preach
preach
214 comments
-
-
Until we live in a world where people have equal access to information and essential technology piracy is a moral imperative.
Should something which costs a few hours worth of work in the developed word cost three weeks worth of work in a less developed country, just to make a publishing company worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a few extra bucks? Of course not!
Every other argument is a moot point to me. If I hadn't pirated Photoshop and other software when I was a poor kid I wouldn't have the six figure career I have today. The ultrarich steal from us every day in more ways than I can count. Maybe when they start being held accountable I will start caring about their bottom line.
-
Here I am wondering why there is still a downvote button in the YouTube comments... it does nothing!
-
Actually it's worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.
-
Do we really need excuses for pirating media?
I pirate movies because I think digital access to them is overpriced, goes to the copyright holder instead of the creators, it's convenient and most importantly because I can.
I can't pirate going to the cinema, nor can I afford to build my own, therefore I gladly pay to have a seat and enjoy a movie there.
Edit: I thought this may be relevant to the movies example I gave. I don't think movie studios, giving nothing back to society after massive profits are the ones we should debate the morals of stealing with.
-
But all of those are excuses?
-
What makes them excuses and not reasons?
-
-
-
I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn't.
You would be considered to be stealing from the rights holder. The rights holder authorises your use of their property when you pay the license fee. If you don't pay the license fee you are considered to be stealing their property.
Just to be clear, I agree with the sentiment of this post. Legally speaking though, this defence would be cut down in moments.
-
Legally speaking they're not going after you solely for piracy pretty much ever, at least not in America, unless you're making a profit from it.
-
I just want to point out to anyone who thinks this is a viable legal defence, It isn’t.
Of course it isn't. Copyright laws were written by the same kind of people who decided that corporations gets to "people."
-
-
I think this logic is silly.
Employers don't own you, so witholding wages for services you provided isn't stealing. Getting a haircut and not paying isn't stealing.
I think the better justification is: rights holders make it a pain in the arse to access content affordably, so fuck you, just going to steal it.
-
You're only partly right. You example services. Of course it is not possible to own services. Piracy is only applicable to products. The point of the Twitter guy is, that companies intentionally stop selling their software etc. as products to sell you the same thing as a service, so that you cannot own it.
-
Not only that. Remember when Sony said that you don't own the PS4 you bought for several hundred bucks but just purchased the right to use it as intended so you're not allowed to tinker with it and for example install another operating system or figure out how their security works.
That's what is meant by buying is not owning anymore.
I could go on about cars with subscriptions for heated seats that are already installed but not turned on etc.
-
It's true that SaaS does stop you from owning software... But what good does "owning" a piece of software do you if you can't get updates anyway? Back in the pre-internet era we got used to software existing as discrete versions but it hasn't been like that for a LONG time. As soon as patching became a regular occurrence, "ownership" became a service contract with a CD attached. Then the CD vanished, and it just became a service.
While I do dislike needless "as a service" stuff, that model does genuinely suit a lot of people. It's not a conjob; companies offer this stuff because a lot of customers want it. Most of the companies that are selling you SaaS stuff themselves use SaaS things in-house.
-
I think you slightly missed the point too. I think he meant that even when you buy games for example (or any other software).You don't actually buy the game. You only buy a license to use that software.
-
-
-
Can we not become subreddit by posting this shitty screenshots trying to justify our reasons? Just share your media and enjoy it.
-
I was gonna say the same thing but then I saw the 2200-something upvotes.
This community is doomed to be exactly like the low effort meme sub r/piracy if people keep upvoting this lazy content.
-
My headcanon is that it's a passive form of protection: when copyright owners look to communities like piracy they are met with highly upvoted silly memes, which would cause them to miss the more helpful pirate advice mixed within.
-
-
Our current system of copyright is flawed and only serves the interests of corporations.
-
I am stealing this line for future references
-
To be completely frank, I couldn’t care less if it’s stealing or not. They should sell their shit for cheaper if their companies care so much, which I’m not sure they really do.
-
Sometimes I like to imagine what a library from a highly advanced race who have transcended the base concepts of copyright and currency in general would be like. If every person in the civilization could absorb any form of media ever made as well as knowledge formerly sequestered away behind paywalls or otherwise suppressed, just imagine what heights such a society could reach.
-
It is called the Akashic records.
-
They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the mental plane. Because it is believed that the records are encoded vibrationally into the inherent fabric of space, some have likened the mechanism as similar to how holograms are created.
I know some of these words!
-
-
-
This is what I’ve been saying. We don’t even own digital products, all it takes is a server to be taken down or an account to be lost and all you bought is taken away. Pirating also can’t be stealing because we aren’t taking something away from someone else, other people are not deprived of the chance to have this just because we downloaded it.
-
I don't think piracy needs to be justified because different people have different reasons.
Sure you could argue that you're not actually stealing but creating/downloading a copy of something it already exist. I always found that anti piracy commercial "you wouldn't steal a car" ridiculous as that's not how piracy works.
For example, I do it because I don't agree with how segmented the video streaming industry has become in recent years with this many different services that force you to buy a bunch of subscriptions while continuosly pulling content. Unlike the music streaming industry where all the most popular content (the majority of it) can be found on pretty much every serivce. You could have Spotify or Apple Music, not much difference (if any at all) in content or quality.
When I was a teenager I did it because I couldn't afford to buy any sort of media content and options were limited. Pretty much everyone that owned an MP3 player was pirating music.
-
Here's my justification:
I paid for a product. I'm getting that product, by hook or by crook.
-
The entire issue with these arguments, though, is that the opposition parties just answer those claims with “then you shouldn’t be ingesting that content”. If you aren’t willing to pay for it, then you don’t have the right to view/listen/stream it. Free market a-holes will always, correctly, bring up that the market works by putting out products and people paying for what they support and not paying for what they don’t support. The problem is that you can’t pick and choose which pieces or parts you support or don’t and there’s no way to give companies that type of feedback because they don’t care.
-
That's a fine argument that they might have, but piracy still isn't stealing. If someone steals something from me, I am deprived of that thing. If someone copies my intellectual property, I am hypothetically impacted by loss of income, but I can still use that information.
They can say it's morally wrong for someone to use or copy information against the owners wishes or without paying. They are welcome to that argument. None of us are obligated to care about their opinion.
If they can claim customers don't own something, especially physical items, after purchase because they are being pedantic over how people interact with intellectual property, we can and should absolutely use the same distinction to distance piracy fromt theft.
-
I mean if I am not paying either way me ingesting that content or not makes 0 difference to the producer. It is the same logic as throwing excess food to the trash so homeless can't eat it.
-
I'm willing to pay for it, but I'm not allowed to do so
For example, Amazon/MGM still don't allow me to pay to watch Stargate
-
-
-
I've never understood the "piracy is morally acceptable" argument, personally. Best I can agree with is that piracy is not morally bad in some cases. Especially since me pirating something has no impact if I never would have paid for it in the first place. But it can often times be morally wrong (people who refuse to buy games from indie studios despite having the money to do so would usually fall into this category imo), and I can't imagine any scenario outside of the preservation of media where it's actually morally good to pirate things.
Like, I'm all for people not buying things that they don't support. And I feel no sympathy for large companies that make more money in a day than I'll make in a lifetime losing out on sales. But when did it become my right to play Hogwarts Legacy or watch a show without paying for it?
-
"If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar's own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve."
- Eben Moglen
I think imposing artificial scarcity on art, information, and tools; and rationing based on those with the ability to pay is immoral. I mean sure, most art that people pirate is just empty entertainment. But imposing artificial scarcity on tools (software such as OSs, CAD, productivity software, etc), news, and academic papers behind expensive licenses that many cannot afford to pay is objectively immoral. If piracy did not exist, I am positive the world would be without many of the technological advances we have today.
-
-
-
Nature wants information to be Free!
Piracy is Good:The Moral Imperative of Sharing Knowledge
-
Unsure if anyone can clarify. But my understanding that simply downloading a watching isn't an issue.
Selling illegally copied content is what can cause real legal issues.
I'm uncertain of any cases of anyone getting in trouble for simply watching copied content.
Example... 1st user pirates movies or videos and uploads them to YouTube or any streaming company.
2nd User then streams or downloads them to watch them offline. I've yet to see the 2nd user in this scenario face legal consequences.
Vs
2nd User then streams or downloads content and makes money off it. Here I see the 2nd user have legal issues.
Again I'm just a regular guy going based on regular guy logic.
-
Downloading and watching is a crime. One night be able to say they didn't know what they were downloading but likely the file name and site or torrent is a good clue that's bullshit.
Your probably discussing chance of getting caught. You likely will see a DMCA complaint or something like that to your ISP at worse for downloading but enough of these might get your service terminated (some ISP don't care.)
Sharing the files and usually sharing a lot of files publicly or semi publicly will get you more attention and that will get the media companies more likely to take you down as a distributor.
VPN and smart browsing habits will reduce a lot of this risk though.
Think of downloading is one star in GTA. They will chase you if they are you. Uploading is two stars when they start shooting at you. Profiting of it is like three stars and that's when they get more aggressive. You can get busted at one star but it's just very unlikely.
-
Copyright infringement laws vary but even though simply downloading copyrighted material is against policies, it's hard to enforce and most copyright holders don't always find grounds for a lawsuit or it's straight up not worth pursuing. You downloading a movie off a website is the same as a friend of yours sharing the same movie with you on a USB stick.
Actions against unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials (especially if it's for profit) on the other hand are much more easily enforceable.
-
-
The real piracy was the friends we made on the way.
-
And also the cargo ships I robbed.
-
The real friends were the piracy we undertook along the way.
Remember: friends come and go, but pirated media is forever (as long as you have good backups).
-
-
Major reason not to buy ebooks from amazon: you can't lend, give, exchange, sell them and you may lose all of them if you anger the right people. They are not yours, you are not buying them, you merely paid for conditioned access to them.
-
It’s the same with steam games and other online stores. You are granted a licence to use the software; not to own it.
-
Steam is a glowing example of how to prevent piracy though. Because even if I own the games I can still loan them out. I can play the games across all of my devices. Steam has gone above and beyond to give you a reason to not pirate. I buy my games because the convenience steam provides without hindering my actual ownership of them.
-
-
-
galaxy brain
-
That's my YouTube comment. You and so many others are making me feel like a badass. 😎
-
-
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 helledit: 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
-
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.
-
For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM).
I'd like to point out German law (maybe this expands to EU and other countries) with traditional media.
Traditionally you bought movies and music on physical discs. You had a guaranteed right to be able to sell it to other people, as well as make personal copies of it for private use/backups.
DRM has always tried to oppose this right. And obviously, in the last decade(s) a lot went into service-oriented streaming and temporary access instead of owning even on a partial or theoretical level.
-
this meme is a criticism of that. it shouldn't be like that. if I buy a chair, I own the chair. I can then choose to sit on it, burn it, or give it to my neighbor, whatever. if I buy a movie, it's suddenly not like that – but not because of some inherent quality that would make it impossible, but only because they say it is like that. but they have one weakness: it's only like that if we actually stick to those rules. they're all arbitrary anyway! we can therefore treat a bought movie just as it should be: a physical copy that we actually own. we can then decide to watch it, to lend it to our neighbor, to play it for everybody to see on the street, to cut it and remix it and do something new with it. will they come and claim we've "pirated" their media? yes of course, but this is nonsensical, dead law, that has to be broken again and again by just – ignoring it, and making it not so. if I buy a movie, I do own the movie, and the company that says otherwise can get fucked. that's what this is about.
-
-
Well paying for it is essentially leasing it, piracy is neither. So...
-
so lease deez nutz
-
-
What is your opinion on the following argument defending piracy, as in copyright infringement: "Piracy can't be stealing if paying for it isn't owning"
-
As an artificial intelligence, I don't have personal opinions or feelings. However, I can provide an analysis of the argument. This assertion appears to be examining the complex relationship between ownership, copyright, and piracy. While it's true that purchasing certain types of media doesn't confer full ownership rights in the traditional sense (you cannot replicate and distribute a DVD you bought, for instance), it doesn't necessarily justify piracy. From a legal perspective, piracy is considered a form of theft as it involves the unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material. The argument could be seen as an attempt to redefine or question these understandings, but that doesn't necessarily change how they're treated by the law.
-
-
I seriously don't understand the mental gymnastics here. We pirate because we'd rather get something for free than pay for it. There are certainly cases when someone is forced to pirate a product due to copyright restrictions in their country but that isn't the case most of the time for people like us who pirate. We're just selfish and there's noting wrong with admitting that.
-
The mental gymnastics are in response to copyright holders' gymnastics. They remove content, relocate it, put it behind tiered subscriptions, or sometimes effectively delete it from all legal avenues after owners/subscribers paid for it. So if paying for a subscription isn't owning it, as described in Amazon's fine print for example, then what do you do? It's a long-term rental subject to removal upon any licensing transfers. Sure, we get greedy once set up, but if legal options don't actually offer you any legal ownership due to legal gymnastics, then yeah, I'll do the mental gymnastics right back at them.
-
I agree. I'm American and I love the show "Taskmaster." I would like to give them money to watch it. They would like to receive my money. There have been legal complications for years. I've bought their physical board game from their website but as far as the show goes, yo ho ho!
-
It's their IP, they can distribute it in any way they see fit. It doesn't entitle you to steal it just because you disagree with how it's distributed.
-
-
Not judging you for your reasons, but you don't speak for everyone so calm down with the "we" pronoun.
-
There's people on both sides of the scale here.
I used to pirate stuff because I couldn't afford it or because I prioritized spending my money elsewhere since I could get stuff for free. Then as I got a job, I could afford to pay for lots of things and legal options became more convenient than piracy, so I just stopped pirating.
Now I'm back on the ship because pirating has become more convenient than subscribing to a bunch of different fragnented and anti-consumer services just to access a handful of content.
Some people just want shit for free (which is ok, been there), some others value service and convenience first and foremost.
-
Seriously I don’t understand all the mental gymnastics on an anonymous internet forum, just admit it was easy to steal and you didn’t feel like paying for it lol
People will feel more guilty about piracy than speeding, even though the latter kills thousands of people every year.
But also, are you absolutely sure it’s theft for me to walk into a Hertz and take a vehicle? Like if they’re not in the business of selling vehicles then surely it can’t be theft to take one…
-
-
Nonsense, paying doesn't always mean you get to own it. I would understand the excuse more if you let's say bought a game on Steam, but then Steam went away forever and you lost the game and you don't want to pay for it again. But by that time the game would be super cheap anyway... Well, unless it was now unavailable, then piracy is the only solution to actually getting it.
-
How does that work though if you rent a car? You don't own it, but still stealing if you "steal" it.
-
Child logic to justify behavior. Be better than this ya’ll.
-
You know, there is less ethical angst over making a copy of something you can ONLY rent vs something you can buy.
However, both options are stealing under most laws!
-
This is why I only carjack rental cars, it's totally not stealing!
-
Touché.
-
I would steal this argument, but if it can be reposted here for free, then I don't think anybody really owns it. 🤔
-
While I appreciate the sentiment, theft of service is a crime. You don't have to be able to own something to be able to steal it.
-
This💯
-
Amen!
-
If a service costs money, and you take that service for free without permission it is stealing. If I rent a car I don't own it. Is it not stealing to hijack a rental car for a few hours?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You steal because it is easier or cheaper. Thats it.
-
Here's my example: I subscribed to Paramount Plus explicitly for Star Trek content. The week I subscribed, they pulled all of the non-Abrams films. So I got to watching other stuff. Eventually, they brought all of the films back. Cool, right?
So I finally get around to Prodigy, a show made for Paramount Plus. Two episodes in, and it vanishes. No announcements or warnings that that show was just going to disappear. It's gone. Because "it wasn't popular enough". A show that only existed on that one platform was pulled off of that platform with absolutely no other legal way to view it. Content that I specifically signed up for that platform to see, and now I can't... legally. Yo ho, yo ho, me hardies.
-
If I rent a car I don’t own it. Is it not stealing to hijack a rental car for a few hours?
Not a great hypothetical. Copying files would mean that in your hypothetical... I see the red civic your rental service is providing... Look at it real hard, poof another one into existence and drive away in it.
-
-
That's why I break into hotel rooms.
-
No, that would harm whoever was in possession of the room at the time (owner or guest).
This would be more akin to sneaking into a movie theatre to stand in the back and watch.
But that would still be theft of service.
-
I mean, if we extend this logic though, stealing a license is still harmful to the person who possesses the copyright. Breaking into a hotel room deprives the current possessor the exclusive right to possess the room; stealing a piece of software deprives the copyright holder the exclusive right to control their copyrighted work.
Like, I'm not even anti-piracy for the most part. I just think the comparison in the OP is bad and doesn't make a lot of sense.
Someone else in this thread said it best -- "just enjoy ya loot."
-
-
-
I will accept my downvotes in advance because what I'm about to say is probably against the mindset of most of the people that come here but:
Piracy is wrong.
I say that as someone that pirates. I'm not sure why people have to justify their actions. I know what I'm doing is wrong, I know I'm taking money away from these businesses that run streaming sites, that make movies, write books(this is the one I feel worst about because this is likely taking money directly from creators). But I do it anyway because I'm cheap, I can't afford it, its easier to pirate stuff, plenty of reasons. But none of them make it morally right, and none of them make it ethically right.
When we pirate things, we're pirating entertainment. Entertainment isn't a right. You don't need this stuff to survive. Plenty of entertainment is provided for free at libraries, online with free movies and books. Hell, you can go outside, grab a stick and a rock and boom! Free entertainment. Sure, there are people that pirate things like Photoshop to get ahead in their careers or to jumpstart them, I'm not talking to those people. Adobe has done research and they know those people buy their products when they become professionals. I'm talking to the people downloading a movie and somehow morally justifying it. But when it comes down to it, you are taking something that someone paid money to make in an effort to make money off of it. In my mind, there's no justification for that. Again, I don't care that you do it, I do it too. But no one is gonna get any points in my mind for stating that somehow what you are doing is right, or that it isn't stealing because you're downloading a copy of something. How silly an argument that is. If you take something that someone else expects money for and it isn't vital to your survival, that is wrong.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I love all of you, have a great day :).
-
Thank you for mentioning Libraries! As a librarian, I'm always getting shocked faces when I tell patrons what is accessible with their library card
I used to pirate a lot of stuff, when I couldn't afford it. Now I only pirate things that I a) already paid for (and want a more convenient way of using it or to ensure it can't be taken away) b) can't obtain any other way, or c) don't know if I will like it, so I use the pirated version as a demo of sorts
-
-
@stappern @Talignoram6571 It's a difficult question. I'm a game developer. We estimate that about 25% of all active copies are pirated.
If all pirated copies would just disappear, would those people go buy the game? I don't think so. They would just stop playing. They don't care about the game enough to spend money, or they really just cannot afford it.
But you could argue that more people are playing the game, and they might buy a sequel in the future.
So, do we loose money? Yes, a little.
-
-
-
So what does he think about renting cars? Lol, what a dumb take.
-
I mean piracy would be making a copy of the car and keeping that (which is different from stealing the rental car)
-
He probably thinks that if he takes the car it denies someone else the ability to use it. Do you see how that is different? If you pay the full price for the car there is no expectation of shared use and you can take it apart and change out the parts or drive it off a cliff if you want. Most modern software has Eula restrictions on what you can do with it and you pay for a lifetime despite your use not at all restricting the use of the software by others.
-
Depends on what the understanding is when we exchange money for a digital good. If we agreed that I can own it forever but you then pull the rug out from under us, then there's an argument to be made.
-
-
"You wouldn't download a car"
-
-
That's why I claim ownership of every hotel room I've ever stayed in and every car I've ever rented.
-
When you rent a hotel room or car you're preventing others from using that hotel room or car.
-
-
I'm not comparing renting to owning, I'm pointing out that they are different things, and each has an appropriate place. The image in the OP makes a blanket statement implying that all payment equals permanent ownership.
It is certainly true that there are things people pay for that they should have more rights of ownership over, but don't (even, and maybe especially, if they are led to believe they have ownership rights that they do not).
But even ownership of, for example, my car, does not extend to me the right to reverse engineer my car and build another identical one, and then sell that.
When you enter into a contract, where you pay for a product or service, there are a wide variety of rights you do or don't receive, depending on the agreement.
Edit: Since your employer pays you for your labor, they own you, right?
-
-
-
I have a better idea: Instead of piracy, just don't use/consume products that are exclusively distributed through shitty business models. At least when it comes to software, that's much more effective.
-
So, if you need this software and where's no alternative?
-
-
I have this one truck the banks don't want you to know about!
You know what, it's only 530 here but you've really made a good effort at most ignorant post of the day award.
214 comments
I'm amused at these statements these 'wannabe' pirates make to justify piracy. A smart person would pirate quietly without letting the world know or justifying it.
I know why I do it & I don't want some validation, internet points, 2 minutes of fame to sound / look cool.
You've just let the world know you're pirating though
oops lol
Because for some piracy isn't simply about being a cheapskate but also about activism
Theres some truth to this, but a lot of people do use this as a shield against the general cultural acceptance that piracy is stealing or otherwise morally underhanded. I do it, but I don't have any illusion I'm one of the activists. I just get indignant and refuse to pay someone for content or entertainment who I think is damaging to the medium or predatory in general. I feel like if I really wanted to make a statement, I just wouldn't consume their work at all -- but life is short and I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Your wrong. It’s what Jesus did, when the baker and fisherman couldn’t meet market demand.
No, you just need everyone to know you don't care about sounding/looking cool to sound/look cool. Totally different.
Too cool to be cool syndrome.
So true! Here, have some internet points and validation!
While I do have no morals when it comes to copying smb elses hard work(I am a programmer, basically my job) I Support games when they are good. Movies are rarely any good but the cinema isn't as expensive for me anymore than when I was a student.
And most important you can't refund bad movies in the cinema.
I still think it should be illegal to sell someone elses work though. This also means profiting from it when you use it in your product/development environment.
TL;DR:
Piracy can be a means of demonstration to show the flaws in copyright. Which obviously needs to be public.
"A smart person would pirate quietly without letting the world know" While posting "I do it & I don't want some validation..."
Hypocrisy doesn't make them incorrect. If you're going to be a pedant get better at it.
As much fun as setting up a torrent box is, being an argumentative asshole is even better.
You’re so right! Here have an internet point.
They are screaming because they rather pay for convenience, but that is not how it works.
Yeah. And, in fairness, as a non-pirate, I read along here for tips and tricks to get a non-shit streaming experience out of my home hosted hardware.
If I could still pay for a non-shit streaming experience, I would just do that.
Especially when the statement makes no sense
Now for most sources of media it's more ethical to pirate their content than obtain it legitimately.
Though granted, if you want to hurt the company more than by pirating their content, you can by not pirating their content.
(Sadly, as seen with The Wizard Game, people are not so motivated to walk away from their beloved franchises. So ⛵️🏴☠️🦜⚔️🌊)
Confused - how does not pirating hurt the company more? Wouldn't it be the exact same outcome for the company (as when pirated) or is this kinda like when GoT was arguing their popularity is even bigger when you look at the number of people torrenting their episodes
You just said admitted to pirating, you little muppet.
I think some still feel some level of guilt about it and naturally, whether consciously or subconsciously, rationalize it with ideas like this. I guess the progression from that is posting about it to show that “yes I pirate, but I’m not a bad person because rationalization”.
Pirating is like church sins, less about avoiding causing harm and more about preserving hierarchy and tradition, even though abuses and theft by intellectual property holders cause way more harm and economic cost than infringement, by multiple orders of magnitude.