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.
“A smart person would pirate quietly without letting the world know” While posting “I do it & I don’t want some validation…”
To be fair, saying on the one hand what a smart person would do, and on the other hand doing the exact opposite, makes them a dumb person even by their own standards. At which point it matters less if one particular statement of theirs is correct or not, cause they’ve established themselves as an untrustworthy source.
Disclaimer: I don’t actually know if the previous poster meant to go in this direction or not.
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”.
I don’t want some validation, internet points, 2 minutes of fame to sound / look cool.
No, you just need everyone to know you don’t care about sounding/looking cool to sound/look cool. Totally different.
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.
It’s possible to do both, I consume plenty of pirated media simply because it’s unavailable due to pathetic capitalist imposed digital distribution limitations and lack of equitable paid access.
I also consume other pirated media because I wouldn’t spend my resources for access because I don’t yet know the value of the content and won’t pay just for an opportunity to be disappointed, been there enough times to have learned that lesson. I’m happy to spend my time to find out your media sucks, but not my money, because that’s also my time with the addition that I’ve put actual effort into converting it into fungible assets.
I also deliberately pirate media that I would pay for and do understand the value of, both because I can’t always afford to purchase said product from a company making billions of dollars in exploitative corporate profits and because I have no interest in caring about that over my own personal satisfaction in life.
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
When we consume content and like it we have a tendency to want to patronize it, so yeah, if you pirated Wednesday season one, you’re more likely to watch season two buy T-shirts and other swag, look for more Addams related content, and so on.
A good example of this happened in Russia when Neil Gaiman’s books hadn’t yet been marketed there. There were some unofficial and crowdsourced translations (some Russians learned English just to read Gaiman!) and so when the market finally reached Russia, it exploded, because the fan base had already been established.
GoT was an unusual case because HBO was bought separately from normal cable packages, and so fewer people had it, so it depended on piracy and social contacts (groups gathering for viewing parties at their friend’s house). There were even public venues who would show the new episode (unofficially, so an unlicensed public performance) and by HBO ignoring these, it allowed the fanbase to swell to incredible proportions (at least until Season 8 which popped that bubble). Still, there are tons of spin-off markets from which HBO (now MAX) continues to profit.
When we like our content, we become invested in it. It becomes part of our lifestyle. We talk about it with friends. We make friends with folks who are also fans. And this is the point when we’re susceptible to collectables and spinoffs.
Also we† pirate for one of three reasons:
- We can’t afford to buy the content but want to consume it. Or it’s not available in our region
- The official version is odious to use (has DRM, forces us to watch commercials, etc.)
- The company that makes this stuff is malignant (cruel to its employees, bigoted against marginalized groups in the society, is associated with dangerous sects and subcultures) and we don’t really want to support them.
So in those cases where these are not factors, most people are going to choose to not pirate content they like, or support it in other ways. (If you want to support musical artists, it’s far less important that you buy their songs on iTunes, and far more important that you go to their concerts when you can. And buy their concert t-shirt for $60. John Coulton also takes tips.)
† We in this case refers to the larger demographic of those capable of pirating. When a product is expensive or unavailable or whatever, people who sometimes buy will look for ways to pirate or obtain deals or whatever. Yes, there will be piracy enthusiasts who never buy, but that’s a slender demographic despite what the anti-piracy propaganda might suggest. Also if content is only pirated, that may mean it was never officially released, or the release version was really poor quality.
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.
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 :).
@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.
Copyright is not a natural law - there is nothing natural about for example not telling a joke to somebody else without first tracking down the person who invented it and agreeing on payment for being allowed to tell it.
And, no, I’m not exagerating: as soon as it is created that joke legally has a copyright, owned by its creator, and sharing it (and that includes “public performances” such as telling it to your friends) requires the authorization of the owner of that copyright in that joke.
The only reason you don’t see people fined for telling jokes is because it’s not enforced because it’s not worth the trouble (plus it would quickly turn people against Copyright).
So, now that we’ve shown that Copyright does in fact go against the natural human tendency to share - literally it’s anti-natura - then that means it’s an artificial construct created by man, so a law, written by lawmakers, with all the problems that rules made by politicians have.
Now, if you look at the justification for creating such an artificial restriction on the naturaly human tendency of sharing what you heard, it’s to “incentivise creation”, which “benefits all because the copyrighted work will go into the Public Domain at the end of the copyright period”.
This makes sense, and it might even have been true in the beginning but it’s not anymore:
- You see, when this Law was first made the copyright period started as 25 years, which meant that copyrighted works did indeed go into the Public Domain to be freely enjoyed by all, but over the years that period has extended (go look at the various time when that period was extended and you will find the “strange” “coincidence” of it happenning when the first Mickey Mouse movie was about to go out of Copyright in the US) and is now around lifetime of the creator plus 50 years (more in certain countries, such as the US), which means that almost none of the creative works we grew up with (in our childhood) will never go into the Public Domain before we’re dead and burried.
Think about it: under the current Copyright Legislation, for every single one of us and for all effects and purposes the “contract” between Society and cultural creators were Society enforces an artifical limitation to the natural human act of sharing and in return cultural creators make works which although at first requiring payment to enjoy, will one day be free to enjoy has been broken - we will never freely enjoy those works we’ve known since our childhood, the payment that Society (in other words: all of us) was supposed to get for that artificial limitation to sharing.
If a contract has been broken the injured side (that would be Society) doesn’t have an obligation to abide by it.
Copyright is not a natural law, but neither is the trading of money for some bread.
I think IP is a (partially mistaken) attempt to enforce the same rule (that works really, really well) that we put on the trade of physical goods, on the trade of cognitive work.
It’s tough because with the wheat it’s conceptually simple. Yes, you’re indirectly paying for their “work” in making the bread, but you don’t have to think about work because the bread itself contains the value.
But information is copyable, and that’s fundamentally different than bread.
Feels like something should be different, but I don’t think the idea of ownership should be rejected merely because it’s not natural. Ownership of goods is more natural, but still just an aspect of culture.
Exchanging stuff is absolutelly natural (you see little children doing it) and extending barter trading to “trading for tokens which can be exchanged with different people for other things” is really just introducing a new type of item being exchanged.
Going from sharing of ideas to not-sharing, on the other hand, is going for doing something naturally to the very opposite of that (hence my use of “anti-natura”).
I don’t think “exchanging stuff but now with tokens” is at all comparable with “stop doing what you would otherwise naturally do without even thinking about it and bring into this exchange an unrelated 3rd party”.
I feel like you’re trying to hammer a square peg in a round hole there: Copyright Legislation is not about the natural give and take in a exchange or trade (in this case of information) but rather it involves a 3rd party, which is not even present, which is the owner of the copyright of said information (used to be the creator, nowadays it can be anybody or a company) who is artificially inserted in what would otherwise be a normal exchange between 2 persons as an additional externaly party that also requires something.
I suspect the recurrent confusion of so many between copyright violation and theft is exactly because copyright is entirely unnatural, so people fall back to the closest instinctive human behaviour to try and understand it, ending up with the completelly way out there incorrect idea that copyright violation is like one side in an exchange taking stuff from the other and running away before giving their stuff to the other, when in reality you have to sides doing an absolutelly normal exchange (or even a gifting) and there is a 3rd party, not physicially present and never met, seen or otherwise involved with either which the powers of the land say is supposed to authorize that exchange and get a cut if it so wishes, and which both parties of that exchange choose to ignore.
It’s not theft because both parties on the exchange are conducting a normal exchange just like they do with all other classes of thin and both are abidding by it. The closest “normal” illegality to copyroght violation is tax evasion and not tax in a democratic nation (were the money goes into the common pot to help everybody) but rather tax in an absolute monarchy or dictatorship were whomever was supposed to get that cut from that transaction is going to keep the money and even then the analogy fails because your’re also supposed to give that 3rd party money even when GIFTING something.
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
Well I’d argue that two things can be wrong at the same time and I see OPs image mostly as a humorous jibe at the dubious practices that have risen with digital content. When you buy a Disc you can resell it, and the company can’t knock on your door and say “Excuse me, we’d like the disc back but we’ll keep your money”. With a digital movie you just obtain a license to view it that you can’t resell and can be taken away from you at any time (the cases I know of are admittedly rare till now and caused at least some public unhappiness and in some cases even law suites IIRC). All at the same or even higher price than before.
Then there is the fact that I’m all for using the correct terminology. When you steal something that something is lost to its previous owner. Piracy isn’t stealing it’s copyright infringement. Companies just prefer to call it stealing because it sounds more evil. Same with the billions of losses through piracy that they complain about. They are based on the wrong premise that every copy is a lost sale, which just isn’t true. Take you for example: you can’t afford it, so you personally don’t loose them anything. And maybe you even buy some stuff you wouldn’t have if you hadn’t pirated it, or something else from that company before that you really liked. Then I remember people from my school days who had all the movies, all the games, anything. But when you asked “How is it?” they mostly answered “Oh, I haven’t played it”. I doubt this kind of “collector” would do the same if it actually cost them money, even if they had the means. In short those number are inflated to make the problem appear bigger than it really is.
Is it still a problem/ morally wrong? Probably, but it does put things in a different perspective for me.
And no, I don’t need to justify anything to myself. My limiting resource is time, not money, so I buy my fish in the supermarket instead of trying to catch it on the high seas ;) Doesn’t stop me from grumbling about them, obviously
I wonder if we’re wrong to group entertainment and physical goods into the same category though. They’re wildly different things.
If I make you a pair of shoes, I need to charge you money to account for my time, my effort, and the materials it took to make them. If I make a thousand shoes, it doesn’t scale; the price per shoe has to stay the same.
If I write an ebook, I would charge for the time and effort it took to write it, but there’s no material charge. It scales entirely differently because I can make a billion ebooks for the same cost as one.
Considering that, the old way of thinking that I should be able to resell an ebook like some shoes I bought doesn’t seem to apply logically. We’re buying entertainment, not physical goods. I don’t bitch that I can’t resell the experience of going to a concert, so why do I bitch (and I do) that I can’t resell digital media?
I just wish the publishers would price media accordingly. If they all worked out a deal with stremio to get ten cents whenever I streamed a movie, I wouldn’t think twice. But instead I need to sign up with multiple services and pay $20 to stream one, and I just realized I’m bitching to the choir so I’ll end there.
Yea, thats essentially the problem. Companies getting greedy and trying to squeeze out more money by all means they can get away with. If they priced things fairly (and split the profits fairly with the content creators) a lot less people would have an incentive to look to the high seas. And just maybe (pipe dream, I know) worked out deals with each other so people wouldn’t need a freakin website just to find out where the hell they have to subscribe to watch something…
And sure, customers trying to avoid paying for anything is also a problem, but I feel the “cure” a) isn’t one and b) hurts the people who pay much more than those who pirate.
Essentially the grass isn’t green on either side of the fence and that’s why we can’t have nice things 🤷
You’re not familiar with Hollywood accounting, are you?
More harm is caused by propping up the media industry with draconian IP laws than by any amount of piracy, and actual content creators are overworked and underpaid not because of pirates but the mad pursuit of exponential short term profit growth.
If you care about developers, don’t consume the media.
If you must consume the media, pirate.
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.
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…
Your reasoning touches on a deep philosophical concept: what is “ownership”?
I’d say owning something is easy enough when you can’t duplicate it (I can’t just copy your car or house to save money). Duplication, however, means the ownership is technically the abstraction of “intellectual property”, which worked fine when duplicating cost money and people paid money for it.
However, the very essence of using a computer on a network is simply using copies. You’re not reading this as I write it, but a copy your computer downloaded.
It’s more about ownership of a copyright than ownership of an actual item though. There are issues with our copyright system that could be addressed (DMCA should be launched into the sun), but overall it’s the lesser of two evils. A society without any copyright enforcement simply wouldn’t produce the kinds of outstanding media that we’re all used to. Movies today cost hundreds of millions to make, and without a sufficient profit motive, no investor would be willing to front that kind of cash. Even crowdfunding, which I actually feel is scammier than private investors, has never come close to raising the capital needed for a major film or TV show. The system only works so long as a critical mass of consumers are actually paying for most media.
Personally I’m fine with paying netflix for their content, with the understanding that I’m licensing its use on my television, not purchasing the work outright. I don’t see that as any kind of scam. I mean I still pirate too, but now that I’m at a point in life where I can afford to contribute, I try to. I have friends that are actors and writers and so I don’t mind paying to ensure a healthy ecosystem of content creators moving forward. But if you make it too difficult or inconvenient for me to access the media I want, then to the high seas I sail, and I’m fine with that too lol
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.
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.
How can it be stealing if downloading doesn’t take the content away from anyone else.
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!
Not judging you for your reasons, but you don’t speak for everyone so calm down with the “we” pronoun.
I really couldn’t care if people judged me for my reasons, I pirate because I’m selfish just like the vast majority of people who pirate. But if you’re living in a country where content restrictions or regional pricing isn’t an issue, or if you’re downloading something that isn’t in circulation anymore then you’re in all likelihood pirating because you’re selfish.
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.
That’s why I break into hotel rooms.
Wouldn’t it be more like having one person seed the room and letting all the leechers stay in the room free of charge
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.”
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.
I think the source of disagreement here is that you have a natural right to land use, but a purely legal right to exclusively control copies of your work.
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.
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.
Yeah, it sucks to hear it, but this guy is right.
It’s also (typically) modeled in such a way that your software is consistently updated to new versions on release. You get active hotfixes, patches and improvements as they are released.
Most people jump software versions in stages of about 2-3 years. You’ll find a lot of SaaS packages will be priced as if you were instead purchasing the software at those stages.
All in all, if you have every intention of using the software regularly, it’s priced well and typically makes for a much better user experience.
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.
