this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
348 points (95.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54758 readers
349 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 |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Slightly more gray: content I've already paid for in one form or another. I spent like $100 going to the theater to see Mario with the family. I'm not losing sleep over adding it to my Plex when it hits VOD.
I pay for a smattering of VoD services, I don't lose sleep over watching something that isn't available on them.
If corporate greed didn't force a hundred different services on us, then it might be different.
You say you don’t want 100 different services, but do we really want all media content to be under one roof or just a few players? Consolidation is also terrible for media/art. That’s basically why so many people are against the Actibliz acquisition.
@hoodatninja @majestictechie @vis4valentine @Kushan @charles Isn't it obvious? They want many players to have all of the content. Which is possible, because content doesn't run out if one service plays it too much.
It could also have music streaming style. Where the features of platform is the more pull then content.
Spotify supports far more range of devices. Tidal sounds so much better, deezer is slightly worse quality than tidal but for more country. YouTube music gives you add free YouTube etc.
All media content under all services.
I'd love that but it's just not realistic because of how the media publishing landscape currently is. Happy to advocate for that but moving that needle will take decades. My response is it's usually somewhere in the middle. 5-10 major players, maybe some smaller ones as well. I don't need access to literally everything ever made. Libraries already have a wonderfully large free collection as it is (for anyone reading this Hoopla is amazing and countless libraries have massive catalogs on it)
Sure, it's not an easy thing to achieve for sure, but I won't lose sleep over them losing revenue because they can't figure it out quickly enough.
Even moreso where it comes to media that's just not available any more. If you, a content IP owner, don't make that content available for purchase, then you have only yourself to blame if people pirate it.
I don’t think we are entitled to someone creative work just because they made it. That opens way too many doors.
This is doubly true for games, which tend to be re-released over and over again on different platforms. This is true to a lesser extent for things like movies, but it’s much worse with gaming where each console is a closed ecosystem that’s incompatible with other systems. At least with Blu-Ray, you can expect any Blu-Ray player to play the movie you’ve purchased. It’s not like a Toshiba player will only play Toshiba brand Blu-Ray discs.
Companies love to use the “you don’t own the game, you own a personal license to use the game” line when revoking rights to play games you’ve legally purchased… But that goes both ways; If you own a personal license to use the game, it shouldn’t matter what platform it’s on, because it’s the same game regardless of whether you’re playing on PlayStation or PC.
Straight black but I still consider ethical:
The entire "going to the movies" experience is terrible for me and my wife, only going to get worse with a runt on the way. It's certainly a fault of the theater I try and attend, but I'm not driving 2 hours for a decent viewing experience.
I pirate like CRAZY. BUT if I find a film/TV show I really enjoy, I certainly do my part in word-of-mouth or digital marketing for them. It's certainly once it's left the theaters but I wasn't going to that anyway. It also gives a chance for older films/series to get some funding that I may not have picked up otherwise.
Occasionally if there's a film/show that's a standout, I'll buy a physical copy. Honestly I never open them as I have a more convenient digital copy on plex but I do put in some for it.
That said, watch Grave Encounters 1 (not 2..) and Cabin in the Woods. I believe they're both on Netflix but absolute top tier movies if you're into horror for GE or horror parody for CITW, cabin possibly being in my top 5 of all time.
Also that said, I've seen way too many episodes of MTV Cribs for me to care about it too much >:(
Paying for a ticket isn’t the same thing and I’d argue that’s not morally justified piracy. You went from a rental to ownership at a rental price.
I thought you were going to say something like “I already bought a copy of Star Wars thirty years ago, then THEY made the way I watch it obsolete, so I don’t feel as bad getting another copy since I already paid for it once.”
That would be closer to moral than “well I watched it in the theaters once, so I totally own a copy!”
We've all got our lines, mate. That's the point of this post.
Kind of similar but I feel like pirating content you have legal access to (Steam, Spotify, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) in a way to get around DRM is ethical.
For example wanting to listen to songs you have on Spotify on an iPod or reading ebooks purchased from Amazon on your PC.
Concerning the first point there is also the case of content getting altered. For example TV shows that switch songs because of licensing.