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).

  • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Based on this interpretation libraries are stealing from book publishers and food banks are stealing from grocery stores.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      Libraries and food banks have their inventory paid for, though. Neither one of them accepts stolen goods. What are you talking about?

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        So if I torrent something from someone who paid for it, it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection and not piracy. Got it.

        /s?

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection

          Yes, exactly. But better, because by “checking it out” you’re not preventing anyone else from also enjoying it at the same time (on the contrary, by nature of the bittorrent protocol you’re improving the availability of said cultural work, helping to preserve it, and culturally enriching society to a greater extent than libraries can unless they don’t artificially restrict access to digital works).

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re right, it’s not a perfect analogy. I was more pushing back against the supposition that the depravation of a potential sale equates to theft.

        That said, media that is pirated comes from somewhere. Many times that content is ripped from streaming providers directly, which means someone has paid for the content initially. Other times the content is ripped off a blu-ray, which also means someone has paid for the content already. Cam recordings require someone to pay for a ticket (or someone to work at a theater but at that point we’re getting in to semantics).

        At this point I’ve completely lost the context of what we’re even discussing here. Oh, right. OP said piracy isn’t stealing. Stealing/theft/larceny requires real property to be taken from its owner. Digital piracy does not meet that definition, full stop. OP is technically correct. Is it copyright infringement? Sure. Is that moral? Idk, I can’t dictate your morals but I don’t have any moral objection to it myself.

    • PlexSheep@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Technically, they are, as they also deny them the option to distribute books and food.

      “Books” and “food” are not someone’s intellectual property so that’s okay. If brand A were to sell “BRAND B SUPER FOOD” (let’s assume this is a known brand of Brand B), that would very much be problematic.

      In the case of books, 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.

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.