Lassannn
70834
1736
45
Dec 31, 2023 8:25 PM
Lassannn
70834
1736
45
ssmelodies
"You wouldn't steal a car?!"
imyourrealdad
I call it unpaid borrowing.
DidItForScience
It's not stealing, it's a licensing violation and copyright infringement accord to the law.
TheNamiKage
Just because I didn't pay for it today, doesn't mean I won't pay for it tomorrow. Conversely if I paid for it today but don't have it tomorrow, who would be the criminal then?
FluffyKittyLover
The other day I saw people saying that if you commission art you don't own it, and all the absurd internet artists were agreeing. I personally think a lot of copyright shit just needs to burn, I hope AI's expose all this bullshit.
wookietiddy
For me at least there's Literally a paramount+ ad below this post. Lol
Da3n
It's almost like you own a license and not a copy.
saturatedcottonballs
Yeah and imagine that your are asked to pay the same price or more for the licence than what you used to pay for the copy.
venom181st
Aeonika
Oh hello
vnqx
Blockbuster hated this one simple trick
METROlD
I like this guy.
nobodywhatsoever
You "purchased a license" to consume content based on whether or not some provider's contract to host the licensed content lasts. This shit started some 20 odd years ago and is why I hate streaming platforms and what operating systems have become. Pirate away!
darkchiron
They're never going to arrest you or charge you for anything. You're hurting no one. Screw it. Do it all you want.
ifounditunderthere
Oh Lassannn, you're too good
Zetor
bUT iT saYS iN tHE tERms...
Inisdun
Piracy is not theft, as someone else mentioned, its copyright infringement. However, the phrase "Piracy is theft" is because when you are pirating something, you are witholding money from the rights holder. Getting something while witholding compensation is generally thought of as theft, so its a simple comparison for most people to understand.
StellarJay77
Yup, what you're actually paying for is the delivery system then. If the delivery system isn't more convenient and/or much better quality that would justify the cost over the free alternative then it's not being competitive. Competing with free is a completely valid standpoint to have as a company especially if there is no transfer of ownership.
HandoB4Javert
Endonae
The number of streaming services will probably reconsolidate, but this is one of the main reasons why businesses prefer subscriptions that give access to IP repositories instead of owning a copy.
If you have a sufficiently profitable business model that works better for selling IP than a subscription, I am sure Wall Street would love to hear about it.
68people
Unpopular opinion: If you care enough to pirate a piece of entertainment then you should probably, as an adult, either care enough to pay for it, or move on. There's no need to do mental gymnastics to justify your free access to a show you like as a righteous act.
Melonfish
Why the hell do you think dvd and blue ray is still popular? None of this bullshit about whether anyone is streaming it, having to be online etc. pick up your film and watch it.
megodk
Are we still telling you "Fuck you", @OP?
Lassannn
megodk
Well, in that case, sincerely: FUCK YOU
Lassannn
1bitterbulb
It's more like sneaking into a concert without buying a ticket I think. I'm sad physical games probly will go away next gen
RatsLiveOnNoEvilStar
This is a great analogy.
LostNoun
Piracy is stealing by definition, so if it's not stealing, it's not piracy!
Timiny
I mean...valid point
admiralwiggles
yeah, but it's not though, is it? If I rent a car I don't own the car just because "I paid for it". If I stole a car from a rental car dealership, it would still be stealing.
Timiny
there are only so many cars in the world. There is an infinite amount of digital stuff. Plus they are not renting these things us. They are pretending to sell them, and then taking them away.
neithermenoryou
If you go to a car dealership and, out of thin air, create a perfect copy of a car on the lot, is it really stealing? The original car is still there and available for full use to the owner, you making yourself a copy did not affect the original in any shape or form.
RatsLiveOnNoEvilStar
It’s not stealing but you are still making use of someone else’s work without paying what that person (or company) feels it is worth. If you think that price isn’t right, then don’t buy it, but that doesn’t give you the right to that product.
Micro2112
PascalBP
Totally agree
illmx
thebigby
risqueorindecent
Full mast!
b00sk0r
lifeisadadjoke
Fool you Lassannn!
Lassannn
Fool me twice, once on shame. Shame me fool and twice in once!
thorinc
Absolutely beautiful response, dude.
schmittyboss
MapleSyrupMafia
Call the bondulance!
DrSleepyPhZzz
hipifreq
MightyIink
I'd love to see the courts figure this one out but billionaires would probably just pay them off.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DarkUranium
You don't own anything. Creating a backup copy of physical media you bought is still piracy. So is viewing said media with too many people.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DarkUranium
Yes you are allowed to make it [*] ... unless said media has DRM (which e.g. pretty much all DVD movies do). It's *that* part that's illegal under (say) DMCA. See the last 3 sections (starting with "Copying Copyrighted Content"): https://legalbeagle.com/12719622-dmca-backup-of-copyrighted-content.html
([*] It's always been a gray area, not legal *per se*. Fair use is a mess.)
jonReremy9669
"probably"
Crowlands
"There's a difference between renting something and stealing it." Is the simple answer.
Crowlands
The Real reason it's not stealing is because you're not removing access to the thing from the original owner.
rotodisc
There’s nothing to “figure out”. You’re buying a digital license and you, when buying it, agree that it can be revoked at any time for any reason. It fuckin blows. But it’s 100% legal.
Endonae
Technically yes, that's how it's described. However, there are numerous examples of courts invalidating ToS on the basis that it is unreasonable to expect the end user to read them. Given that online stores use terms like buy and purchase while also offering rental services weakens the licensure argument.
You can't go around saying and almost universally behaving one way in public and then hide behind something nobody reads to completely reverse course.
Endonae
This is part of why the subscription model is a far better fit for providing access to and supporting IP repositories than ownership and why just about everyone prioritizes offering it over selling directly. Even gaming is trending that way with Xbox Game Pass, Nintendo Online Expansion Pack, and PlayStation Plus.
Yes, subscriptions are super icky, but permanent ownership of something that can be copied and shared infinitely for free in the age of high-speed internet is downright nonsensical.
Erumun
i don't know about "legal" part and the court can absolutely rule against their lil "screw you" loop hole.
LinesOfCokeWithSnowman
then the digital licenser just revokes all of your rights and you get nothing. That's not conjecture. it's what happened when the courts "ruled against their little "screw you" loop hole" ages ago, keep up with the times, kemosabe
Erumun
didn't know, there's too much to keep up with and much of it is mentally exhausting.
Colopty
The difficulty is in ruling against it without making it impossible to rent stuff in general.
pleaseconsiderthatImightbejoking
It would make it impossible to rent stuff and market it as a purchase, yes.
blaghart
Except no, because rental is already legally distinct from digital purchases
Colopty
And digital purchases are legally distinct from digital renting. The latter category includes such things as almost every server on the internet.