The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Piracy was never stealing, it was only copyright infringement.

    Stealing is a crime that goes back to the 10 commandments, it’s old. When you steal something you take it from someone else, depriving them of it.

    Copyright infringement is a newish crime where the government has granted a megacorporation a 120 year monopoly on the expression of an idea. If you infringe that copyright, they still have the original, and can keep selling copies of that original to everyone else, but they might miss out on the opportunity to make a sale to you. Obviously, that’s very different from stealing something.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      The irony is, you pirating today has been shown to influence you buying it later on in a sale. And there’s a good argument to be made about your word of mouth praise helping their sales.

      • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yup. I’m about to suggest about half a dozen people to watch a movie on Netflix I pirated last night. Leave the World Behind. I highly reccomend you see this to understand my last statement here. I have “suggested” to a few dozen people to watch Hulu for Firefly.

        They don’t get my money because I don’t give a flying fuck to support the extortion of the people this tyrrany that’s been running since Crowley and even longer. Looks free but there was never an end to slavery. It just stopped giving a shit about your color. To counter, goes over everyone’s head one way or another. Doesn’t matter. All life will die on this planet in less than a decade.

              • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                The counter is that the slavery of everyone doesn’t mean they’re “not racist” by applying slavery “to white people too.” They’ve been enslaving white people since way before we came to the US. I am, by family, English & Irish. So just because I’m blond, blue and white don’t mean I’m not ready to WAR against slavery by the corporations or any bullshit hedgemony. Democratic party is as guilty as the republicans and their claim to fight is just sucker lies. They don’t fight shit for real and Biden is just Trumps most active cock sucking bitch.

                • poopkins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I don’t mean this in any disrespectful way at all, but I’m completely missing the context of what you’re trying to tell me and genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Sucks being uneducated, especially when folks don’t care to help because you’re a condescending dick about it. Not to mention religiously expletive.

      • PrincessZelda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Biggest personal examples are Minecraft and FL Studio. I asked my parents to buy Minecraft for me after a week of pirating it, and I bought an FL Studio license when I could afford to, nearly a decade after I first used it. I don’t use it much, but it felt right.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        yup, pirated jedi: fallen order. liked the game very much, but jedi: survivor wasn’t cracked yet. so i bought a key for 30€.

        the problem is: it runs like shit, because it’s a bad PS5 port and denuvo probably also has an effect on that.

        i will never buy from EA again.

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        As every musician knows, exposure is always better than payment! This is why you shouldn’t offer payment to musicians at your wedding, since they’re getting great exposure already. /s

        • Gonzako@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s two very different cases. Using exposure to extort services out people is different than copying something to see if you’d enjoy it.

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s really not that different. The main difference is the audience size. For an independent musician selling merchandise, it would be equally insulting to them to tell them that they will be repaid in exposure if they give you one for free.

            Making a copy of something “to see if you’d enjoy it” or because it’s somehow great for their exposure is mental gymnastics to justify piracy. Let’s just call it intellectual property theft and stop beating around the bush.

            • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Copying isn’t theft. You’re about 40 years late to this conversation and you’re starting from the taste of boots? You’re equating an instantly reproducible, finished product with a service; your analogy sucks.

              • poopkins@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                The entire goal of my comment was to avoid mincing words. As somebody who has first hand experienced copyleft violation, it sure doesn’t feel different on the receiving end. I feel this very personal experience is equivocal to copyright infringement. I’m not licking any boots—thanks for that accusation.

                It’s easy to excuse illicit behavior from your armchair by gaslighting with the choice of words, because after all, violating copyright is just sticking it to the man, right? In truth, I feel that my software was stolen for profit and just for me as the little man, there’s no other word that comes to my mind than “theft.”

                • homicidalrobot@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You should write an open letter to hobbyists. It worked for Gates. If your software was “stolen for profit” and that didn’t result in more people trying it and buying, I have bad news: it didn’t seem like it was worth the money to the people who tried it. JRC does many studies on piracy and the data shows that total sales are not displaced by piracy volume, again and again. You can make the argument that this is only true for games and music (typically the subject of these studies) but this hardline attitude of it being the same as stealing sucks.

    • blusterydayve26@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Stealing is a crime that goes back to the 10 commandments, it’s old.

      https://youtu.be/Qi5GXwY7W_0?t=165

      Not exactly. The original translation from Hebrew was closer to “thou shall not kidnap,” arresting control of a person’s personal boundaries and will, not a violation of personal property, which didn’t really exist as a concept at the time.

    • abuttifulpigeon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      An associate of mine defines stealing as, “taking (either by cloning or removing) something (either digital or physical) of which is not of your original possession”

      If anyone has a rebuttal, please help.

      Edit: What’s with the downvotes? I’m on your side.

      • OmegaPillar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s not really a rebuttal, but by that assessment, a person may not view a webpage, as the browser copies files from a distant server for viewing.

      • TheDezzick@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not so much a rebuttal, but ask if they think stealing has any relation to depriving another person of something. Imo, they have a correct, though extremely narrow, definition of stealing that doesn’t leave any nuance for comparing different kinds of stealing. Piracy, or as they would say ‘stealing digital media’ is not a kind of stealing that deprives another person of that thing, so clearly it’s somewhat different than stealing money or physical property.

        If they aren’t willing to entertain that there are different kinds of stealing then they’re ignorant of reality and it might not be worth your time to try to change their mind.

      • Phrodo_00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s because that’s not a common definition and it’s not even a good one. No normal person would call cloning stealing. Also, this completely misses lending, gifting, downloading a webpage or even renting. All of those would be stealing under this definition.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Who cares what your associate uses as a definition, stealing / theft has long established definitions. You can just point and laugh and say that your associate doesn’t actually understand the words he/she is using.

        You could say that you define agreeing as “thinking someone is completely wrong”, and that you agree with your associate.

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hi, welcome to the Technology community here on Lemmy! Discourse is not tolerated here, so please just tack on your endorsement of piracy and leave your civility at the door.

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Whoa whoa, we don’t take kindly to people telling us that. Only a boot-licking, brain-dead, corporate shill wouldn’t outright endorse piracy. Take your nuance somewhere else, pal!

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      The war of semantics is about as intelligent as the tweet that went viral where someone criticized trains requiring tickets. “Why are you charging me to get on? You’re going that way anyway.”

  • DeadNinja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t exactly recall when or where I heard/read this quote, but man it is dope

    • “it should not be a concern when people pirate your content, it should be when people don’t even want to pirate your content”
    • owen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      8 months ago

      I remember this from the hip hop scene. You know you’ve fallen off when nobody is sharing/pirating your album

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I am the guy! I made the quote! Feels goddamn awesome to see it everywhere now!

      Not the one you said, but OP quote.

  • Conyak@lemmy.tf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    People are always on here arguing about whether pirating is stealing or not. I do think it’s stealing I just can’t bring myself to give a fuck about these large corporations. They have been stealing from the people for years.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah I really don’t care if I’m stealing in this context, I care if I’m stealing from independent content creators. Another thing is I know I can’t afford all the music I listen to, but I can afford to go to shows of my favorite artists. Piracy is often completely transparent of any content distribution strategies so I find it a great way to explore music.

    • ██████████@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      you cant steal something that isnt fucking physically real

      am i stealing smells and sounds from my neighbors

      no democrat city judge would side with a corpo over a random joe with a bangin lawyer

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        What would you call it if you make a contract with a gardener, they make your entire garden and then you don’t pay them. Since it’s not stealing, where is the harm, right?

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re stealing their time. That’s not really comparable since the people who made the tv show or movie you’re pirating have already been paid.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Do you believe actors etc. would still keep getting paid if everyone would just pirate everything?

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Since the idea seems to be that pirating digital goods is a moral imperative, the question what are the consequences if everyone would do it is valid.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Er… first off, you signed a contract. Second, you’d be stealing their labor. Their physical labor.

  • Blue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Pirated valheim, played 20 hours, bought the game.

    Pirated baldurs gate 3 on early access, bought the game with only act 1, that’s how good it is.

    Pirated Valhalla, played 5 hours, uninstalled that trash forever.

    Started pirating streaming services when they told me that I can’t watch shit anymore because streaming service b and c took the shows, and now I have to pay two different streaming services if I want to keep watching.

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      We pay for three video streaming services plus Spotify plus Kobo’s monthly plan for audiobooks plus a monthly Microsoft tax for apps and cloud storage plus regular Steam purchases.

      Anyway, I just got back into piracy after a 15-year hiatus due to the enshittification of video streaming. It reminds me of how cable TV got ridiculous back in the 90s and so people figured out how to hack the satellite feeds and make pirated VHS tapes to pass around. As Gaben has said, piracy is always a service problem.

      I’m still happy with Spotify and Steam. I’m mostly okay with audiobooks, too. However, Amazon is fucking with that service too by making some books Audible-only. For example, you can get Books 2 and 3 of Tchaikovsky’s Children of Time books on various platforms, but not Book 1 because Book 1 is Audible-only! Am I going to reward Audible for that kind of malicious licensing? Haha, no, of course not.

      • Blue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fuck them, they want our money and our data, while giving shit services.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Just for curiosity, how do you find Kobos selection compared to Libby/Overdrive (or similar), if that’s an option in your area?

        I really can’t be happier with either, for audiobooks or ebooks, considering their price (free, through your public library). Drawback being that selections are limited depending on your library (but you can be linked to several, and you may be eligible for several…here in Massachusetts, anybody in the state is eligible for BPL plus the regional networks and colleges (I.e. COFAN). And there are libraries in other states that accept patrons from anywhere. And you can be on multiple waitlists

        But, the limiting selection or not being able to get instant access when you want to scratch that itch. I bought my wife and I kindles on Prime day. Those each came with free Kindle Unlimited months. And then there’s Prime Reading as a benefit of being a prime member.

        But, while I like ebooks, my wife greatly prefers audiobooks (she’s at 140-something for the year, and rarely uses her kindle because the phone is way more convenient for audiobooks. That’s entirely through Libby, but she’s also counting the Harry Potter books on her friends Audible account that we’ve been listening to with the kids). And the audiobook selection on kindle unlimited is terrible and clunky…they really want to push you to Audible. Though I do really like being able to toggle between reading and book in the same app. But while I do enjoy the occasional sales (been on waitlist for months for “To sleep in a sea of stars”, and then found it on prime sale for 99¢ or something), I can’t justify a “subscription” to “own” an ebook.

        Would love a service that had a good selection of ebooks and audiobooks, and compatible with kindle and IOS

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I have never tried Libby or Overdrive, though one or both are an option in my area, I believe. I have this vague feeling of unease associated with only having a certain amount of time to listen to the book.

          I chose Kobo because they are a smaller company competing with Amazon. They have a subscription where you pay about $15 per month to get 1 credit per month. Since most audiobooks are about $35, it’s pretty economical and I feel like I’m supporting the artists, too. Plus, seeing the new credit every month keeps me reading/listening to literature rather than just doomscrolling.

          Kobo’s selection is very good. The very few times I haven’t been able to find a book on Kobo, it is because of some shitty Audible exclusivity problem. I mean, a person is almost compelled to pirate the book in that case, just to punish, in some miniscule way, Audible’s anti-consumer, anti-competetive practices.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, I know. I said in my comment that I am on Kobo’s monthly audiobook plan. My comment about Amazon is that they are fucking with the market by not allowing other companies like Kobo to sell certain audiobooks.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh man, you have to listen to Andy Serkis read LOTR. Or the full cast version of World War Z. These are full audio performances. At the moment at least, some narrators are much better than automatic text to speech.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s probably worth pirating games just to test play them before buying the good ones for online play

    • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I haven’t pirated games in like 18 years

      I’ve never paid for movies, showes, or music lawl. I’ll donate or buy merch if I love a musical artist tho

  • greedytacothief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think piracy is copyright infringement. But like who cares if some big corpos get infringed upon by some dudes.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think a compromise on copyright could be a good middle ground in future. In the same way that I’m happy to wait for a game to go on sale before I buy and play it, I’d be happy to wait until a movie or series enters the public domain so I can consume it without paying. Obviously not for hundreds of years, or 56 years. But if Netflix/HBO etc shows and movies became free to watch after 6-7 years, most piracy traffic could be easily captured by legal platforms that are more convenient and accessible to more viewers. I struggle to see how it would not further relegate piracy to a niche activity done by very few, or be bad for the content producers in any significant way

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      What about non-corpos and small companies that make the stuff being pirated? Is that still a “who cares” situation?

    • poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      8 months ago

      There is a third party that cares: those of us who pay subscriptions that finance the content that pirates steal. Due in part to rising rates of piracy, our subscription fees go up and/or production budgets go down. In turn, pirates should care, too, because then there’s less in quantity and quality to steal.

      • JGrffn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        At least for piracy of streaming content, I believe what should become apparent to everyone is that convenience drove down piracy and greatly increased gains for everyone, and once corporations got greedy and started rolling out new platforms and fragmenting content between them, everything started going down the drain. Even without accounting for piracy, convenience was lost, multiple platforms mean more fees to get the same content that was originally in one platform, so less people willing to pay. Less income per platform drives down investment in content and drives up cancelations of ongoing projects. Less income than was originally observed when a single platform had condensed content means there’s greater incentive to drive ads and increases prices on all platforms, thus also potentially driving down users subscribing to said platforms.

        None of that factors in piracy. If we do factor in piracy, it’s a fact that before fragmentation, subscription rates were high, and after fragmentation, there’s a lot more incentive to pirate content. In some instances, platforms shoot themselves in the foot even further by further charging rental fees or purchases of individual content, as well as region blocks and ads.

        Piracy surely is a problem all throughout the history of streaming services (something that could still be argued as not actually something to worry about because those pirates were never going to be customers in the first place, and Netflix was still booming enough to incentivize other companies to roll out their own platforms), but it becomes a symptom of another problem later down the line due to lack of convenience. Even so, the current state of streaming platforms wouldn’t be much different if piracy wasn’t happening. People would simply consume less content due to budget constraints or due to being annoyed at lack of conveniences.

        I personally hate depending on a platform that on a whim may decide to remove content I watch. There’s specific songs that have disappeared from my Spotify playlists for no good reason (a lot for geoblocking reasons), there’s shows that just get removed from Netflix, there’s all of game of thrones on prime which I couldn’t watch due to geoblocking and ended up having to pirate it even though I was paying for a platform which had the show. It’s a lot easier, a lot more convenient, to pirate. The content is yours, instantly, until you decide to delete it from your computer. I didn’t mind paying for Netflix for years, and since they incentivized account sharing, I shared the account with 2 other friends and we split the cost. It was super convenient. Now, I have a plex library nearing the 50tb mark with about 40 people watching content on it, everything automated and everyone can request whatever they want, and I simply ask for donations to buy more drives. It’s still more expensive than subscription services due to energy costs, donations not being enough for the equipment needed to store content and run services, and costs of internet, static ips, and domain names, but I’m not planning to stop as it’s overall more convenient, not just for me, but for 40 other people.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Do you give those 40 people back their donation money if you ever close your service? Since in the end, they never got any of the hardware or media they watched over your Plex for their money.

          • JGrffn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            They’re called donations for a reason, it’s a contribution to keep the service growing (not going since I’m personally invested in keeping it going for as long as possible) and nobody is forced to give a dime if they don’t want to.

            • poopkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Have you considered giving Netflix a monthly donation for all the great content they continue to create for your collection?

              • JGrffn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’d have to give Amazon, HBO, Hulu, Disney, crunchyroll, etc. Donations as well since they’re contributing just as much, if not more than, Netflix to my collection now👀

        • poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Your frustrations with streaming services are very relatable and I completely agree that the space has become increasingly fragmented. I, too, have cut down on some subscriptions where I feel that I don’t get my money’s worth.

          I believe your case is a perfect example of intellectual property theft: your 40 customers are paying you instead of paying the copyright holders. If you hadn’t offered them with this solution, it’s not unreasonable to think that they would be more willing to spend that money on purchasing it directly from the legitimate owner. Consequently, it can be argued that your shared library is incurring damages through missed revenue. By extension, even by an iota of a percentage, the service provider or the production studio will need to recoup that in the ways I’ve mentioned.

          So while I completely understand your rationale for pirating, surely we can agree that in cases like these, there is some—no matter how little—degree of legitimacy to the assertion that piracy is detrimental to those of us who pay for our subscriptions.

          • JGrffn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            We can agree about piracy being detrimental for sure! We just disagree on how detrimental it is vs corpo’s own actions.

            Regarding the donations, it’s “give whatever you want, even 0, and inly when I say we need new gear”, so I wouldn’t say it’s lost revenue since barely anyone donates and it all goes directly to covering part of the cost of new hard drives. I’ve asked for donations twice so far, and none of the times have seen enough donations to cover for 100% of equipment expenses. Just thought I’d clarify on the “donations” thing :)

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Piracy isn’t costing these companies any money if people never intended on giving them money in the first place. This argument almost implies that these companies have an inherent right to our money whether we want to spend it with them or not.

        • poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          There will be a portion of pirates that never intended to spend money, but surely there will also be at least some pirates who deliberately stopped paying a subscription in favor of consuming content for free.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that corporations have some unalienable right to take our money; what I’m saying is that with the recent increase in digital piracy, it’s not unthinkable that it has had some, however small, financial impact on their bottom line.

          I feel this is a very nuanced take and genuinely don’t understand how this community has taken offense to it.

  • WindowsEnjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 months ago
    • When you take 5 eur from my pocket - you are stealing.
    • When you take 5 eur from my pocket, make a copy and put my original 5 eur back to my pocket - this is not stealing.
    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Further to that, paying for a product then the seller taking that product away from you without refunding your payment is stealing.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Man does “Google Nest” come to mind. Buys company. Pushes it all over the place. “Eh, I think we’re done. Whole ecosystem useless now.”

        Which is par for the course with Google and not at all a surprise, but sheesh.

    • vsh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Taking a product from the shop without paying and returning the item later is still stealing.

      There was a story on Reddit where man stole a few grands of $ in products over a few years at his local grocery shop, and one day when he wanted to return what he stole he was arrested on site.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Taking a product from the shop without paying and returning the item later is still stealing.

        The issue here is that there is a period of time where the shop does not have the item.

        • poopkins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you are trying to make an analogy to digital copies, this still doesn’t hold water. The copyright holder does not have ownership of your copy.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The copyright holder should never have ownership of my copy. If I purchase it it should be mine to use. The shop should not be allowed to come to my house and take it away.

            • poopkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept to grasp. If it helps in understanding, try replacing “copy” with “product” and “copyright holder” with “store.”

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you

                Right, I should own my copy. I have purchased this copy and it’s mine now. It’s bullshit for a store to say “now that we no longer sell the thing your purchased previously you’re not allowed to own it anymore.”

                • poopkins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Ownership is one condition that a copyright holder might offer, but that’s not guaranteed. Video rental shops would allow unlimited consumption for a limited time period, for example. We can argue all day about the differences and what consumers want versus the conditions under which content producers currently operate. I am personally also extremely frustrated by that, and I vote with my wallet: I do not subscribe to services that I find too restrictive or too expensive.

                  Where I am in the minority, however, is my position that copyright infringement is illegal, unethical and can in any way be legitimized.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The “taking a physical object” analogy doesn’t even give us anything useful.

      Most stores of perishable goods don’t want to hold onto their stock; they want to give it away, ideally in a way that makes them money. In many countries, they will even give away the last excess to homeless people that would not reasonably be able to afford it.

      If there’s one orange seller in a town that’s put effort into a supply train to bring oranges there, but someone has shared a magic spell that lets them xerox oranges off the shelf, then that orange seller never gets paid, and has no livelihood; it doesn’t help him that he still has all of the oranges he brought to market, he’s not going to eat them all himself.

      I expect the morally deprived will answer “Not my problem.” Yet, it’s going to be an issue for them when they try to run their own business.

  • rockyTron@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Good topic, good point, terrible writing. I couldn’t finish the article with the author’s ego and personal bias butting into his great story.

    • spikespaz@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      I honestly don’t see the same conceit you do, and I expected it before reading. I just read the author as a jaded evangelist.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Oh! Doctor Korkorow? Yeah I feel ya, I couldn’t ever really get through his writing either, but I know of him, about him, his opinions, values, dedicated work et c, I have nothing but respect and gratitude for for the dude.

      Cory fights for the User!

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I usually just assume that Im probably gonna agree with the thing so dont see the need to put more time into it. If it was something that I felt different about then maybe i might have, but as that is probably not the case there’s no need dragging it out for no reason.

        Plus, they seem to be on top of the thing, so im gonna make sure to stay out of their way and leave them alone and let them do their jobs.

        There’s little left to do at this point, and its not really my place to tell them how to do their jobs. Thatd be presumptious, as I might just as well know next to nothing about it compared to them. Why making it even more complicated than it already is? Its their job after all, not ours, and we have to respect that. Lol what would even the job be, that is not exactly information i would carry around so. Besides, i already have one other job anyway, so…

        In the end, the important thing is that they are on top of it, and i bet i would feel more or less the same way even if the whole thing was another thing altogether, as long as i feel the same way as they do about it, and that theyre doing something about it instead of giving it time to grow, maybe into something even worse!

        But regardless- something is being done, right now, by someone, right there. you dont see that sort of thing around much these days. Also doesn’t hurt that they could possibly have more insight into the details of the case than maybe anyone else.

        I dont know how you guys feel about it, sometimes I’m not 100% sure myself, but i cant imagine i am going to feel any regret having maybe the best guys possible feeling more or less dead on the same way i do about it. Its practically guaranteed, think about it- if it werent for them, I could have never heard anything about it in the first place…

        And as if that wasn’t all, here comes the icing on the cake- the same guys who first blew the lid off the whole thing to begin with can likely identify the deeper issues as well, and therefore should know how to change it for the better instead of some shmuck making it worse out lack of insight and proper research… Winnn!

        At this point for all we know, literally any alternative could be a better option. In the end, regardless of every little detail of everything about this, they seem to be here to really do something- anything about it, and I think we might consider ourselves lucky that something is being done here at all.

  • AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Netflix and Amazon prime simply won’t work with VPNs active, which I use for work and privacy towards my ISP.

    I won’t compromise my security for their bad services. Living in a non US country, we are also always several years behind on content being offered.

    Yeah, nah. The paying customer always pays for the percieved sins of non customers.

    Set sail.

  • yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    the way i see it, on big budget productions anyone who is relying on their paycheck to survive already got paid for their work, and the ones collecting royalties or sales percentages are rich enough that i couldnt care less. smaller independent studios or individual creators are the ones that i will always support, and in cases like itch.io games that are pwyw i will take the free download and figure out how much i will pay based on how much i like the game.

    • A2PKXG@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s Like saying I don’t pay rent to the landlord, the house has already been built.

      If a society agrees on this being right, no more houses will be built. And no movies will be made.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        If society agrees on something like that then houses will still get built as obviously we’ve entered the socialist utopia were all waiting for

        Capitalist brains stuck on “buh peeps need money or not do nothin”

      • yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        well, when reduced to those terms they so seem to be similar concepts but needs and luxuries are not exactly equivalent, not to mention the difference between a tangible possession vs an intangible “experience” which have wildly different relationships, transaction types, and even grey area over what is considered piracy.

        also, claiming society has agreed on these exchanges being “right” isnt exactly accurate. society certainly tolerates these exchanges, but to what degree has changed significantly in recent years. theres a good debate over intellectual property ownership, and whether the original idea is more valuable than the creation of the work itself. certain aspects of filmmaking, for instance, are recognized as being more significant to the finished work than some other roles (directors, cinematographers, etc) but the fair compensation of other roles which make no less significant contributions to the relevance of any work is a subject on which society cannot make a fair judgment without knowing the details of every relationship.

        in the end, i believe piracy is and should be viewed as an organic market force which should prompt corrections in order to minimize, but due to the nature of the transaction it will never go away.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t you see the problem in your reasoning? When everyone would just pirate, nobody would be able to get paid. The money that pays the wages for the workers isn’t willed into existence, it ultimately comes from the consumer. Bigger studios pay their workers before the project is finished. That money comes from ongoing sales they produced before.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        If I’m pirating, it means I either can’t afford the item, it’s too hard to get, or the ways to get it have been made overly complex and frustrating. This means literally no money was ever going in anyone’s pockets to begin with.

        How am I preventing a sale that was never going to take place to begin with?

      • yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        i would see your point if my reasoning were extended beyond where my boundaries are set. my position is based on a lot of factors and isnt a blanket statement that piracy is never immoral or that everyone should pirate all the time regardless of circumstances. if everyone were to pirate, it would certainly change my perspective on it as a broad practice, though not absolutely.

        my argument, at least from the perspective of my original comment, was more of a reflection of my feelings that the least deserving are making the most profit off of any given large studio property, and i advocated piracy as a reaction to that given current studio structuring and the state of the entertainment market. and i understand that the profit of previous properties are directly responsible for the amount invested in subsequent works, but there is a certain degree of profitability which makes me feel like any argument about how piracy is hurting business is petty complaining over what is comparitively loose change for those that continue to be paid. i dont quite get a pang of empathy for a few thousand or even tens of thousands of instances of piracy for a property with profits in the hundres of millions considering how many instances were from people priced out anyway.

  • Copernican@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If this rhetoric was used in a conservative opinion piece instead of a pro piracy opinion piece, I’m pretty sure it would be banned for calling for violence towards specific individuals.

    Guillotine preview image and quotes like:

    Sure, Zaslav deserves to be staked out over an anthill and slathered in high-fructose corn syrup. But save the next anthill for the Sony exec who shipped a product that would let Zaslav come into your home and rob you. That piece of shit knew what they were doing and they did it anyway. Fuck them. Sideways. With a brick.

    Sure, Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive in all of Southern California, the loathsome David Zaslav, who oversaw the merger of Warner with Discovery.

    What a trash article and site. How is this permitted.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m pretty sure it would be banned for calling for violence towards specific individuals.

      People with no attachment to reality might overreact like that, but the rest of us have reading comprehension on our side.

      deserves to be staked out over an anthill

      “deserves to be”: this is a phrase commonly used when people are basically venting, but it almost never suggests that someone should actually do the action. Just search for the phrase “deserves to be string up” and you’ll see just how common it is.

      As for “over an anthill”, when someone describes an outrageous situation, that’s yet another clue that they’re venting, not proposing an actual action.

      Honest people who read the news and opinion pieces should know this, so either you’re new to reading, or you’re dishonest.

      Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive

      Again, first day reading? Or just dishonest?

      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, I’ve just been living in American for the past 30 years or so and have an understanding of what inflammatory and dehumanizing attacks on individuals and groups does to society. And even if it’s permissible based on the rules of this community, it’s still garbage journalism.

    • corship@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I mean, the analogy doesn’t even work.

      Just because I can only rent a car and not buy it, doesn’t mean it would be fine to smash the window and steal it instead.

      • Tier 1 Build-A-Bear 🧸@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        What if the company wasn’t trying to get you to rent the car? What if they tried REALLY hard to get you to think you were buying the car, but once you “bought” it, they start crippling things and telling you you can’t fix it yourself but instead need to pay exorbitant prices for them to “upgrade” it, since, now that you’ve “bought” it, you don’t technically “own” it

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          But, is the piracy only justifiable if and only if the item you bought was unilaterally taken away from you? This seems to be arguing that: SOMETIMES purchased digital goods are stolen from a consumer, therefore it is ALWAYS justifiable for a consumer to pirate. I think we need a more nuanced take on piracy.

          And now that SAG AFTRA concessions were made to give to more payout to actors and other creative folks based on streaming metrics, I think that means consumers should attempt to stream if available to help ensure the creators hit their metrics for payout.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            My criteria for what makes something worth purchasing versus pirating is pretty simple: can I purchase a file in a format that I want to be able to use on all my devices without DRM for a fair price. If that’s the case then I’ll buy it. I buy stuff off GOG and Humble Bundle all the time.

            As for streaming. If the service is good and has enough content on it to keep me invested then I’ll pay for the sub. For several years Netflix was good enough that I almost completely stopped pirating movies and shows. There was just always something on there to watch. When it got to the point that I had to look for shit that I hadn’t seen before and wanted to watch I cancelled it, and I haven’t picked up any other services since then other than what came with my internet. I’m not going to juggle 14 steaming services and try to keep track of what is available on which one when I can just pay for a VPN and download everything from one source. Especially considering some of the more niche stuff I want to watch isn’t available on any of them a lot of the time.

            The bottom line is make not pirating more convenient and cheaper than pirating and I’ll stop doing it.

            • Copernican@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The bottom line is make not pirating more convenient and cheaper than pirating and I’ll stop doing it.

              How do you make it cheaper than pirating?

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                I have to pay for and setup hardware to store and distribute media I pirate which costs money and time but I guess I didn’t really mean it had to be more convenient AND cheaper just that if there was a service that beat piracy on those two points combined I would use it. Spotify for instance has pretty much all the music I would want so I haven’t downloaded any for a few years.

      • amki@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        The analogy is that you buy a car (because if it breaks, the car and your entertainment stuff, you will buy a new one to replace it, you will also carry all maintenance) but suddenly you can’t drive backwards anymore because the manufacturer decided retroactively that you should pay extra for that (possibly in a subscription).

        I would say it is your good right then to make your car drive backwards regardless of what it may take.

  • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Normally people pay to see the circus, but you could just sneak in though. It’s not exactly stalling, so what do you call that? The circus is still there, but you didn’t pay for it.

    If lots of people start doing that, the circus probably won’t have enough money to keep on performing. Maybe they’ll get rid of the more expensive bits and just keep the cheaper ones in the future.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      What would you call it if you buy a piece of art and hang it on your wall, then a couple months later the company that sold you the art comes into your home, takes the art away, and says you don’t own it anymore?

      If enough companies do that people are going to stop paying for art.

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That company is also going to show you the agreement you signed that says they can do that, which is the current situation with digital goods. People are still buying them.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That company is also going to show you the agreement you signed that says they can do that

          Nobody said otherwise. The argument isn’t “this is illegal”, it’s “this is bullshit.”

          People are still buying them.

          And the argument being put forward is that people shouldn’t be.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        If that was a normal purchase, then that’s clearly theft.

        If it was art leasing, there’s probably a long contract with details about a situation like this. No matter what the contract says, the local law might still disagree with that, so it can get complicated. The art company might be violating their own contract, although it is unlikely. The company might be within the rights outlined in the contract, but they might still be breaking the law. You need a lawyer to figure it out.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well it was sure we fuck presented as a normal purchase. Adding legal text to where you sign the cheque saying “you may come to my house and take this away at any time” doesn’t make it less bullshit.

          • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The world is full of bad contracts. It’s truly sad that we decided to accept them without making numerous alterations here and there.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              It’s not possible to make changes to a digital contract. The only option is to not make the “purchase” and acquire it elsewhere.

              • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                More people should let the service provider know that their contract sucks and that they refuse to pay for the service under the proposed conditions. Most people don’t even read the contract, so I don’t think the situation is going to improve any time soon.

        • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          People are also “buying” products that are being taken away from them by the license holders of the purchased work. The article explains this with several examples in different markets.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Still people share digital goods indiscriminately, even those which are possible to buy and own.

        • AVengefulAxolotl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          Of course they do, there will always be people who pirate. Most people dont mind paying for stuff and services if it respects them.

          There is Baldurs Gate 3 for example, you can buy it on GOG without DRM, and I highly doubt it made a dent in their sales.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Because the majority of people do not pirate because they truly believe they are doing something morally good. That’s laughable.

            If it really was about going against the licensing schemes these people would all buy on GoG. Instead they rather pirate the games and use Steam for the rest.

            The majority of people pirates stuff because they feel entitled to it and are greedy and because it works and is easy to do. They do not respect those who put the work into the music or the movies or the games.

            What makes me so angry about it is the hypocrisy. Since these are often the same people who are virtue signalling about how capitalism is bad since employers are too greedy to pay good wages.

            The irony is quite strong in this.

            • AVengefulAxolotl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah i agree, that most people do not pirate because of morality, but because pirating is more convenient meanwhile being way cheaper, you said it yourself. I do not watch a whole lot of movies or shows, but for example if i could buy Arcane, I would, but instead I can only watch it if I buy a Netflix subscription. I dont like this arbitrary limitation to be honest, you could buy movies back in the day.

              For games, it is the case, because steam is actually a good service. People got what they wanted from Baldurs Gate 3 plus it is on a service which gives you tons of features. For example netflix on the other hand just limits how you consume content instead of enabling you other features.

              One more thing, when Netflix was the only streaming service, people actually paid for it. Now that it is worse, pricier and there are more competing streaming services, it is way more convenient to pirate.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          People are also shoplifting from stores. That’s irrelevant to what is being discussed here

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a bad analogy because there’s finite space for people to watch the circus, meaning that seating for the show they conforms to fire codes, etc. is finite.

      It’s also a bad analogy because someone who sneaks into a circus trespassing, not stealing.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I agree that the analogy isn’t perfect. As you pointed out, people sneaking in are taking space from people who would be willing pay for the service.

        If you could somehow sneak into Netflix and take some of their bandwidth or their ability to provide the service to paying customers, then the analogy would work. In reality though, people pirate Netflix shows and movies by torrenting, and that has no impact on Netflix’s bandwidth.

        The way I see it, circus and digital videos are a service. You are supposed to pay for both, but you can easily see both of them for free. Comparing these two with stealing just doesn’t work IMO.

        You could also compare it with watching a football match from the other side of the fence. Although, in reality, you wouldn’t get a very good view of the game, whereas torrenting movies gives you a great view. Interestingly, the football example doesn’t involve trespassing, but you still get to enjoy a part of the service. All analogies break at some point.

    • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m legit unsure whether your argument is purposely bad or you just don’t know that it is.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s a thousand times better than this empty garbage. How does this have any upvotes?

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Because the issue at hand is more like if you bought tickets to the circus, but when you went to go see it you were told the circus isn’t there anymore and you don’t get a refund.

          That I would definately call stealing, and if I wanted to see the circus the next time it was in town I would absolutely sneak in.

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s like you bought a circus membership to watch the circus at a particular venue as many times as you want. You watched the circus a few dozen times, then one day the circus announces they won’t be going to that venue anymore and you can’t watch it anymore.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is where the analogy breaks down, because the circus requires people and an area to operate in. Digital movies and TV shows should just require my device to watch it on.

              To strain the metaphor further: The Circus leaving the venue isn’t leaving town, they’re just moving across the street. But your tickets are only valid for the old venue. Do you expect people to purchase new tickets or just sneak in?

              There’s also the people who purchased a lifetime membership to the circus and then were told the next day “The circus will no longer be going to that venue anymore after the end of the month.”

              The expectation is that I purchased this media and can watch it as much as I want, whenever I want, for the rest of my life. When companies say “Lol, no. Fine print” reasonable people aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and say “You got me, I guess I’ll purchase more things.” They’ll say “screw that, I can get it for free and keep it forever, what service are you providing that’s better?”

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            A more honest analogy for the situation was that there are very few incidents of circuses doing that and now people demand it’s morally justified to get free entrance to every circus, concert, fair, museum, …

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    What does that even mean?

    Ownership is compromised a bundle of rights. If it’s your bundle, you can split them up however you want, sell whatever kind of limited or unlimited licenses that can come up with, and this applies to real, personal, and intellectual property.

    If it’s not theft, why does the greed and unfair practices of the industry matter? Why does there need to be any justification or excuse?

    Should definitely have a right to repai; with any other property right you generally have a duty to maintain the access to your interest. I recently unlocked a bunch of premium features in my car. HD radio, comfort window roll down (rolls down 2" with a tap") auto tailgate close (had auto open, but not close, had to hit a button on the lid to close), auto side mirror tilt down in reverse, roll down windows from keyless entry, close tailgate from keyless entry.

    If I understand the interface at all, it’s pretty openly accessible (if you have the right OBDii port adapter and software, which ironically you need to buy a license for). Code looked fairly straightforward, and by that I mean it looked like other computer code I’ve seen. Wonder what the original price was for those extras were from the dealership, probably over 10k.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I recently unlocked a bunch of premium features in my car. HD radio, comfort window roll down (rolls down 2" with a tap") auto tailgate close (had auto open, but not close, had to hit a button on the lid to close), auto side mirror tilt down in reverse, roll down windows from keyless entry, close tailgate from keyless entry.

      Those “features” are all so pointless they’re bordering on absurd.

      Thanks for reaffirming my bias that new cars suck.

      • JollyG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Thanks for reaffirming my bias that new cars suck.

        I am really concerned the next car I need to buy, which is probably 20 years off, is going to be this trend cranked to 11. With software and hardware I can find alternatives and hack my way around the “you paid for it, but we own it and can do whatever we want to it” mentality that tech companies push, but cars seem like a whole different world when it comes to the “you paid for it, but we own it” mentality.

        • slumberlust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, like everyone today, they don’t want to get your money once. They want reoccurring revenue and to farm and sell all of your data.

      • credit crazy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s shite like that is the reason why I’m planning on staying in the south, so I can just daily my 56 bel air. All it really needs is a AC and I can always just take the heater out and take a normal ac unit apart and put it in. At this rate I’m wondering if that car is going to be more practical than modern cars purely because you don’t have to pay to open the window. Sure it may not have the speed as modern car but like even in my z3 I rarely ever go faster than 60mph.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          I probably pay less for fuel and subscribed features in my electric car than you do for fuel in your '56 bel air. I definitely pay less for maintenance

          Window opening, seat heating, auto tilting wing mirrors are all standard. My subscription covers games, streaming video, always connected internet, self driving features - so I get all the features of yours and more for the base price and just luxuries on subscription

          Not all new cars are bad

          • aylex@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Car subscription features 😭😭😭 are people really genuinely ok with this?

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The ones I want, yes for me, no for others. That’s one of the things I like about the company I bought from, the base model is fine, extras are available that are a genuine ongoing cost (like streaming audio and games) so a subscription is reasonable

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      If it’s not theft, why does the greed and unfair practices of the industry matter?

      Because it tears at the fabric of Humanity. It’s a ‘death by a thousand cuts’.

      Humanity constantly needing to be on guard and pushing back against being taken advantage of by people who want to charge them multiple times for the same thing in different ways, especially the ones that used to be free, over and over again.

      Fighting that is pushing back against unfairness, which is one of the root beliefs of Humanity.

  • Oisteink@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    The fact that no product is missing anywhere means it’s not stealing.

    If you rent your car from Mercedes and I make a copy of it, the only change is that I’ve not copied your car, I’ve copied Mercedes’.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      By this logic no services should be paid. Are you really just hung up on the word “stealing”? It is wrong to go against an agreement or to take the work of others and not pay for it simply because it’s easy to do that when the work isn’t tangible.

      Are people really that fucked up today?

      • Oisteink@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not talking about payment, I’m talking about if it’s stealing or not. It might be copyright infringement depending on local law, but it’s not stealing. Selling a copy might be counterfeiting.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I never made an agreement but to copy things without paying. That agreement was made on my behalf, and if you look into the history of it, it’s really fucking shady. Copyright in the US originally lasted 20 years (IIRC), and I would be ok with that, but big copyright holders successfully bribed lawmakers to extend the term until now it’s effectively infinite.

        So tell me, was it immoral to ignore copyrights after 20 years when that was the law? Did changing the law change what’s moral?

  • leaveWitX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s just a common tactic to draw attention to the weakness of the company and damage to the company’s interests, and it’s not because people can’t speak out at all. Although it is a bit biased to say this, my disgust towards these big companies will not change.

  • Rough_N_Ready@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Piracy was never stealing. It’s copyright infringement, but that’s not the same as stealing at all. People saying it’s stealing have always been wrong.