me who isnt making it. Piracy is self moderating, the content that is being pirated the most involves directors and developers that made the most money, even with the piracy. As you go smaller in scale to creators that are more likely struggling to make a living, are also the least likely to be pirated. Every artist Ive known, digital arts, music, tubers and streamers, have hated copyright strike systems. The ones that are popular enough to have pirates also have comfortable income from fans. There is no one being prevented from “making a living” by piracy.
It is still theft.
copyright is theft. creators that have had their creations taken away because rich people own their IP now.
It becomes universal knowledge which is what we should all strive to achieve, the right way. When the copyright expires, time is up for any gatekeeping of inspiration.
whats the last copyright expiring that you remember
When items enter public domain.
Im asking what specific item do you remember entering public domain? The creator of the Lord of the Rings died in the 70’s and his work is still under copyright.
70 years after the creator death. Stuffs should become public domain once the itrms no longer make significant revenue or no revenue at all
So are you morally opposed to all the crap disney has done to ruin the public domain for entire generations?
That seems worse than pirating a disney movie to me.
deleted by creator
All theft is wrong, but it is much less sad when someone steals a diamond from Jeff Bezos than it is when someone steals a loaf of bread from someone who is starving.
“all theft is wrong” nah.
If the starving guy from your example stole food from jeff bezos to survive then that is morally correct theft.
I agree with what you’re saying, it could be argued that it’s wrong that the starving guy needs to steal in the first place, but that’s probably semantics.
Is it wrong to take food from a grocery store that would otherwise be thrown away? The grocery store isn’t losing anything except potential future revenue.
This is the basic premise for a lot more people than will claim it or understand it…
Let’s take a bin full of potatoes. Everyone’s gonna pick the best potato. They’ll dig around, examine, inspect, and pick the good ones. The shitty scruffy looking ones get left sitting there, and don’t nobody who runs a shop wanna just wait until all the potatoes get chosen. They bring out new ones constantly to keep the bin full and have options available so people can pick the best ones.
Maybe once in a great while someone’s buying potatoes for their pigs, and they look for crappy ones. Maybe once in a great while someone needs 200 potatoes and they don’t wanna sit there being Picky Ricky for four fucking hours. Maybe once in a great while those crappy potatoes actually get chosen… but how often? Not very…
Netflix is that bin of potatoes. Is it wrong to pirate movies that are available on Netflix instead of paying Netflix? Well, it kinda depends on the fucking potato, don’t it? You’ll pay the $30/mo or whatever it is for a game of thrones, because you’re getting what you pay for, and pirating that is definitely depriving Netflix of some value in its investment, but if you pirate billy bobs country bunker hour special from 1993, you’re not taking jack shit from Netflix, it’s an old wrinkly ass potato that’s been sitting in the bin for a long ass time while people spent their money on better potatoes, fun it’ll never make a goddamn penny for netflix. It’s only value is adding quantity to the bin.
When it gets old enough that they’ll throw it away, the deprivation of value has been reduced to being trivial. Your point is valid imho
Food that is being thrown away can’t produce future revenue. A film that is actively streaming on a paid site can. Your analogy doesn’t work.
Wdym? The store is still selling food. If you don’t take the stuff being thrown away, you’d need to buy food from them.
The exact sets of bits are producing as much revenue as the thrown away food. But many people wouldn’t buy if they didn’t pirate, whereas people still need to eat.
Food that is being thrown away can’t produce future revenue.
Not with that attitude.
As @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works said, if you don’t get to take home free dumpster food, presumably you would have to buy fresher food.
And it isn’t hypothetical, large grocery stores are IMMINENTLY worried about this and will call the police on people going through their dumpsters, or they will pour toxic chemicals on the food to render it inedible, or any number of fucked up ways to ensure waste.
