4788
preach (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] narshee@iusearchlinux.fyi 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is inaccurate. You are not buying it (the media), you are buying the right to stream it (as long as the seller provides the media as a stream). You don't "buy" a movie unless you are paying for it's ownership, which would be millions of dollars. For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM). And you generally don't have a right be able to "buy" or have access to all media.

But all that doesn't automaticly make it amoral. ~~this comment is gonna be downvoted to hell~~

edit: There are probably gonna be more responces, so this will address everything else I have to say. What I wrote is how things are legally, more or less. I don't like that either. I do consider piracy stealing (under current laws) and morally right. Stealing is just not that great term for digital stuff. Please don't try to (uselessly) sway me and don't infight

[-] Melkor@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] narshee@iusearchlinux.fyi 13 points 1 year ago

Yeah kinda, but there deosn't need to be an option to own media. You are not entitled to that. It's up to the creator/owner how to use/sell their things. It's whole another question if it should be that way

[-] Melkor@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

The entitlement comes from it existing, once you put something out there it belongs to the public forever. Laws around this are designed to create incentive but it does far more to lock out folks who could benefit/enjoy it but otherwise would never experience it. I don't think you have a right to have the Mona Lisa in your house but you have a right to see reproductions forever and I want that for digital art too.

[-] TAYRN@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I have no legal option to own you. Is it moral, then, for me to turn to illegal means to own you?

Now replace "you" with "content you created", and tell me how it's different.

[-] FranticParrot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

And replace "you" with an exploitive company that doesn't give two shits about anything but making a number go up.

[-] Melkor@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

A person vs art, that's the line where our opinion would differ I guess. Art/media is part of the world/history and it feels wrong to lock out large parts of it essentially forever. Let us pay for things and have them, it's that simple. Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so. But again this all crosses into opinion, you can't own a person and be a good citizen at the same time but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn't buy to begin with.

[-] TAYRN@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Art/media is part of the world/history

And they are created by human beings, who have every right to decide what their creations are worth to them and under what terms other people can use their creations. I whittled a pretty cool dragon out of a stick once. It's technically part of the world/history. That doesn't mean anyone else has a right to it.

Let us pay for things and have them, it's that simple.

Absolutely, if I am willing to sell you that thing for the price you are offering. If I am not, then the deal doesn't go through. That is how deals work. You cannot rent a car for $60/day and then decide "actually I'm going to keep this forever." That was not the deal you agreed upon.

Once it cannot be sold it should be publically available if someone who has it wants to make it so

Yes, I agree. In this case, though, the person who "has it" is the owner. Not the person who signed a deal saying "I myself will use this under the terms we have both agreed upon" and then proceeds to break those terms. Copyright law (in the US) is bullshit and needs a whole lot of reform, but if we're talking about media made recently? By a still living human? Yes, they should own what they create.

but many pirates are productive members of society or couldn't buy to begin with

Yes, I imagine this applies to both you and I as pirates. But as a productive member of society, I am fully aware that I am not entitled to anything owned by anyone else. I will not die if I don't see that new movie I want to, and I am aware of that. I know that me pirating is both immoral and illegal, and directly hurts others. I am willing to admit that.

[-] Melkor@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the well thought out response, I believe your dragon may belong to someone else and it may rightfully be theirs, someday. I get what you're saying in terms of practical day to day, but there is a harmful nature to copyright which is not discussed and I think that's more important to come to terms with morally vs any harm caused by piracy. I also believe the harm piracy does cause can be mitigated with a more aware system. Once something is created you are in a power struggle to own it that you will lose with absolute certainly if the thing is not destroyed after your time with it.

load more comments (54 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
4788 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54520 readers
291 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS