this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
521 points (95.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54476 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
[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What? No. Denying the option to distribute something is not theft.

Your point about Brand A selling something named a derivative of Brand B makes me think there’s a misunderstanding here. This would fall under the realm of trademark violation, which I wasn’t aware was being discussed.

if you wrote the "super personal top secret book" and a library somehow got a copy without your permission and made it public, you'd be pissed too and they'd deny your right to distribute or not distribute.

I’d be pissed that the library somehow stole the physical book from me or that they hacked into my computer and stole the books manuscript file from me, which both would be examples of actual theft. If I sold the library the physical book and an epub version with DRM, the library removed the DRM, then began loaning out the DRM-stripped epub I could potentially be mad, but it certainly would not be because of theft because no theft would have occurred in that scenario.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They never said it was theft. Its taking away a "right"(CONTROLLING distribution, being able to DENY it to some) that should not BE a "right". Saying grocers have the right to deny food they were going to throw away to those who would eat it is little different than saying Israel has the right to deny the entry of aid in the form or food and/or medical supplies into Gaza.

It's a "right" to FORCE people to starve, and to FORCE others to let them starve. "Right"? Its no such thing.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They never said it was theft.

My bad, you’re right they did not. In the context of the OP and the quote used in the top level reply, “the owner doesn’t lose anything” clearly means “the owner does not lose a physical good or object”.

Saying grocers have the right to deny food they were going to throw away to those who would eat it is little different than saying Israel has the right to deny the entry of aid in the form or food and/or medical supplies into Gaza.

It's a "right" to FORCE people to starve, and to FORCE others to let them starve. "Right"? It’s no such thing.

Ok, I’m losing the thread here. I’m not really sure what this has to do with piracy or whether piracy constitutes theft at this point. If you’re trying to draw an analogy between two situations I’m just not understanding it.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not an analogy, a parallel. Israel literally prefers that food be left to rot or dumped at sea rather than reaching "certain" people who need it.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago

Again, not seeing how this parallel really applies to the conversation at hand?