1096

If purchasing isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing (fosstodon.org)

submitted 1 year ago by maegul@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago

I assume when the purchase happened there was an agreement that said something like this might happen. If not, then people can sue Sony for the stealing. If so, then trying to argue that this means piracy isn't stealing is sophomoric at best.

I don't get why my fellow pirates try so hard to justify what they're doing. We want something and we don't want to pay the price for it because it's either too expensive or too difficult, so we go the cheaper, easier route. And because these are large corporations trying to fuck everyone out of every last dime, we don't feel guilt about it.

Embrace the reality instead of using twisted logic to try and convince yourself that it's something else.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don’t get why my fellow pirates try so hard to justify what they’re doing. We want something and we don’t want to pay the price for it because it’s either too expensive or too difficult, so we go the cheaper, easier route. And because these are large corporations trying to fuck everyone out of every last dime, we don’t feel guilt about it.

Justification is important to those who act against unethical systems. You have to separate the opportunists from the rest. An opportunist will loot any defenseless shop without the slightest sense of ethics. That’s not the same group as those who either reject an unjust system or specifically condemn a particular supplier (e.g. Sony, who is an ALEC member and who was caught unlawfully using GPL code in their DRM tools). Some would say it’s our ethical duty to do everything possible to boycott, divest, and punish Sony until they are buried.

We have a language problem that needs sorting. While it may almost¹ be fair enough to call an opportunist a “pirate” who engages in “piracy”, these words are chosen abusively as a weapon against even those who practice civil disobedience against a bad system.

I say /almost/ because even in the simple case of an opportunistic media grab, equating them with those who rape and pillage is still a bit off (as RMS likes to mention).

I think you see the same problem with the thread title that I do - it’s clever but doesn’t really give a solid grounds for ethically driven actions. But it still helps to capture the idea that paying consumers are getting underhandedly deceptively stiffed by crippled purchases, which indeed rationalizes civil disobedience to some extent.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Some would say it’s our ethical duty to do everything possible to boycott, divest, and punish Sony until they are buried.

If that's the goal, the better approach would be to not consume the media at all, and being vocal as to why you are doing this. Pirating it just shows them that the demand will still be there, despite how bad they supposedly are as a company, so that they just need to learn how to bone you too. It's like saying "you're a bad company. . .but damn do I like your product and will consume it anyway!" it doesn't make much sense, logically or morally.

it’s clever but doesn’t really give a solid grounds for ethically driven actions.

Clever? Maybe. Sophomoric? Absolutely. By misrepresenting why they are losing access to this media, they are effectively admitting that piracy is actually stealing. As I've said elsewhere, piracy is not the action of a neutral/chaotic good character, as many among piracy circles like to pretend, but the actions of a chaotic neutral character.

But make no mistake about my position. People losing access to stuff they purchased (and probably thought was now theirs) is just another in a long list of reasons I say "fuck those bitches" and have really no moral qualm with pirating content.

[-] kmaismith@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Why does “sophomoric” being used as negative in your argument? you imply we are arguing an unsophisticated logic built on foundational information accessible to everyone, not requiring much depth to grasp. Pedestrian justifications should probably be sophomoric lest the justification be inaccessible and easily confused.

My opportunity to truly own media i purchase has been stolen from me, i was requested or offered no consent on the issue from the large companies claiming that not purchasing a revocable license is theft; i previously found thing accessibly priced so i swallowed my tongue, now media companies are again price gouging so we find ourselves in this situation once more.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Pedestrian justifications should probably be sophomoric lest the justification be inaccessible and easily confused.

Simple arguments that people can understand and sophomoric arguments where people act and argue like children are not one in the same.

i was requested or offered no consent on the issue from the large companies claiming that not purchasing a revocable license is theft

Then sue them because you would have a strong case.

Or pirate like I do, but don't pretend that it's something that it isn't.

[-] ciferecaNinjo@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s like saying “you’re a bad company. . .but damn do I like your product and will consume it anyway!” it doesn’t make much sense, logically or morally.

Sony is a dispensible broker/manager who no one likely assigns credit to for a work. I didn’t even know who Sony pimped -- just had to look it up. The Karate Kid, Spider-man, Pink Floyd.. Do you really think that when someone experiences those works, they walk away saying “what a great job Sony did”?

I don’t praise Sony for the quality of the works they market any more than I would credit a movie theater for a great movie that I experience. Roger Waters will create his works whether Sony is involved or not.

You also seem to be implying they have good metrics on black market activity and useful feedback from that. This is likely insignificant compared to rating platforms like Netflix and the copious metrics Netflix collects.

Can you explain further why grabbing an unlicensed work helps Sony? Are you assuming the consumer would recommend the work to others who then go buy it legitimately?

If it becomes a trend to shoplift Sony headphones, the merchant takes a hit and has to decide whether to spend more money on security, or to simply quit selling Sony headphones due to reduced profitability. I don’t see how that helps Sony. I don’t shoplift myself but if I did I would target brands I most object to.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Sony is a dispensible broker/manager who no one likely assigns credit to for a work

Pedanticism that totally avoids the point. Whether they provide the product or create it, the logic still obviously applies.

You also seem to be implying they have good metrics on black market activity and useful feedback from that.

This also defeats the point that it is some duty to pirate it, because if they have no idea the scope then how many people doing it is not going to affect their decisions there either.

[-] makunamatata@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

In agreement with you! I don’t get why the need to justify. First of all life isn’t about fairness, and people and corporations both need money to survive. Individuals and corporations make all the effort to get more for less.

If there was a need to justify it should be as simple as corporations take things for free all the time, be it tax brakes, labor, IP, whatever and try to get by with it without it being “stealing” it. Artists take ideas, copy, repurpose all the time and get by without “stealing” when they can.

In the seas one should be reasonable and take what they “need” (actually a want) “for less”, without violence, instilling physical harm, and they are good to go. Life isn’t fair.

Above all, like you said, people in general want things for less with the least friction. For some people the seas are dangerous and present too much friction to get in and out unscathed, these people will pay to get something. Sailors do not want to pay and accept some of the risks, and for those sailors that know how to do it well the risks and frictions are small.

There is no need to justify to the ego whether it is stealing or anything else. It is just taking and sharing. And doesn’t the saying goes that “sharing is caring”? ;-)