Now you’re just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It’s not theft, it’s unethical appropriation of others’ work.
Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create
I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.
Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.
Likewise, should the media become unavailable after “purchase” as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).
The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn’t get screwed.
if not why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.
Ugh…but that isn’t the point of my argument that you responded to. I don’t care what you want to call it but arguing that it’s appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you’re sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.
I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I’ve never argued against that.
I also agree with you about media becoming “unavailable”. I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I’ve argued that using terms like “Buy” and “Sell” for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.
I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. “You” want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content “you” want to choose to insert here) that “you” want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.
I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money. If one has the ability to pay for media and wishes to consume it, they should pay for it. Effort was put into its creation, and the creators deserve to be rewarded/compensated for that. If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
Thank you for the clarification; I interpreted it the other way. I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I agree. I’m simply saying that I don’t care whether you call it “stealing” or “leeching” or whatever other term you want to use. The fact that we’re even using the term “pirating” instead of just “acquiring” or whatever other term may be better suited gives up the game that piracy is stealing. If it wasn’t, we’d just call it that.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people. If educators/writers could sell to schools directly, they should. Otherwise, students attempting to learn shouldn’t be limited in their education/enrichment because they can’t afford it. That’s not the same situation, at least to me, with someone pirating a popcorn flick because don’t want to pay for it.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
I agree 100%. I am not advocating for the system as it is nor am I saying that the situation in the OP is fair. It’s not, nor is it fair for rights holders to remove legal ways for people to consume media (like Nintendo going after people for pirating content that can’t legally be purchased anymore). In those cases, I agree that piracy is justified and even necessary to preserve certain types of media. But that doesn’t make it something other than stealing or theft. It’s justified theft but it’s still theft. Just look at the amount of “lost media” that’s been preserved because of justified theft/bootlegging/whatever.
I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
That is much clearer and I will try to use that going forward. I can see how using “you” is confusing and it wasn’t my intention to confuse or belabor that point.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
They definitely don’t care… because it benefits them not to. I’m just making the plea that we should be honest about what we’re saying, not whether it’s justifiable or not.
I’ve maybe been a little harsh in my other comments, and for that I apologise. I understand that you’ve been getting a lot of hate (including from myself) but it’s good to see you have a line in the sand.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people.
Why is it that students are exempt from your position? It seems like there’s a hard and fast line here, when really, I think, there is a great deal of grey area in between.
A student is priced out because they’re poor and a captive audience. A regular adult may also be priced out because they can’t afford something and because the seller is charging too much, and has no other option for a similar product.
You’ve argued that the regular adult should just go without, but, when that option doesn’t enact any meaningful change, why should piracy be an invalid choice? If anything, piracy (and the levels at which it occurs) provides a clear indicator of how bad the pricing is for the given product.
I’ve maybe been a little harsh in my other comments, and for that I apologise.
Apology accepted.
Why is it that students are exempt from your position? It seems like there’s a hard and fast line here, when really, I think, there is a great deal of grey area in between.
I don’t think they’re exempt. If they can afford to pay for it, I think that they should. The difference, at least to me, is that most students are required to use specific books and, as you’ve pointed out, are a captive audience. Students don’t get to choose which book they use to learn a topic in class the way that they get to choose what movies they’re going to watch in their free time. It’s exactly that captivity that I think warrants that “exemption” (even though I wouldn’t call it that). Money should not be a reason why someone should be limited in bettering themselves, especially when they are forced to not have an alternative.
A regular adult may also be priced out because they can’t afford something and because the seller is charging too much, and has no other option for a similar product.
That’s functionally not true. We live in an age where media is sooo prevalent and so accessible that adults have plenty of alternatives. FOMO is not a valid justification to claim “no other option”.
why should piracy be an invalid choice?
Because we’re dealing with something that’s entirely optional. Piracy has no reflection on how bad pricing is. That’s an entirely separate argument. As an example, I collect Steelbook movies. Some of them are outrageously priced. Their prices are not affected by piracy at all because you can’t pirate the Steelbooks themselves. If their value was only in the movie inside the case, then maybe you could make that argument.
The difference, at least to me, is that most students are required to use specific books and, as you’ve pointed out, are a captive audience. Students don’t get to choose which book they use to learn a topic in class the way that they get to choose what movies they’re going to watch in their free time.
Man, I feel so privileged in that I didn’t have any mandatory texts to buy for my degree. I did buy one or two, and I got good use out of them - they were just the right height to raise my monitor up to eye level.
Piracy has no reflection on how bad pricing is.
It absolutely does. Or, at least, the level of piracy occurring is a good indicator of how bad the product/service is, for the given price point. If it’s good enough, people will pay for readily, and there will be very little piracy.
Comparing Steelbook movies to piracy is a bit of a false argument. That’s a physical good. I’m sure the movies themselves do suffer some amount of piracy - however the product is so good that people do buy it.
Man, I feel so privileged in that I didn’t have any mandatory texts to buy for my degree.
How in the world is that possible? How could a teacher possibly assign any sort of assignment if you didn’t have a shared textbook or curriculum? Or is this another semantic argument where you didn’t have to buy it but were allowed to rent or otherwise borrow the books?
Or, at least, the level of piracy occurring is a good indicator of how bad the product/service is,
That’s not true in the slightest. If it was, none of the games on Steam would be pirated. Games that cost 99 cents wouldn’t be pirated. The fact that both of those situations exist is proof that piracy as an indicator is completely detached from both of those things.
I’ll give a personal example but fear it will just lead to more needless pedantry. My studio used to create mobile games. We initially charged 99 cents for the game because we didn’t want to do microtransactions or any of that other nonsense. Within the first week, the app showed up on piracy sites but we had code that detected when the dial-home for analytics was bypassed. We had no DRM on there, we didn’t restrict the pirated versions and, in some cases we actually uploaded copies to these sites ourselves. When we looked at analytics for months afterward, the people playing the game the most were the people that pirated it. They can’t claim that they didn’t find value in the game because they were playing it every day and yet they didn’t pay for it. In the end, we had to stop producing games because we couldn’t get people to pay for the game despite them playing it regularly. I’m not sure how someone can resolve the idea that the game was bad and so they didn’t think they should pay for it with the fact that they played it as much as they did (more even than the players that did pay for it).
Comparing Steelbook movies to piracy is a bit of a false argument. That’s a physical good. I’m sure the movies themselves do suffer some amount of piracy - however the product is so good that people do buy it.
That is entirely my point with the example, though. With Steelbooks, it isn’t the movie in the case that’s the good. The case is what people are paying for despite being able to pirate the movie within.
If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
For a long time, leeches were a major and somewhat effective medical treatment. They still are in certain cases.
Leeching isn’t an inherently bad thing. Children leech off their parents, until they grow up and make their own way.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder.
Absolutely. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for piracy, many rightsholders would take the piss even more with their pricing and the quality of their products. As it stands, they are acutely aware that if they go too far people will turn to piracy.
This is why they lobby so hard to make piracy a criminal offense - and it’s quite sad that they’ve been so successful in their efforts. I think the threshold is something like $1,000 in the US - if you have more than $1,000 worth of pirated material, you’re a criminal, even though you caused no tangible harm to anyone.
Now you’re just arguing semantics. Argue the point. Do people deserve to be paid for the work that they create and, if not, why are you entitled to view and consume the fruit of their labor without paying for it (with the exception of them explicitly granting that)?
That is the entire point of my argument from the start: semantics. It’s not theft, it’s unethical appropriation of others’ work.
I think that creators deserve to be paid for their effort through sales wherein the terms are fair for both parties. In an ideal scenario, the consumer exchanges money for an unencumbered copy of the media they wish to consume.
Should the media be encumbered to the extent that it hinders usability, such as with DRM, I believe it is fair to pirate an unencumbered copy after having paid for an officially distributed copy.
Likewise, should the media become unavailable after “purchase” as with the original article on this post, I see it as reasonable to download an unauthorized copy so long as the original transaction was not reversed (i.e. you were refunded after losing access).
The creator gets paid, and the consumer doesn’t get screwed.
That is mighty presumptuous to assume I appropriate the media I consume. Region restrictions and out-of-print media notwithstanding, I pay for what I watch/read/play.
Ugh…but that isn’t the point of my argument that you responded to. I don’t care what you want to call it but arguing that it’s appropriation versus theft is simply pedantic and not useful. At the end of the day, the argument is that someone is taking the value of the work/product when they consume/ingest it without compensating the creator of that work/product.
You just admitted that the terms have to be fair for both parties and yet you’re sitting here arguing that the explicit denial of the rights of one of the parties is only allowed when it benefits you.
I agree with you in regard to DRM. DRM is stupid. I’ve never argued against that.
I also agree with you about media becoming “unavailable”. I never argued against that. In fact, elsewhere within this very thread, I’ve argued that using terms like “Buy” and “Sell” for items, whether tangible or not, should be considered fraud unless you own the items being bought and sold indefinitely and in perpetuity.
I didn’t presume anything about you. I was using the term “you” in the general sense to ask an idealogical question about why someone (putting you in the position that you’re arguing for) should be able to take advantage of said situation while not being subject to the same for the other party.
This is just like sovereign citizen bullshit. They want all the advantages of being a citizen but are LARP’ing in a reality where they’re bound by none of the responsibilities and rules that everyone else abides by. “You” want the advantages of watching movies (or whatever intangible content “you” want to choose to insert here) that “you” want to watch without paying for them while also not being bound by the repercussions and issues caused by not paying for it.
I don’t always pay for what I watch/read/play. But I don’t pretend that I’m not stealing when I do so. Whenever possible, and 100% of the time when I enjoy something, I pay for it.
I think, semantic pedantry aside, we might agree with each other on the principle behind this even if we disagree on the definition of theft.
I’m not pro-piracy for the sake of saving money. If one has the ability to pay for media and wishes to consume it, they should pay for it. Effort was put into its creation, and the creators deserve to be rewarded/compensated for that. If a consumer pirates media with no intention to contribute back to the creator(s), they are hands-down just being a leech.
The way I view it is that piracy is a useful tool and necessary means to combat unfair agreements favoring the rights holder. It’s not a first step, it’s a last resort.
Thank you for the clarification; I interpreted it the other way. I generally try to use “one” to refer to individuals in the general sense, as it’s harder to accidentally misinterpret.
I don’t believe the people advocating for piracy as a money-saving measure are delusional like sovcits. It’s far more likely that they simply don’t care.
Absolutely.
I agree. I’m simply saying that I don’t care whether you call it “stealing” or “leeching” or whatever other term you want to use. The fact that we’re even using the term “pirating” instead of just “acquiring” or whatever other term may be better suited gives up the game that piracy is stealing. If it wasn’t, we’d just call it that.
I’m not either but I am pro-piracy in the context of people having access to things that they wouldn’t normally because they’re financially unable. School textbooks being pirated? Go for it. Fuck the exorbitant costs that these companies are charging students, of all people. If educators/writers could sell to schools directly, they should. Otherwise, students attempting to learn shouldn’t be limited in their education/enrichment because they can’t afford it. That’s not the same situation, at least to me, with someone pirating a popcorn flick because don’t want to pay for it.
I agree 100%. I am not advocating for the system as it is nor am I saying that the situation in the OP is fair. It’s not, nor is it fair for rights holders to remove legal ways for people to consume media (like Nintendo going after people for pirating content that can’t legally be purchased anymore). In those cases, I agree that piracy is justified and even necessary to preserve certain types of media. But that doesn’t make it something other than stealing or theft. It’s justified theft but it’s still theft. Just look at the amount of “lost media” that’s been preserved because of justified theft/bootlegging/whatever.
That is much clearer and I will try to use that going forward. I can see how using “you” is confusing and it wasn’t my intention to confuse or belabor that point.
They definitely don’t care… because it benefits them not to. I’m just making the plea that we should be honest about what we’re saying, not whether it’s justifiable or not.
I’ve maybe been a little harsh in my other comments, and for that I apologise. I understand that you’ve been getting a lot of hate (including from myself) but it’s good to see you have a line in the sand.
Why is it that students are exempt from your position? It seems like there’s a hard and fast line here, when really, I think, there is a great deal of grey area in between.
A student is priced out because they’re poor and a captive audience. A regular adult may also be priced out because they can’t afford something and because the seller is charging too much, and has no other option for a similar product.
You’ve argued that the regular adult should just go without, but, when that option doesn’t enact any meaningful change, why should piracy be an invalid choice? If anything, piracy (and the levels at which it occurs) provides a clear indicator of how bad the pricing is for the given product.
Apology accepted.
I don’t think they’re exempt. If they can afford to pay for it, I think that they should. The difference, at least to me, is that most students are required to use specific books and, as you’ve pointed out, are a captive audience. Students don’t get to choose which book they use to learn a topic in class the way that they get to choose what movies they’re going to watch in their free time. It’s exactly that captivity that I think warrants that “exemption” (even though I wouldn’t call it that). Money should not be a reason why someone should be limited in bettering themselves, especially when they are forced to not have an alternative.
That’s functionally not true. We live in an age where media is sooo prevalent and so accessible that adults have plenty of alternatives. FOMO is not a valid justification to claim “no other option”.
Because we’re dealing with something that’s entirely optional. Piracy has no reflection on how bad pricing is. That’s an entirely separate argument. As an example, I collect Steelbook movies. Some of them are outrageously priced. Their prices are not affected by piracy at all because you can’t pirate the Steelbooks themselves. If their value was only in the movie inside the case, then maybe you could make that argument.
Man, I feel so privileged in that I didn’t have any mandatory texts to buy for my degree. I did buy one or two, and I got good use out of them - they were just the right height to raise my monitor up to eye level.
It absolutely does. Or, at least, the level of piracy occurring is a good indicator of how bad the product/service is, for the given price point. If it’s good enough, people will pay for readily, and there will be very little piracy.
Comparing Steelbook movies to piracy is a bit of a false argument. That’s a physical good. I’m sure the movies themselves do suffer some amount of piracy - however the product is so good that people do buy it.
How in the world is that possible? How could a teacher possibly assign any sort of assignment if you didn’t have a shared textbook or curriculum? Or is this another semantic argument where you didn’t have to buy it but were allowed to rent or otherwise borrow the books?
That’s not true in the slightest. If it was, none of the games on Steam would be pirated. Games that cost 99 cents wouldn’t be pirated. The fact that both of those situations exist is proof that piracy as an indicator is completely detached from both of those things.
I’ll give a personal example but fear it will just lead to more needless pedantry. My studio used to create mobile games. We initially charged 99 cents for the game because we didn’t want to do microtransactions or any of that other nonsense. Within the first week, the app showed up on piracy sites but we had code that detected when the dial-home for analytics was bypassed. We had no DRM on there, we didn’t restrict the pirated versions and, in some cases we actually uploaded copies to these sites ourselves. When we looked at analytics for months afterward, the people playing the game the most were the people that pirated it. They can’t claim that they didn’t find value in the game because they were playing it every day and yet they didn’t pay for it. In the end, we had to stop producing games because we couldn’t get people to pay for the game despite them playing it regularly. I’m not sure how someone can resolve the idea that the game was bad and so they didn’t think they should pay for it with the fact that they played it as much as they did (more even than the players that did pay for it).
That is entirely my point with the example, though. With Steelbooks, it isn’t the movie in the case that’s the good. The case is what people are paying for despite being able to pirate the movie within.
For a long time, leeches were a major and somewhat effective medical treatment. They still are in certain cases.
Leeching isn’t an inherently bad thing. Children leech off their parents, until they grow up and make their own way.
Absolutely. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for piracy, many rightsholders would take the piss even more with their pricing and the quality of their products. As it stands, they are acutely aware that if they go too far people will turn to piracy.
This is why they lobby so hard to make piracy a criminal offense - and it’s quite sad that they’ve been so successful in their efforts. I think the threshold is something like $1,000 in the US - if you have more than $1,000 worth of pirated material, you’re a criminal, even though you caused no tangible harm to anyone.