It doesn’t matter if it’s a CD, a Film, or manual with the instructions to build a spaceship. If you copy it, the original owner doesn’t lose anything. If you don’t copy it, the only one missing something (the experience) is YOU.

Enjoy!

Of course, if you happen to have some extra money for donations to creators, please do so. If you don’t have that, try contributing with a review somewhere or recommending the content, spread the word. Piracy was shown to drive businesses in several occasions by independent and biased corps (trying to show the opposite).

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Using the term “piracy”, instead of “filesharing”, was always pro-corporate framing. In his 2010 essay “Ending the War on Sharing”, Richard Stallman wrote:

    When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

  • SDK@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”

    They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose. As the owner, it’s technically their right to deny access to the work, and you are taking that right away from them.

    I’m not a shill, and I am never going to be a customer of big media. If I can’t get it without charge, I’d rather go without. But, I am taking that right away from the owner. I sleep ok.

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

      Based on this interpretation libraries are stealing from book publishers and food banks are stealing from grocery stores.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Libraries and food banks have their inventory paid for, though. Neither one of them accepts stolen goods. What are you talking about?

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So if I torrent something from someone who paid for it, it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection and not piracy. Got it.

          /s?

          • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection

            Yes, exactly. But better, because by “checking it out” you’re not preventing anyone else from also enjoying it at the same time (on the contrary, by nature of the bittorrent protocol you’re improving the availability of said cultural work, helping to preserve it, and culturally enriching society to a greater extent than libraries can unless they don’t artificially restrict access to digital works).

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

          You’re right, it’s not a perfect analogy. I was more pushing back against the supposition that the depravation of a potential sale equates to theft.

          That said, media that is pirated comes from somewhere. Many times that content is ripped from streaming providers directly, which means someone has paid for the content initially. Other times the content is ripped off a blu-ray, which also means someone has paid for the content already. Cam recordings require someone to pay for a ticket (or someone to work at a theater but at that point we’re getting in to semantics).

          At this point I’ve completely lost the context of what we’re even discussing here. Oh, right. OP said piracy isn’t stealing. Stealing/theft/larceny requires real property to be taken from its owner. Digital piracy does not meet that definition, full stop. OP is technically correct. Is it copyright infringement? Sure. Is that moral? Idk, I can’t dictate your morals but I don’t have any moral objection to it myself.

    • verdare [he/him]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “right to control distribution” is utterly unenforceable in a world with computers and the internet. The only way to enforce that right is to have centralized institutions with absolute control over every computer.

      I can understand a need for controlling personal information in order to protect the user privacy. I can even get behind the idea of having to control dangerous information, like schematics for nuclear weapon systems. I do not support the idea of moving towards a world where the NSA has a rootkit on every computer because capitalism can’t be bothered that artists make enough to eat.

      Maybe there is an inherent problem with a social system in which so many people struggle to make a living. And maybe the solution isn’t to create artificial scarcity in computer systems where information can be shared freely.

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

      They still have the right to distribute it. It’s not like reddit, who not only claim the right but also apparently claim ownership of any content you publish there, while providing no consideration (payment) in return.

      However, as you say, they have the right to deny you, and by copying you are subverting their rights. That’s still not theft, though, which is why copyright infringement is a separate offense.

      Theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil matter.

    • nintendiator@feddit.cl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”

      They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose.

      They already lost that right when they gave their product over to a licensor or distributor. Especially more in some industries such as book publishing.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That right is something they should not have. Streaming services greenlight shows, get them made, then cancel them after two seasons to prevent artists getting residuals.

      Then if they lose popularity they pull them off the site and even the people who worked on them can’t see them anymore. Animators have to rely on piracy just to show people their own portfolio. That’s where respecting copyright leads.

      The copyright owner is just whoever fronted the money, and the only reason we’ve decided they “own” anything is because people with money have decided money should be the most important thing in our society.

      • DuffmanOfTheCosmos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perfect example of this is the movie Dogma. Kevin Smith has stated he would love to do a follow up on it, but he as the creator can’t because the IP is owned personally by Harvey Weinstein, and he refuses to give money to Harvey to license or buy it because obvious reasons. So, his own creation is locked away from him because a monster put up the money for the original before Kevin or most people knew they were a monster.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yup, copyright doesn’t help artists. Its main purpose is to allow the hoarding of property into the hands of the wealthy, just like basically every other property relation under capitalism.

          We can see with things like patreon that people love to support artists they like even if most of their work is free. We really don’t need gatekeepers to make art happen.

  • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to make music with a band. We had studio rent, transportation costs, etc. We would mostly break even on gigs between all our expenses. In the rare event we profited from a gig, it went back into the band. As a whole, we were losing money.

    If someone pirated the music that I spent hours working on in the space I paid rent for, I am absolutely losing a sale that could really have helped me out and, with enough of them, even let us maybe do it full time. I was always fine with people wanting to try before buying, but liking and listening to the music we spent a ton of time and money to make and not paying me anything is shitty as a small band. Your argument basically ends with “BuT WE’rE PaYinG You In ExPOSure!!!” which is always shit.

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

    So, please read this as serious and no ulterior-motivation.

    I’m hoping to release a game in a few years, and naturally I would like to sell it.

    I am also supportive of this community and understand somewhat about the release date underground release.

    I’d rather either get the revenue from my work directly, or give it away in exchange for donations, trade, or even nothing at all.

    All this especially in light of how often independent creators get their shit stolen by megacorps.

    Is there something I should be keeping an eye out for, or preparing for so everything goes smoothly at least with regards to this community?