this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
4294 points (97.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
634 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hyperhopper@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, that would harm whoever was in possession of the room at the time (owner or guest).

This would be more akin to sneaking into a movie theatre to stand in the back and watch.

But that would still be theft of service.

[–] Nezgul@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, if we extend this logic though, stealing a license is still harmful to the person who possesses the copyright. Breaking into a hotel room deprives the current possessor the exclusive right to possess the room; stealing a piece of software deprives the copyright holder the exclusive right to control their copyrighted work.

Like, I'm not even anti-piracy for the most part. I just think the comparison in the OP is bad and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Someone else in this thread said it best -- "just enjoy ya loot."

[–] explodicle@local106.com 1 points 1 year ago

Breaking into a hotel room deprives the current possessor the exclusive right to possess the room; stealing a piece of software deprives the copyright holder the exclusive right to control their copyrighted work.

I think the source of disagreement here is that you have a natural right to land use, but a purely legal right to exclusively control copies of your work.