this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
370 points (96.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
185 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 |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Suppose some dude on the street hands out books for free and gives you a copy. Does it make you unethical for accepting one? Would it be different online?
Suppose your government charges a "blank media tax" on storage devices to "compensate" creators with the assumption you already "illegally" download their content, didn't you already pay for it anyway?
What if you're downloading stuff as a hobby but you'd never pay for it if that would be the only other option, did anyone lose anything of value?
Physical media and digital media are different beasts. When he hands you that book, he no longer has it. I would also assume he didn’t steal that physical copy. Someone got paid initially for the physical media, which the person is now deprived of by giving it to you. It’s not quite “apples to oranges” but it’s definitely not a parallel situation.
This is assuming - like digital media - some one took the time to spend his own free time to make copies of a physical medium.
There is no way of knowing whether the person has copyright or stole the first copy.
Or compare school books: the whole class buys one copy together, makes copies for every person to share costs. Likewise, a whole family can chip in to buy a car - you wouldn't force them to buy a car each.
Whether someone spends their personal resources to copy a medium digitally or physically doesn't really matter to the copyright holder or author. They won't get paid either way
The two examples in your later paragraph are wholly different cases: the second is a completely different use-case and the first one is actually less morally unambiguous than you think.
@Fleppensteijn @vis4valentine another thing to consider is whether the creators of the work actually receive anything. When you pay to watch Barbie, basically 100% of that money goes to Bob Iger or someone like that. That's what the strikes are about. When you pay to play Factorio, a lot more of the money goes to the people who made it.
But if you get it on VHS or DVD or whatever and sell it, or even give it away, Mr Bob won't receive his cut and it's not considered piracy or stealing
@Fleppensteijn what? They actually tried to make reselling VHSes and DVDs illegal. And of course we all know that copying them is illegal.
I don't know about the first part. Copying isn't illegal for your own use. Either way, when receiving a copy, you're not the one doing the actual copying. This was protected by fair use until EU politicians got lobbied into banning it.
@Fleppensteijn even in more lenient countries, selling or giving away a copy that you made is illegal
Maybe, but I'm talking about receiving it. That's why you have to be careful torrenting (uploading) whereas DDL is no problem