this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
536 points (94.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54669 readers
417 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It doesn't matter if it's a CD, a Film, or manual with the instructions to build a spaceship. If you copy it, the original owner doesn't lose anything. If you don't copy it, the only one missing something (the experience) is YOU.

Enjoy!

Of course, if you happen to have some extra money for donations to creators, please do so. If you don't have that, try contributing with a review somewhere or recommending the content, spread the word. Piracy was shown to drive businesses in several occasions by independent and biased corps (trying to show the opposite).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SDK@midwest.social 43 points 7 months ago (26 children)

Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”

They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose. As the owner, it’s technically their right to deny access to the work, and you are taking that right away from them.

I’m not a shill, and I am never going to be a customer of big media. If I can’t get it without charge, I’d rather go without. But, I am taking that right away from the owner. I sleep ok.

[–] verdare@beehaw.org 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The “right to control distribution” is utterly unenforceable in a world with computers and the internet. The only way to enforce that right is to have centralized institutions with absolute control over every computer.

I can understand a need for controlling personal information in order to protect the user privacy. I can even get behind the idea of having to control dangerous information, like schematics for nuclear weapon systems. I do not support the idea of moving towards a world where the NSA has a rootkit on every computer because capitalism can’t be bothered that artists make enough to eat.

Maybe there is an inherent problem with a social system in which so many people struggle to make a living. And maybe the solution isn’t to create artificial scarcity in computer systems where information can be shared freely.

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is it actually ethically acceptable to control distribution of something that naturally shares itself?

Before computers, it actually required some energy to copy the content of a book. With computers now, the action of reading an ebook will actually copy it from the hard drive to the ram. If your book is on the cloud, there's even more copying going on. It actually takes more efforts to erase temporary copies (ex: from local cache)!

Digital copying is not the same as physical copying.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago

For anyone that isn’t aware, this is the logical argument used in Cory Doctorow’s book Information Doesn’t Want To Be Free, which you can get an ebook of for free on his site.

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

At last we were able to create the Torment Nexus...

load more comments (24 replies)