I think it’s easier for a person to say “piracy is bad” than “sharing files is bad”. Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It’s a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn’t let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.
if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It’s a simple trick, but it works.
Only on easily manipulated and shallow idiots. Especially when the term is used neutrally and positively too. I’ll grant that there’s a lot of those, but not enough that we should let them dictate what words we use.
If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn’t let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them
Again, only total morons think that the two are connected or similar. We should never let morons dictate our words and actions.
Right back at you, except the part about being principled.
Using the word “piracy” isn’t what harms the community. Politicians who are receiving bribes from industry associations is.
Not using the word isn’t going to stop any of them or make their gaslighting any less effective. Getting money out of politics will and, until that becomes possible, educating the ignorant will help.
Being “right” doesn’t make you immune to consequences
Oh wow, I had no idea! This is totally new information!
You live in a world with other people, and what they do effects you.
Again, absolute news to me! Are you being an extremely condescending ass on purpose or is that just your automatic response any time someone disagree with your shallow understanding of complex issues?
While I agree about reclaiming the word, what OP is talking about is not what a reclaimed word accomplishes. A reclaimed word is about empowerment within the group. OP is talking about selling the concept to the public at large. I think if people in the filesharing community want to use the reclaimed word “piracy” in private then they should go right ahead. But if someone has the goal of viewing this as a justified act, then calling it “piracy” in public spaces undermines that.
Only if it’s a file that’s already publicly available. When you buy a movie, why shouldn’t you be able to share it with others? I’m not saying that you should be able to hack a filmmaker’s computer and publish movies they’ve never released, though.
The scenario you described can’t happen to me anyway, because I only use Free Software. You can learn more about it here: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM
They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.
I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.
Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?
If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.
So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.
The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.
They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.
A lot of people don’t have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don’t use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn’t mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.
I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.
I’m pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don’t define what is logical or what is moral.
Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?
People already share movies online and it’s very easy. You don’t have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it’s not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.
If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.
Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can’t make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn’t own the files.
So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.
Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven’t died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.
The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.
You can’t steal something that’s infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren’t released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn’t and I’m not going to support unethical practices with my money.
There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.
You’re delusional man. Creating information costs a lot of money. Do you think it takes the same amount of investment to create a 10gb file of random bytes as a 10gb file that contains a movie with actors?
Imagine if only a single person had to buy your movie in order for everyone to watch it. Wherevs the logic in that?
The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume. So yeha, paying customers are actually the only reason you get to pirate movies, because if everyone had your same mindset, the industry would be dead.
And I pirate movies too, I’m just not in denial with reality.
“Piracy” is a propaganda term. We shouldn’t use it. There is nothing wrong with sharing files.
We’ve long since reclaimed the word, though. It’s not called The Sharing Bay, after all.
That’s my Care Bears only private tracker.
I think it’s easier for a person to say “piracy is bad” than “sharing files is bad”. Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It’s a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn’t let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.
Only on easily manipulated and shallow idiots. Especially when the term is used neutrally and positively too. I’ll grant that there’s a lot of those, but not enough that we should let them dictate what words we use.
Again, only total morons think that the two are connected or similar. We should never let morons dictate our words and actions.
deleted by creator
Right back at you, except the part about being principled.
Using the word “piracy” isn’t what harms the community. Politicians who are receiving bribes from industry associations is.
Not using the word isn’t going to stop any of them or make their gaslighting any less effective. Getting money out of politics will and, until that becomes possible, educating the ignorant will help.
Oh wow, I had no idea! This is totally new information!
Again, absolute news to me! Are you being an extremely condescending ass on purpose or is that just your automatic response any time someone disagree with your shallow understanding of complex issues?
deleted by creator
The projection is strong with this one.
Nope, you weren’t. You pretended to be following a ridiculous strawman version.
Since you obviously don’t know the difference, though, I’m not going to waste any more time on you. Have the day you deserve.
deleted by creator
While I agree about reclaiming the word, what OP is talking about is not what a reclaimed word accomplishes. A reclaimed word is about empowerment within the group. OP is talking about selling the concept to the public at large. I think if people in the filesharing community want to use the reclaimed word “piracy” in private then they should go right ahead. But if someone has the goal of viewing this as a justified act, then calling it “piracy” in public spaces undermines that.
Especially since a great deal of that research was performed using public funds.
Exactly, this research was funded by my tax money but I’m not allowed to read it unless I pay some third party profiteer? That makes no fucking sense
So you don’t mind when companies share files with your personal data?
But personal files are… personal?
Research journals are published. Public.
He’s clearly talking about piracy in general. The point being that just because something is a file, it doesn’t mean it isn’t intellectual property.
I do agree that in some scenarios piracy is fighting bad actors, like in this case, but it isn’t a generalized rule, piracy also has a bad side.
So this guy comes here and defends the general idea of piracy based on a single instance in which it is actually good, which is just a fallacy.
They shouldn’t collect data in the first place.
Well, they just saw a file in your phone and were like “it’s a file, so this isn’t stealing because we’re duplicating the information”.
Only if it’s a file that’s already publicly available. When you buy a movie, why shouldn’t you be able to share it with others? I’m not saying that you should be able to hack a filmmaker’s computer and publish movies they’ve never released, though.
The scenario you described can’t happen to me anyway, because I only use Free Software. You can learn more about it here: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM
They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.
I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.
Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?
If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.
So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.
The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.
A lot of people don’t have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don’t use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn’t mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.
I’m pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don’t define what is logical or what is moral.
People already share movies online and it’s very easy. You don’t have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it’s not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.
Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can’t make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn’t own the files.
Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven’t died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.
You can’t steal something that’s infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren’t released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn’t and I’m not going to support unethical practices with my money.
There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.
You’re delusional man. Creating information costs a lot of money. Do you think it takes the same amount of investment to create a 10gb file of random bytes as a 10gb file that contains a movie with actors?
Imagine if only a single person had to buy your movie in order for everyone to watch it. Wherevs the logic in that?
The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume. So yeha, paying customers are actually the only reason you get to pirate movies, because if everyone had your same mindset, the industry would be dead.
And I pirate movies too, I’m just not in denial with reality.
You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that people can buy things and share them with those who can’t.
I’ve already given you an example of the game Mindustry, which people buy on Steam (16k reviews): https://store.steampowered.com/app/1127400/Mindustry, even though it’s released under a free software license and you can get it for free on Itch: https://anuke.itch.io/mindustry and you can get its source code on GitHub: https://github.com/Anuken/Mindustry.
Weird, huh? For some reason the internet and Bittorrent hasn’t changed that.