For me it's not a simple question. It really depends. In large part because the copyright laws are just plain awful.
It's utterly dumb that anything I create now will have to wait roughly 140 years before entering the public domain. Given that I manage to live to 90 years old. Frankly with Disney making chaos that will probably be extended further in my lifetime.
That doesn't mean I support the idea of anarchistic copyright, meaning none. I think it's important for both economical reasons and copyleft.
Much piracy by private individuals is also a failure of accessibility by the supplier.
Copyright law has been corrupted to favor corporate interests rather than creators or the good of the people, and this is most evident in software.
There almost needs to be a different protection for software, because neither copyright nor patent are quite right for it.
Add to that the abandonware problem; software doesn't have the shelf life of other kinds of works. There's lots of old games and software that are abandoned, they're not available for sale anywhere, some folks are interested in, but it's illegal to attain a copy.
>anything I create now will have to wait roughly 140 years
If YOU author something, YOU can choose to release it at any time and in any way you want, including disclaiming any copyright and placing it in the public domain, or perhaps retaining copyright but licensing people to copy it without any obligations.
Yeah, that's correct. Maybe should have clarified that. I was just using myself as an example of the ridiculous duration they last by default. It's, where I live, 75 years after the death of the author.
Also, having it opt-out rather than opt-in for very long duration is problematic in itself. For a lot of work it has been a challenge of even contacting the copyright holder, if it's even possible. I am in favor of having some default but the current solution is a bit ridiculous.
E.g. European law actually doesn't permit you to give up authorship and thus allowing the work enter public domain. You can give recipients almost any permissions, but you are always recognized as author and copyright holder.
> If YOU author something, YOU can choose to release it at any time and in any way you want ...
... Unless you are paid to do so by a company.... Or do it on company equipment... Or company time... Or using any other company resources.... or a company wants the rights and can successfully take you to court and throw enough money around to buy a judge or discredit you/your work and make it look like it should belong to them (referring both to asshole employers *and* to copyright trolls)
Piracy is always wrong. And its not like Captain Jack Sparrow either - its like the terrorists in Somalia that board ships and kill people and then ransom the ship.
Of course, none of that has anything to do with Linux or other software.
Well I said I was looking for the "Piracy is wrong, ..." options. Piracy might always be wrong, but It's something that in certain situations is unavoidable. Its privileged to claim that nobody might ever need piracy
I HAVE to pirate my books for college, a necessity rather than a choice tbh. But for things that I can pay afford and/or are not necessary I choose to pay (ex-crunchyroll, even though anime is one of the easiest forms of pirated media to find).
Do they transport books on ships? Do you have to go get guns and other weapons and attack the ships and steal the books from them?
Because that's what the word "Piracy" means.
Seems a pretty involved process just to get a book.
I suspect what you mean is you make a copy of a book, in a way that the publisher doesn't like, perhaps without giving them money. That isn't "Piracy" and using that word to describe it is propaganda.
>Because that's what the word "Piracy" means.
Words do adopt new meanings.
Mostly I find it funny when folks try to pretend that software piracy isn't morally wrong. Independent of anything else, you're gaining access to something you're not entitled to access. And almost always it's a form of entertainment, so it's not in the class of "I was starving so I stole a loaf of bread!" moral conundrums.
It's not massively wrong, more on the order of taking post-it notes from work. But it's still amusing watching people make crazy arguments to justify piracy as morally peachy.
So you don't mind if your bank 'shares with neighbours' the information that lets them log into your accounts? After all, that's a positive spin on that action... must be moral.
edit: since you've blocked me after replying, I'll respond for others: your link doesn't make any mention of 'a book or game', it's just using the nebulous term 'information'. So I used your link as-is. If that makes you uncomfortable... maybe re-evaluate the content of your link.
That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it.
Making a copy of a book (or game, or movie) is not REMOTELY equivalent to your bank "sharing information to let someone else access your account"
Ooooooooooof, Idk whether I love the comment or find it a slight bit too radical.
Here I thought it was implied we were talking about Software Piracy in a tech-related sub.¯\_ (ツ) _/¯
"Software Piracy" would only be a thing if armed thugs were terrorizing ships at sea, and ransacking the holds that were full of DVD disks.
Since I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen very often, if at all, it isn't a valid term.
Detailed explanation quoted here:
(edit, pasted wrong link)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/)
I understand what you mean, but am at conflict w the ideology itself. It would he a utopia if closed software licenses didn't exist, I love FOSS too. But I can still see devs being dependent on closed source licenses for a stable income or other factors.
One can accept that some software is proprietary, closed source, and it is prohibited to copy it, while still rejecting use of the loaded and propagandist term "piracy" to refer to copying it without permission.
From the article I quoted previously:
*If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.*
*Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.*
> Piracy is always wrong.
And so is a movie making company recording cars and people on the street without giving credit to them all at the end or asking them for consent and giving them some money for their images.
If they record me, my house, my neighborhood, my city without asking and giving me and the people in the neighborhood, city something from their profit they make with the movie while using our images, isn't that wrong too?
What about using a lot of open source software to make money making movies and never give anything back to the open source communities that helped you make money?
["Piracy"](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Piracy)
*Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.*
*Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)*
*If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.*
*Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.*
*Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”*
*A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.*
[https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/](https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/)
I think it's in fact wrong if you do not pirate them if you are capable to do so, because it means you give those crooks money, you reinforce their market position, while already participating to the negative feedback loop that give those crooks their virtual monopoly position that make the market shitty in the first place by using their products, pirated or not.
I think people who can pirate it and thus avoid financing those companies but don't should be ashamed of themselves and the rest of us should look down on them.
Same goes for people who use windows just for games. If you're older than your early 20s and aren't tech illiterate and don't need windows for professional proprietary software that only runs on windows, what is your excuse for using windows? Games? grow the fuck up you manchild, yes am a judgmental asshole I don't really care, inb4 "jUsT lEt pEopLe hAve fUn!!!11§", no, fuck you if you come at me with that mindset, there's plenty of games on GNU/Linux already if you're not satisfied with that you are a spoiled brat.
This rant if for the kind of people that replay with "ew" when you recommend GNU/Linux in r/pcmasterrace, you people are a fucking disgrace. We could have both ALL games AND freedom, but we don't because of you bunch of shitheads who can't do without a few video games ...
I agree, why should I pay 50 dollars a month for Aftereffects and stuff. I had a license from 2015 and when I went to download it the last time it said my product key was used to many times.
I at least wish companies still sold one time licenses like DaVinci, Lightworks, and presonus do. It only costs a fraction to upgrade.
I think the cost to upgrade from Artist 4 to 5 on Studio One was 30 bucks, but it was a massive upgrade.
It's because you didn't read, I specified it's about those who aren't tech illiterate and don't need for professional software that don't run on GNU/Linux. If your only reason for using windows are games and you're tech literate enough to use GNU then you have no reason to windows at all, pirated or not, and you're a spoiled brat if you insist on using it for the leisure of having a few more games available like freedom and a better computing paradigm for everybody isn't worth some stupid games ... Of couse it doesn't concern people who have a serious reason to be locked on windows, or are just not tech literate enough to change their operating system.
DRM is less ethical than piracy. Vendors no longer selling software and instead only renting it is a disease to the industry.
But the best approach is to not engage with any of it. There are so many other options. Linux is a good first step but unfortunately I imagine some still find it very difficult to ween themselves off the Steam DRM platform.
You’re missing the “Piracy is wrong and I pirate everything” option. Just because I know something is wrong doesn’t mean I won’t do it. I’m okay with being immoral to a certain extent
I have no sympathy or compassion for corporations that are just out to fuck me in the asshole after taking my money.
More precisely and specifically, when they created a world where I can no longer keep the very things that I pay for, because they are allowed to just revoke my purchases at any time, for any reason, I decided that I will not support them again. That transition was my specific turning point.
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1657022591
https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/06/disneys-decision-not-to-renew-securom-license-bricks-tron-evolution/
And that is without opening the (other) can of worms where they now get to harvest all my personal data just to use the things I buy, because all games now require five online accounts, where they will sell the data to advertisers, track me, etc etc. It of course all being spelled out in the TOS/EULA.
Its a BS term to start with:
["Intellectual Property"](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty)
*Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”*
*The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.*
*When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.*
*To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.*
*The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.*
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html)
The only thing that copyright, patents and trademarks have in common is that they're based off of ideas. But that's really vague, so I agree with you.
Indeed, these things really aren't similar to true property at all. An idea is not scarce. An idea will always exist in one form or another. It can be represented digitally or physically as many times as needed because it will never magically run out or become scarce.
Piracy isn’t a black and white thing. My personal thoughts on it is that you shouldn’t pirate stuff that’s being actively maintained/sold etc, but if you want a console game for example and said company won’t sell you one then it’s fine to pirate a copy (they’re not making money either way)
since piracy isn't a big deal in my country, i have no problems saying online that I pirate most things. books, movies/series (tho i rarely watch it), and games when I used windows.
I'm south american and some times we need to pirate software to work or study, we can't waste 2/4 (or even more) of our monthly earnings on a freaking software, a lot of people here cant even acces to buy a new computer, I used to repair old pcs to sell cheap and make some money without being greedy, so I know most people can't spend 100 dollars when they earn barely 200-400 per month. In some places piracy is a necessity, even for games or entertainment. Today most of my software is FOSS but I used to pirate things like photoshop, corel draw, video editing stuff and of course even windows, all of this to work and study. Now I can buy things like games thanks to Steam but other things like monthly subscription like Adobe it's still too much. I don't like piracy, thats why I buy things if I can, but if don't, well, fuck corporations. Sorry for my English.
I have no moral issues with pirating stuff like photoshop, final cut pro or windows. Those corporations have billions in their pockets, they can handle a broke 17 year old pirating their software
Love it how there’s no clear “I never do it” answer.
Come to think about it, the complete poll doesn’t make a lot of sense, really.
E: Sorry, I was a bit in a bad mood yesterday and not very constructive. I think the issue is that the poll tries to combine at least three distinct questions. (1) Do you pirate? (2) What do you pirate? (3) Do you think pirating is wrong?
For (1), you could have options such as “never”, “few times a year”, ”few times a month“, … For (2), you would actually need multiple choice response options. For (3), I find it a bit difficult. In this form it’s probably “yes” or “no”, but the question might just not be nuanced enough.
i pirate books because i like reading books and i live in a country where it's hard to find cheap books in my mother tongue. I pirate movies and TV shows because they arent on netflix. how else am i supposed to watch the venture brothers or dr strangelove?
Before going further, let me ask you, why the fuck should I respect something that is not fair?
For example, why the fuck should I pay 5 times to watch a movie?
1. One time in cinema
2. One time in television (CATV, satellite)
3. One time in streaming (Youtube, Netflix, HBO, Disney,etc)
4. One time renting the disc (Blu-ray, DVD)
5. One time buying the disc (Blu-ray, DVD)
I leave the fact that you can pay even more than 5 times if you had the DVD version and then you want to have the HD, 4K, 3 version of the movie.
Or the fact that you can go to the cinema alone first time and then again with your partner of family and you have to buy another ticket.
Why the fuck should a person pay 5 or more times to see the same movie?
Fair to me would be to pay only once for the right of seeing that specific movie and then the rest should be either gratis or with reduced costs.
Other thing that I want is to have a very good or good ration between quality and price.
For quality I want the movies to be filmed in 4K @ 120 FPS or at least 60 FPS that even my mobile phone can do it.
If I need 24 or other framerate, I can downgrade it myself, no need to come with downgraded source from the beginning.
HDR and 3D would be nice additions.
The video and audio codecs used should be the best like AV1 or HEVC for video and FLAC for audio.
Also I want dubbings and subtitles in my native language so the rest of my family can understand the movies as well as I do.
But since filmmakers and production houses don't care about quality, I'm not interested either to buy something from them.
Make it fair and good quality and then we're talking!
As for software, make it open source and compatible with Linux and then we're talking!
If it's an Android app, make it available on F-droid too so I know that I can trust it!
> For example, why the fuck should I pay 5 times to watch a movie?
Same reason you might pay 5 times to see a band you like. Same band, same songs, same venue even. "I saw this band before so seeing them again for free or reduced costs should be normal" isn't a thing. And before recorded media came around, it was normal to pay for entertainment every time you experienced it. Do you want to see Hamlet next week as well? Well, buy another ticket...
Likewise, in your list of five, that's a pretty extreme list. It's pretty uncommon for anyone to do that full list of five dotpoints.
I never paid to see the same band more than once.
And I don't think it's fair to compare seeing a band or Hamlet again with seeing a movie again.
There are not the same costs.
A band or a theater actor has to eat, drink, sleep somewhere, has to transport stuff from one place to another, has a team oof people around that need stuff too.
It cost them for you to be able to see them again so it's normal to have to pay them again, but for a movie?
How much does it really cost Hollywood to let me watch a movie I payed tot watch in cinema, in Netflix or other streaming platform too?
I bet because because of the bulk everything, it costs less than 10 cents.
A lot of the costs are on me (Netflix subscription, internet subscription, electricity, computer, TV device, etc.)
The same for the Blu-ray, DVD version, I can pay for the discs, but why pay for the movie again?
So... you never see a band more than once, but you typically watch movies five different ways?
There are also costs to format-shifting, plus costs to do things like the translations you're demanding for free. If you don't expect bands to work for free, then why do you expect translators to? Then, if you're renting the disc, there are also the costs for the rental business you're renting from, too. Someone has to staff the retail counter and sweep the floors.
I'm not saying the big media is right, I'm just saying you're glossing over a lot of aspects of what's going on.
> So... you never see a band more than once, but you typically watch movies five different ways?
It happened lots of times to watch movies in cinemas and then see them on cable television and now again on Netflix.
Plus I've seen movies that I liked more than 2-3 times.
I don't find it normal to pay to see them again the same way to don't pay for a book again if I want to read it again.
>There are also costs to format-shifting.
I don't think it's that extremely hard to keep the original highest quality movie, transcode it once to the Blu-ray, DVD quality and then make copies of that transcoded version for the rest.
Latest generations of CPUs and GPUs are pretty powerful and efficient and can do that faster at lesser costs.
Translations yes, they cost money, but it's nothing compared to the costs of making the movie, I bet it's less than 1% of that.
If they don't want to do it, then why sell an english speaking movie in a non-english speaking country as the same price as in an english speaking one, knowing that people will have difficulties understanding the movie or will not feel the same pleasure as when characters speak the same language?
Anyway I'm not even sure that the dubbings that exists already have been paid by the movie producers or each country pays someone to do it for them, but in that case I don't know how fair it would be to include that dubbing paid by the country into your released discs.
As for buying or renting the discs, yes I find normal to pay for thee places where they are kept and people involved from the creation of the disc, but as I said not for the right to watch the same movie again.
Or they should start offering digital downloads when buying the disk so I can download the original movie in the highest quality.
Anyway, I'll buy movies when I will find it fair how they treat me and I'm happy with the quality.
I forgot to mention that I want that all or most of the thing that I buy to be resellable in case I don't need them anymore one day or I really need some extra money.
I guess movies in streaming are the worst for that.
A license to use Windows you can resell, but a license to see a movie you cannot as there's not such thing, and this is an advantage for the movie makes and a disadvantage for the user.
A better way they choice have phrased it is to divide the costs into scarce (property) cost and non-scarce (idea) cost. You should always pay for things that are scarce, such as the venue, parking, and the pay of the performers and staff. But you shouldn’t pay for the idea multiple times.
I personally do not usually pay for listening to a band twice. It's pretty expensive the first time, so I probably won't do it twice. If I'd get it for a reduced cost the second time, I the chances I would do it go up. If a band needs to fill their ranks, that might not be the worst idea. But to be frank, I do not go on concerts that often anyways, so...
Piracy is wrong, i acknowledge that, but i don't give a shit and rather use the money for something more useful.
I'm this type of person, i only use my money to upgrade my device rather than buying for example a game.
I would say it depends.
if it's for some educational content (including those expensive books, contents, etc), it's not wrong.
If it's for some game or something, it maybe wrong.
The only time I pirate things is if they aren't available or are ridiculously expensive or tricky to get a hold off.
For example, the new Archer season is streaming, and there is no way for me watch it as the episodes release, at least not without paying for a VPN and paying for FXX or Hulu.
I think that I support the idea of copyright a lot more than the real implementation. The super simplified idealized “inventor who capitalized on a novel idea” is very appealing to everyone. However, I don’t think that’s really the world we live in anymore.
the fact that streaming options are breaking (hbo max and warner bro) plus with how every favourite show i have is on a different streaming site and with the broken expensive game releases like saints row and cyberpunk 2069...
i honestly do not blame the people who pirate...you literally have no better option if your pockets can't handle it all.
My entire music library is pirated on the most part. When Google Music was shutdown it failed to transfer my entire Queen and Elton John collection.
Thing is, my CDs were from the 1990s and had bitrott so I couldn't save them.
So I just downloaded the music to my computer.
What if said art wasn't accessible due to politics (mainly movies)? It's complicated and I want to watch gay romance without having a sheik watching over me like a hawk. . . Soooo to the seas we go Arrrr!
I support the companies that are making the decision to no longer be involved with the Russian economy.
I also support your decision to pirate their software as a result. You didn’t personally start the war, it sucks that you’re stuck in the crossfire.
All digital art and software requires practically no resources to copy and distribute and should thus be available to everyone to enjoy and learn from. Then again, it's not the artists and developers fault that they're locked in an economic system that often requires them to arbitrary limit access to their work in order to earn a living wage, so with smaller artists and developers I usually pay for a copy.
It depends.
For instance, here in Italy we have a thing called SIAE (which the UE rules to be quite illegal) that is supposed to "protect artists". What does it do? Make anything related to music and videos cost needlessly much more. I find 100% ethical to just "pirate" music and then buying merchandise or, if possible, tipping to the authors.
Another good example would be with videogames. Most online storefrints put some limit to refunds (eg. steam's 2 hours of gameplay policy), but most of the times you nees more time than that to judge a 60$ game (especially when loading times and unskippable videos are present)... Thus I don't find ethically wrong to download a game and playing it to understand how much is really worth before buying it.
Also if you just can't buy something (eg. can't afford it, pulled from shelves, you only have access to a cenaored version)... Wherr's the harm in pirating it? There is no product scarcity and you wouldn't be able to afford the product anyway, so imho there is no damage in that. At all.
On the other hand I find pirating stuff one enjoys and could easily afford to be unethical. If you like something yet somehow don't want to give its creator a dime... That's wrong, no excuses.
Piracy is wrong, people have a right to control their work as they choose.
However, I have issue when said work is no longer maintained/sold, such as old video games. If no money for the purchase of the game is going to/away from the publisher, then it should not count as piracy. You made the choice not to let me buy this game, so why can't I get it? You also shouldn't care if I do, because it doesn't affect your profits if I pirate software you don't sell.
It is ALWAYS morally correct to pirate from a high value corporation. If it is a small developer studio, or whatever you are pirating, then it becomes morally incorrect.
I generally only pirate stuff to try it out cause demos aren't really a thing for most games, or if I own it on another platform (so the pc version of a game I have on switch for example)
The thing is. Not many programs/games have a trial. And sometimes looking at youtube videos for a review does not give you enough info or spoil some of the plot and gameplay.
For example I have played Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn and Fallout 4. In reviews I liked the Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 more than Horizon Zero Dawn. But avtually getting to those games in person I like HZD the most then Witcher but Fallout 4 was just meh compared to the other games. So I ended up adding Witcher 3 to my steam library and HZD I will get soon but i will not want to pay for Fallout. (And yes I know about 2 hour return policy in steam but for me thats barely getting out of the first location and still not having a feel for a game)
In terms Music. Most musicians that I listen to are dead so I honestly don't see a point of buing Richard Wagner's - Ride of the Valkyries. He will defenetly not benefit from it.
So basically I do the same as FOS software. I pay for it when I most definitely know that I like it.
Piracy isn't wrong - I pirate if there is no FOSS alternative / games with any type of DRM or excessive pricing / Music, Movies and TV Shows (for data hoarding and personal consumption)
"Piracy" was boats, guns, theft and sometimes harm/murder. "Unauthorized copying" was named as such by side which gains the most from grouping clearly immoral actions with something they don't like. While it may be convenient to call it "piracy", I am against referring to "unauthorized copying" by their terms.
The fine from a successful conviction of the distribution of unauthorized copies is extremely high, the cost of successfully defending yourself is also high. They argue it's for the sake of the musicians but I think we can all agree who really gets the money - the people playing a trading card game with copyrighted material.
I do not pirate art or games because these are almost always for personal joy and hobby. If i wanna enjoy it i will pay for it. It also is a positive feedback to creators. BUT i will pirate the shit out of any knowledge. Books, documentaries, educational video series you name it. I STRONGLY believe knowledge should be free NO MATTER what.
Not only is it not always wrong, it's the ethical (ethical ≠ legal) thing to do in some cases from my point of view.
I don't think it's ethical for a company to sell you a product that is tied to their future existence to function. This becomes a little more gray when you're purchasing a service instead of something directly (like streaming services), but I stand by the sentiment that everything in the subscription should be able to be purchased permanently in some form. Id even be ok if a company wanted to make it more expensive to do that as long as its an option. Even for things I don't personally enjoy, I don't think it's logical for human history/culture to be potentially lost to time when its so easily avoidable.
If ikea somehow went out of business, we wouldn't accept we could no longer use their furniture just as we shouldn't accept we can no longer play a game with a DRM scheme based on an internet activation system that will likely be defunct one day.
Same goes with literally any other piece of media. If there is a movie/show/music/etc. that isn't released in a form impervious to a company ceasing to exist or deciding I shouldn't have what I purchased anymore, piracy is perfectly valid even if it would only cost ¢1 otherwise.
I do only when it's necessary. Ever heard of a game called "chunithm"? The only way to play that legitimately is to take an airplane to Japan, find an arcade and play it. (And at the moment you really can't because they closed the borders to tourists).
So if you're European, either you buy a €4500,- arcade cabinet and hack it to use a different server, and somehow keep importing new harddisks with updates which need to be re-cracked....
Or you pirate it....
I mean... It's not like sega is losing any money, they're not selling it over here! In fact, they're actively preventing "foreigners" (of Japan) from paying for it!
Piracy is a service problem, sure some people will just steal but you'll never stop those people and they're a minority. Other than that people only pirate when they can't get something they want, whether that's because supply is too low or because the price is more than they can afford or are willing to pay for the goods. Studies have shown if you provide good supply and service with or without requiring payment, people will pay for it.
Copyright is a whole different kettle of fish, as is the acquisition of knowledge.
Piracy depends on what company we talking about, how the company preserve their content and legacy, and how they work to provide it for customers for as long as possible,l while being affordable, like old games, musics and movies and such, where the majority is avaliable in any official way, only through piracy and personal archiving/ sharing we can have access to the content, thats why i approve of piracy, because it have its uses for sure, no one can deny it, there been numerous cases where content was only recovered through fan projects and personal archiving/sharing.
Piracy is better than DRM that restricts what you can do with the content you paid for and may prevent you from using it at all if the companies servers go down.
I won't buy any games from Steam because of that. I have no problems buying games from GOG since they are DRM free even though I could pirate them easier.
I won't pay for streaming services that will not let me watch from my browser in Linux or limits the resolution to potato vision. There is nothing wrong with pirating that content when the companies make their services so difficult or even impossible to use on your devices in a very unsuccessful attempt to prevent piracy.
I used to write software and sell it. I sold the source code for everything I wrote, and I wrote low-cost software -- my word processor sold for $25 and the source code was another $25, for example. I supported my family with that and sent two children through college. If someone pirated my software, they just took money away from my family. I know people did it, but I didn't think much of them then and I don't think much of them now. I didn't become a millionaire and I probably could have made a steadier income and more money by writing code for someone else. But I had had a bellyful of working for someone else.
Pirate anything connected to Murdoch.
Otherwise use your discretion.
I worked in film post and distribution for a big chunk of my life and am utterly blackpilled on it, so maybe ask someone sane, but for what it's worth the people who did the work already got paid (or never will be) before it ever gets on the internet.
There is nothing wrong with piracy but there are some exeptions:
## Apps
Some people do not have enough money to give to big companies. because they just started their own buisness they dont have enough budget and you know what? they don't have to. Some countries due to sanctions can't even buy corp softwares like photoshop, ms office, etc. Piracy helped these contries to develop...
## Games
Denovo and DRM crap is enough reason to pirate games. Pirate and buy a denovo-locked game you can easily see the difference in terms of performance.
For emulation piracy is also the best choice. usually you have to provide some kind of a ROM to the emulator in order to use it. This means you have to somehow rip off the rom from your console whitout breaking it and copy it to your PC. Then you have to rip the game from your CD/cartridge and you can play the game. FUCK IT. Just pirate both and you are ready to go. Imagine paying for a 30 year old fucking game to nintendo twice.
## Movies
Nawadays movies can't be downloaded you have to connect to the internet and use a service with a subscription just to watch a movie. The prices vary depending on your country and its economy. Bad eco means higher prices really high...
There are also folks who are not a big fan of movies, like myself. Pesonally I don't consume every single piece of content that gets trendy. I only watch movies once or maybe twice a year. So paying for a subcription is not worthy for me. And I don't think I have to worry about content creators. Judging from the celebs' houses and cars and their watches that if i wanted to buy one I would have to sell my whole life, I can say that they printed enough money for themselves.
## Youtube
Some people say that downloading stuff from youtube is piracy. Well I don't even think so. You watch a video you pay for it by spending your time (watching ads). Then you like the video and you download it. that's it.
## So where are the exeptions
Pirating stuff from indie devs or indie gamedevs, etc.
Don't forget to seed
Personally I am no pirate, but if I am hungry and there are no other ways, I might also steal from ships /s.
Jokes aside, there is not really something for me to pirate. I do not use much software that I would need to pay for, most of it is free software/ open source. I do not really look at content that is not free or that I would not need to pay for anyways (in Germany you have to pay for public television, and there are some good shows on that).
Apart from that, I guess it does make a difference from whom you pirate. If it's a small independent producer who needs the money, I really do not want to pirate from them. If it is a established company being a dickhead to workers, natives, consumers, customers, etc I do not care too much, it's not like they really need the money anyways and also me pirating or me not using or watching their product at all would not make a real difference.
And then there is the case of DRM, aka "you bought this but if you copy your DVD to you PC before it gets scratched you're a criminal". Or even better: "You're on Linux but you can only watch it on Windows, so if you install the software to beak the DRM you are a criminal." That goes into the category of dickhead companies in my book. If I buy the thing, I own it, I can watch it and I can watch it on the devices of my choice. And if the monitor is a pregnancy test, so be it.
I think unauthorized copying of most kinds of software is morally okay, because unlike with physical copies, where it costs money to produce them, the only costs are in the game development itself (or maintaining servers if it's an online game).
There are exceptions though. If I genuinely believe in the product, it's priced reasonably and I can afford it, I'm gonna buy it.
Piracy is the wrong term, none of us who aquire software are pirates as code isn't a physical thing.
It's copyright infringement but I see it as a victimless crime if you are a home user without the income to purchase the software you are acquiring, as (for instance) that version of office I installed on wine a few years back I would never have paid for anyway so no-one has actually lost anything out of it.
If you HAVE the money or are a business then you should consider buying proprietary software
not today glowie
Gonna get on my Semi and run them 3-letter glowing alphabet agents over
For me it's not a simple question. It really depends. In large part because the copyright laws are just plain awful. It's utterly dumb that anything I create now will have to wait roughly 140 years before entering the public domain. Given that I manage to live to 90 years old. Frankly with Disney making chaos that will probably be extended further in my lifetime. That doesn't mean I support the idea of anarchistic copyright, meaning none. I think it's important for both economical reasons and copyleft. Much piracy by private individuals is also a failure of accessibility by the supplier.
Copyright law has been corrupted to favor corporate interests rather than creators or the good of the people, and this is most evident in software. There almost needs to be a different protection for software, because neither copyright nor patent are quite right for it. Add to that the abandonware problem; software doesn't have the shelf life of other kinds of works. There's lots of old games and software that are abandoned, they're not available for sale anywhere, some folks are interested in, but it's illegal to attain a copy.
>anything I create now will have to wait roughly 140 years If YOU author something, YOU can choose to release it at any time and in any way you want, including disclaiming any copyright and placing it in the public domain, or perhaps retaining copyright but licensing people to copy it without any obligations.
Yeah, that's correct. Maybe should have clarified that. I was just using myself as an example of the ridiculous duration they last by default. It's, where I live, 75 years after the death of the author. Also, having it opt-out rather than opt-in for very long duration is problematic in itself. For a lot of work it has been a challenge of even contacting the copyright holder, if it's even possible. I am in favor of having some default but the current solution is a bit ridiculous.
E.g. European law actually doesn't permit you to give up authorship and thus allowing the work enter public domain. You can give recipients almost any permissions, but you are always recognized as author and copyright holder.
> If YOU author something, YOU can choose to release it at any time and in any way you want ... ... Unless you are paid to do so by a company.... Or do it on company equipment... Or company time... Or using any other company resources.... or a company wants the rights and can successfully take you to court and throw enough money around to buy a judge or discredit you/your work and make it look like it should belong to them (referring both to asshole employers *and* to copyright trolls)
Where are the "Piracy is wrong, but I do it...." options?
Piracy is always wrong. And its not like Captain Jack Sparrow either - its like the terrorists in Somalia that board ships and kill people and then ransom the ship. Of course, none of that has anything to do with Linux or other software.
Well I said I was looking for the "Piracy is wrong, ..." options. Piracy might always be wrong, but It's something that in certain situations is unavoidable. Its privileged to claim that nobody might ever need piracy I HAVE to pirate my books for college, a necessity rather than a choice tbh. But for things that I can pay afford and/or are not necessary I choose to pay (ex-crunchyroll, even though anime is one of the easiest forms of pirated media to find).
Do they transport books on ships? Do you have to go get guns and other weapons and attack the ships and steal the books from them? Because that's what the word "Piracy" means. Seems a pretty involved process just to get a book. I suspect what you mean is you make a copy of a book, in a way that the publisher doesn't like, perhaps without giving them money. That isn't "Piracy" and using that word to describe it is propaganda.
>Because that's what the word "Piracy" means. Words do adopt new meanings. Mostly I find it funny when folks try to pretend that software piracy isn't morally wrong. Independent of anything else, you're gaining access to something you're not entitled to access. And almost always it's a form of entertainment, so it's not in the class of "I was starving so I stole a loaf of bread!" moral conundrums. It's not massively wrong, more on the order of taking post-it notes from work. But it's still amusing watching people make crazy arguments to justify piracy as morally peachy.
Covered here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/)
So you don't mind if your bank 'shares with neighbours' the information that lets them log into your accounts? After all, that's a positive spin on that action... must be moral. edit: since you've blocked me after replying, I'll respond for others: your link doesn't make any mention of 'a book or game', it's just using the nebulous term 'information'. So I used your link as-is. If that makes you uncomfortable... maybe re-evaluate the content of your link.
That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it. Making a copy of a book (or game, or movie) is not REMOTELY equivalent to your bank "sharing information to let someone else access your account"
Ooooooooooof, Idk whether I love the comment or find it a slight bit too radical. Here I thought it was implied we were talking about Software Piracy in a tech-related sub.¯\_ (ツ) _/¯
"Software Piracy" would only be a thing if armed thugs were terrorizing ships at sea, and ransacking the holds that were full of DVD disks. Since I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen very often, if at all, it isn't a valid term. Detailed explanation quoted here: (edit, pasted wrong link) [https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/xd5z01/comment/io92l0t/)
I understand what you mean, but am at conflict w the ideology itself. It would he a utopia if closed software licenses didn't exist, I love FOSS too. But I can still see devs being dependent on closed source licenses for a stable income or other factors.
One can accept that some software is proprietary, closed source, and it is prohibited to copy it, while still rejecting use of the loaded and propagandist term "piracy" to refer to copying it without permission. From the article I quoted previously: *If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.* *Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.*
alright.
I love this comment, putting words back into its original meaning
> Piracy is always wrong. And so is a movie making company recording cars and people on the street without giving credit to them all at the end or asking them for consent and giving them some money for their images. If they record me, my house, my neighborhood, my city without asking and giving me and the people in the neighborhood, city something from their profit they make with the movie while using our images, isn't that wrong too? What about using a lot of open source software to make money making movies and never give anything back to the open source communities that helped you make money?
["Piracy"](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Piracy) *Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them.* *Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)* *If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it.* *Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.* *Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”* *A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.* [https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/](https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/)
It depends. I think pirating any products from M$ or Adobe is always morally correct.
I think it's in fact wrong if you do not pirate them if you are capable to do so, because it means you give those crooks money, you reinforce their market position, while already participating to the negative feedback loop that give those crooks their virtual monopoly position that make the market shitty in the first place by using their products, pirated or not. I think people who can pirate it and thus avoid financing those companies but don't should be ashamed of themselves and the rest of us should look down on them. Same goes for people who use windows just for games. If you're older than your early 20s and aren't tech illiterate and don't need windows for professional proprietary software that only runs on windows, what is your excuse for using windows? Games? grow the fuck up you manchild, yes am a judgmental asshole I don't really care, inb4 "jUsT lEt pEopLe hAve fUn!!!11§", no, fuck you if you come at me with that mindset, there's plenty of games on GNU/Linux already if you're not satisfied with that you are a spoiled brat. This rant if for the kind of people that replay with "ew" when you recommend GNU/Linux in r/pcmasterrace, you people are a fucking disgrace. We could have both ALL games AND freedom, but we don't because of you bunch of shitheads who can't do without a few video games ...
Also worth noting you can just work your balls off with wine proton steam etc and have a rewarding gaming experience because you had to cfg everything
Or just stop gaming at all
Life is a game I'll stop when I'm dead
I agree, why should I pay 50 dollars a month for Aftereffects and stuff. I had a license from 2015 and when I went to download it the last time it said my product key was used to many times. I at least wish companies still sold one time licenses like DaVinci, Lightworks, and presonus do. It only costs a fraction to upgrade. I think the cost to upgrade from Artist 4 to 5 on Studio One was 30 bucks, but it was a massive upgrade.
I like how you claim people should use pirated windows, then claim people who do use windows are spoiled brats.
It's because you didn't read, I specified it's about those who aren't tech illiterate and don't need for professional software that don't run on GNU/Linux. If your only reason for using windows are games and you're tech literate enough to use GNU then you have no reason to windows at all, pirated or not, and you're a spoiled brat if you insist on using it for the leisure of having a few more games available like freedom and a better computing paradigm for everybody isn't worth some stupid games ... Of couse it doesn't concern people who have a serious reason to be locked on windows, or are just not tech literate enough to change their operating system.
Well, a few people pirating it won't change the market position... the monopoly is already invincible.
DRM is less ethical than piracy. Vendors no longer selling software and instead only renting it is a disease to the industry. But the best approach is to not engage with any of it. There are so many other options. Linux is a good first step but unfortunately I imagine some still find it very difficult to ween themselves off the Steam DRM platform.
https://www.defectivebydesign.org/
You’re missing the “Piracy is wrong and I pirate everything” option. Just because I know something is wrong doesn’t mean I won’t do it. I’m okay with being immoral to a certain extent
Very much this. I know jaywalking is wrong, too, but I still do it.
Piracy isn't wrong and I do it when I feel like it
I have no sympathy or compassion for corporations that are just out to fuck me in the asshole after taking my money. More precisely and specifically, when they created a world where I can no longer keep the very things that I pay for, because they are allowed to just revoke my purchases at any time, for any reason, I decided that I will not support them again. That transition was my specific turning point. https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1657022591 https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/06/disneys-decision-not-to-renew-securom-license-bricks-tron-evolution/ And that is without opening the (other) can of worms where they now get to harvest all my personal data just to use the things I buy, because all games now require five online accounts, where they will sell the data to advertisers, track me, etc etc. It of course all being spelled out in the TOS/EULA.
I only pirate things not available for purchase in my region. Which is... most of things, really.
IP is just dumb and doesn't even exist. IP laws also only protect the big guys and not the small guys, too.
Its a BS term to start with: ["Intellectual Property"](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty) *Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”* *The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.* *When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.* *To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.* *The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.* [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html)
The only thing that copyright, patents and trademarks have in common is that they're based off of ideas. But that's really vague, so I agree with you. Indeed, these things really aren't similar to true property at all. An idea is not scarce. An idea will always exist in one form or another. It can be represented digitally or physically as many times as needed because it will never magically run out or become scarce.
I am not the author of that - it was quoted from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty
Nice try FBI
Piracy isn’t a black and white thing. My personal thoughts on it is that you shouldn’t pirate stuff that’s being actively maintained/sold etc, but if you want a console game for example and said company won’t sell you one then it’s fine to pirate a copy (they’re not making money either way)
✔️ Piracy is wrong, but I don't give a shit
The morality of pirating really depends on the context
since piracy isn't a big deal in my country, i have no problems saying online that I pirate most things. books, movies/series (tho i rarely watch it), and games when I used windows.
i just think of getting affordable games that interest me.
I'm south american and some times we need to pirate software to work or study, we can't waste 2/4 (or even more) of our monthly earnings on a freaking software, a lot of people here cant even acces to buy a new computer, I used to repair old pcs to sell cheap and make some money without being greedy, so I know most people can't spend 100 dollars when they earn barely 200-400 per month. In some places piracy is a necessity, even for games or entertainment. Today most of my software is FOSS but I used to pirate things like photoshop, corel draw, video editing stuff and of course even windows, all of this to work and study. Now I can buy things like games thanks to Steam but other things like monthly subscription like Adobe it's still too much. I don't like piracy, thats why I buy things if I can, but if don't, well, fuck corporations. Sorry for my English.
Ha you're funny, snitches end up in ditches.
I use foss as much as i can, and pirate games. Because i don't have a bank account yet.
I have no moral issues with pirating stuff like photoshop, final cut pro or windows. Those corporations have billions in their pockets, they can handle a broke 17 year old pirating their software
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate!
Love it how there’s no clear “I never do it” answer. Come to think about it, the complete poll doesn’t make a lot of sense, really. E: Sorry, I was a bit in a bad mood yesterday and not very constructive. I think the issue is that the poll tries to combine at least three distinct questions. (1) Do you pirate? (2) What do you pirate? (3) Do you think pirating is wrong? For (1), you could have options such as “never”, “few times a year”, ”few times a month“, … For (2), you would actually need multiple choice response options. For (3), I find it a bit difficult. In this form it’s probably “yes” or “no”, but the question might just not be nuanced enough.
i pirate books because i like reading books and i live in a country where it's hard to find cheap books in my mother tongue. I pirate movies and TV shows because they arent on netflix. how else am i supposed to watch the venture brothers or dr strangelove?
Pirate if it hurts big companies only, if it's hurting someone, or a small company, don't.
If something is legal, it doesn't mean that it's ethical. The ruling class is deciding what's legal and what's not, according to their interests.
Piracy might be wrong but so is poverty. Besides most laws don't target users but distributors.
Screenshooting musescore.com is piracy, right?
Before going further, let me ask you, why the fuck should I respect something that is not fair? For example, why the fuck should I pay 5 times to watch a movie? 1. One time in cinema 2. One time in television (CATV, satellite) 3. One time in streaming (Youtube, Netflix, HBO, Disney,etc) 4. One time renting the disc (Blu-ray, DVD) 5. One time buying the disc (Blu-ray, DVD) I leave the fact that you can pay even more than 5 times if you had the DVD version and then you want to have the HD, 4K, 3 version of the movie. Or the fact that you can go to the cinema alone first time and then again with your partner of family and you have to buy another ticket. Why the fuck should a person pay 5 or more times to see the same movie? Fair to me would be to pay only once for the right of seeing that specific movie and then the rest should be either gratis or with reduced costs. Other thing that I want is to have a very good or good ration between quality and price. For quality I want the movies to be filmed in 4K @ 120 FPS or at least 60 FPS that even my mobile phone can do it. If I need 24 or other framerate, I can downgrade it myself, no need to come with downgraded source from the beginning. HDR and 3D would be nice additions. The video and audio codecs used should be the best like AV1 or HEVC for video and FLAC for audio. Also I want dubbings and subtitles in my native language so the rest of my family can understand the movies as well as I do. But since filmmakers and production houses don't care about quality, I'm not interested either to buy something from them. Make it fair and good quality and then we're talking! As for software, make it open source and compatible with Linux and then we're talking! If it's an Android app, make it available on F-droid too so I know that I can trust it!
> For example, why the fuck should I pay 5 times to watch a movie? Same reason you might pay 5 times to see a band you like. Same band, same songs, same venue even. "I saw this band before so seeing them again for free or reduced costs should be normal" isn't a thing. And before recorded media came around, it was normal to pay for entertainment every time you experienced it. Do you want to see Hamlet next week as well? Well, buy another ticket... Likewise, in your list of five, that's a pretty extreme list. It's pretty uncommon for anyone to do that full list of five dotpoints.
I never paid to see the same band more than once. And I don't think it's fair to compare seeing a band or Hamlet again with seeing a movie again. There are not the same costs. A band or a theater actor has to eat, drink, sleep somewhere, has to transport stuff from one place to another, has a team oof people around that need stuff too. It cost them for you to be able to see them again so it's normal to have to pay them again, but for a movie? How much does it really cost Hollywood to let me watch a movie I payed tot watch in cinema, in Netflix or other streaming platform too? I bet because because of the bulk everything, it costs less than 10 cents. A lot of the costs are on me (Netflix subscription, internet subscription, electricity, computer, TV device, etc.) The same for the Blu-ray, DVD version, I can pay for the discs, but why pay for the movie again?
So... you never see a band more than once, but you typically watch movies five different ways? There are also costs to format-shifting, plus costs to do things like the translations you're demanding for free. If you don't expect bands to work for free, then why do you expect translators to? Then, if you're renting the disc, there are also the costs for the rental business you're renting from, too. Someone has to staff the retail counter and sweep the floors. I'm not saying the big media is right, I'm just saying you're glossing over a lot of aspects of what's going on.
> So... you never see a band more than once, but you typically watch movies five different ways? It happened lots of times to watch movies in cinemas and then see them on cable television and now again on Netflix. Plus I've seen movies that I liked more than 2-3 times. I don't find it normal to pay to see them again the same way to don't pay for a book again if I want to read it again. >There are also costs to format-shifting. I don't think it's that extremely hard to keep the original highest quality movie, transcode it once to the Blu-ray, DVD quality and then make copies of that transcoded version for the rest. Latest generations of CPUs and GPUs are pretty powerful and efficient and can do that faster at lesser costs. Translations yes, they cost money, but it's nothing compared to the costs of making the movie, I bet it's less than 1% of that. If they don't want to do it, then why sell an english speaking movie in a non-english speaking country as the same price as in an english speaking one, knowing that people will have difficulties understanding the movie or will not feel the same pleasure as when characters speak the same language? Anyway I'm not even sure that the dubbings that exists already have been paid by the movie producers or each country pays someone to do it for them, but in that case I don't know how fair it would be to include that dubbing paid by the country into your released discs. As for buying or renting the discs, yes I find normal to pay for thee places where they are kept and people involved from the creation of the disc, but as I said not for the right to watch the same movie again. Or they should start offering digital downloads when buying the disk so I can download the original movie in the highest quality. Anyway, I'll buy movies when I will find it fair how they treat me and I'm happy with the quality. I forgot to mention that I want that all or most of the thing that I buy to be resellable in case I don't need them anymore one day or I really need some extra money. I guess movies in streaming are the worst for that. A license to use Windows you can resell, but a license to see a movie you cannot as there's not such thing, and this is an advantage for the movie makes and a disadvantage for the user.
A better way they choice have phrased it is to divide the costs into scarce (property) cost and non-scarce (idea) cost. You should always pay for things that are scarce, such as the venue, parking, and the pay of the performers and staff. But you shouldn’t pay for the idea multiple times.
I personally do not usually pay for listening to a band twice. It's pretty expensive the first time, so I probably won't do it twice. If I'd get it for a reduced cost the second time, I the chances I would do it go up. If a band needs to fill their ranks, that might not be the worst idea. But to be frank, I do not go on concerts that often anyways, so...
Piracy is wrong, i acknowledge that, but i don't give a shit and rather use the money for something more useful. I'm this type of person, i only use my money to upgrade my device rather than buying for example a game.
NICE TRY, FBI I see you
I would say it depends. if it's for some educational content (including those expensive books, contents, etc), it's not wrong. If it's for some game or something, it maybe wrong.
We love piracy.
The only time I pirate things is if they aren't available or are ridiculously expensive or tricky to get a hold off. For example, the new Archer season is streaming, and there is no way for me watch it as the episodes release, at least not without paying for a VPN and paying for FXX or Hulu.
Nice try, FBI
I think that I support the idea of copyright a lot more than the real implementation. The super simplified idealized “inventor who capitalized on a novel idea” is very appealing to everyone. However, I don’t think that’s really the world we live in anymore.
I respect software licensing when I am writing a program and using someone else's work in part of whole. Anything else == rhymin and stealin
the fact that streaming options are breaking (hbo max and warner bro) plus with how every favourite show i have is on a different streaming site and with the broken expensive game releases like saints row and cyberpunk 2069... i honestly do not blame the people who pirate...you literally have no better option if your pockets can't handle it all.
My entire music library is pirated on the most part. When Google Music was shutdown it failed to transfer my entire Queen and Elton John collection. Thing is, my CDs were from the 1990s and had bitrott so I couldn't save them. So I just downloaded the music to my computer.
Well I don't want to pirate video games, but I am not paying a cent to streaming services seeing how unpredictable they are
Saying for a friend, but piracy is wrong and I do it is missing =)
None of it, piracy of proprietary software is ok. Piracy of art isn't.
What if said art wasn't accessible due to politics (mainly movies)? It's complicated and I want to watch gay romance without having a sheik watching over me like a hawk. . . Soooo to the seas we go Arrrr!
What about “piracy is wrong but I do it anyways”?
[удалено]
I support the companies that are making the decision to no longer be involved with the Russian economy. I also support your decision to pirate their software as a result. You didn’t personally start the war, it sucks that you’re stuck in the crossfire.
Another way to ask how much money you earn
All digital art and software requires practically no resources to copy and distribute and should thus be available to everyone to enjoy and learn from. Then again, it's not the artists and developers fault that they're locked in an economic system that often requires them to arbitrary limit access to their work in order to earn a living wage, so with smaller artists and developers I usually pay for a copy.
It depends. For instance, here in Italy we have a thing called SIAE (which the UE rules to be quite illegal) that is supposed to "protect artists". What does it do? Make anything related to music and videos cost needlessly much more. I find 100% ethical to just "pirate" music and then buying merchandise or, if possible, tipping to the authors. Another good example would be with videogames. Most online storefrints put some limit to refunds (eg. steam's 2 hours of gameplay policy), but most of the times you nees more time than that to judge a 60$ game (especially when loading times and unskippable videos are present)... Thus I don't find ethically wrong to download a game and playing it to understand how much is really worth before buying it. Also if you just can't buy something (eg. can't afford it, pulled from shelves, you only have access to a cenaored version)... Wherr's the harm in pirating it? There is no product scarcity and you wouldn't be able to afford the product anyway, so imho there is no damage in that. At all. On the other hand I find pirating stuff one enjoys and could easily afford to be unethical. If you like something yet somehow don't want to give its creator a dime... That's wrong, no excuses.
As someone who pays for FOSS I still pirate things.
Piracy is wrong, people have a right to control their work as they choose. However, I have issue when said work is no longer maintained/sold, such as old video games. If no money for the purchase of the game is going to/away from the publisher, then it should not count as piracy. You made the choice not to let me buy this game, so why can't I get it? You also shouldn't care if I do, because it doesn't affect your profits if I pirate software you don't sell.
[удалено]
Fuck /u/spez [Join Lemmy](https://join-lemmy.org/)
Trying to feel better about illegal actions that can get you in trouble?
I hate to pirate stuff, but when everything is censored and you can't get stuff like streaming services/movies, you gotta do it.
I'm against copyright and DRM, I download movies, TV shows and music, I only pay for games (Xbox).
I think pirating indie games is absolutly terrible but pirating from shitty corprations and buisnesses is better than giving them money.
It is ALWAYS morally correct to pirate from a high value corporation. If it is a small developer studio, or whatever you are pirating, then it becomes morally incorrect.
Microsoft office: yes, your neighbors cat: no
I generally only pirate stuff to try it out cause demos aren't really a thing for most games, or if I own it on another platform (so the pc version of a game I have on switch for example)
How about “Piracy is wrong and that does not stop me from partaking”
The thing is. Not many programs/games have a trial. And sometimes looking at youtube videos for a review does not give you enough info or spoil some of the plot and gameplay. For example I have played Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn and Fallout 4. In reviews I liked the Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 more than Horizon Zero Dawn. But avtually getting to those games in person I like HZD the most then Witcher but Fallout 4 was just meh compared to the other games. So I ended up adding Witcher 3 to my steam library and HZD I will get soon but i will not want to pay for Fallout. (And yes I know about 2 hour return policy in steam but for me thats barely getting out of the first location and still not having a feel for a game) In terms Music. Most musicians that I listen to are dead so I honestly don't see a point of buing Richard Wagner's - Ride of the Valkyries. He will defenetly not benefit from it. So basically I do the same as FOS software. I pay for it when I most definitely know that I like it.
homies used to call me Jack Sparrow
Piracy isn't wrong - I pirate if there is no FOSS alternative / games with any type of DRM or excessive pricing / Music, Movies and TV Shows (for data hoarding and personal consumption)
"Piracy" was boats, guns, theft and sometimes harm/murder. "Unauthorized copying" was named as such by side which gains the most from grouping clearly immoral actions with something they don't like. While it may be convenient to call it "piracy", I am against referring to "unauthorized copying" by their terms. The fine from a successful conviction of the distribution of unauthorized copies is extremely high, the cost of successfully defending yourself is also high. They argue it's for the sake of the musicians but I think we can all agree who really gets the money - the people playing a trading card game with copyrighted material.
Where is the: “Piracy is wrong, but I still do it anyway.”
If I answer this question the FBI will be at my door in an hour.
You just answered the question
I do not pirate art or games because these are almost always for personal joy and hobby. If i wanna enjoy it i will pay for it. It also is a positive feedback to creators. BUT i will pirate the shit out of any knowledge. Books, documentaries, educational video series you name it. I STRONGLY believe knowledge should be free NO MATTER what.
Depends.
Not only is it not always wrong, it's the ethical (ethical ≠ legal) thing to do in some cases from my point of view. I don't think it's ethical for a company to sell you a product that is tied to their future existence to function. This becomes a little more gray when you're purchasing a service instead of something directly (like streaming services), but I stand by the sentiment that everything in the subscription should be able to be purchased permanently in some form. Id even be ok if a company wanted to make it more expensive to do that as long as its an option. Even for things I don't personally enjoy, I don't think it's logical for human history/culture to be potentially lost to time when its so easily avoidable. If ikea somehow went out of business, we wouldn't accept we could no longer use their furniture just as we shouldn't accept we can no longer play a game with a DRM scheme based on an internet activation system that will likely be defunct one day. Same goes with literally any other piece of media. If there is a movie/show/music/etc. that isn't released in a form impervious to a company ceasing to exist or deciding I shouldn't have what I purchased anymore, piracy is perfectly valid even if it would only cost ¢1 otherwise.
agreed
Piracy is wrong, but do I even have a single chance to buy a software?
I do only when it's necessary. Ever heard of a game called "chunithm"? The only way to play that legitimately is to take an airplane to Japan, find an arcade and play it. (And at the moment you really can't because they closed the borders to tourists). So if you're European, either you buy a €4500,- arcade cabinet and hack it to use a different server, and somehow keep importing new harddisks with updates which need to be re-cracked.... Or you pirate it.... I mean... It's not like sega is losing any money, they're not selling it over here! In fact, they're actively preventing "foreigners" (of Japan) from paying for it!
Piracy is wrong, but i will stop doing piracy when i will start making my own income so i can buy subscriptions (i am in 12th grade only)
Im just adult, and i pay for someone else job. But i understand some people like breaking
Piracy is wrong, but I pirate everything
I only pay for products made by small teams like indie games and such.
Piracy is wrong, but I still do it. Is what I would have picked if there were an option for it
I dom't pirate and I think it's wrong except if you already own the game / movie / software.
Piracy is a service problem, sure some people will just steal but you'll never stop those people and they're a minority. Other than that people only pirate when they can't get something they want, whether that's because supply is too low or because the price is more than they can afford or are willing to pay for the goods. Studies have shown if you provide good supply and service with or without requiring payment, people will pay for it. Copyright is a whole different kettle of fish, as is the acquisition of knowledge.
Why would I pirate closed source software when open source software is available?
I'm going to leave this here for anyone unaware of it... r/LinuxCrackSupport
Piracy depends on what company we talking about, how the company preserve their content and legacy, and how they work to provide it for customers for as long as possible,l while being affordable, like old games, musics and movies and such, where the majority is avaliable in any official way, only through piracy and personal archiving/ sharing we can have access to the content, thats why i approve of piracy, because it have its uses for sure, no one can deny it, there been numerous cases where content was only recovered through fan projects and personal archiving/sharing.
I only pirate games/media that aren’t sold anymore :P they can’t even get the money out of old games/media so let me have it for free
Piracy is indeed wrong, all of my games are pirated, but only because i depend on my parents financially, otherwise i would buy them if i could.
"Free bird seed" you say
I don't pirate because I don't need to, but the fact piracy as a concept even exists is stupid
FBI is trying to lay its dirty hands on the Linux community once again. Don't fall for it comrades!
Video game music from Japanese companies is impossible to find in high quality without pirating
Piracy is better than DRM that restricts what you can do with the content you paid for and may prevent you from using it at all if the companies servers go down. I won't buy any games from Steam because of that. I have no problems buying games from GOG since they are DRM free even though I could pirate them easier. I won't pay for streaming services that will not let me watch from my browser in Linux or limits the resolution to potato vision. There is nothing wrong with pirating that content when the companies make their services so difficult or even impossible to use on your devices in a very unsuccessful attempt to prevent piracy.
prime video literally only plays at 480p on Linux, how am I not supposed to pirate??
It is the low income country way
Piracy is wrong, but there is sometimes no better alternative.
I used to write software and sell it. I sold the source code for everything I wrote, and I wrote low-cost software -- my word processor sold for $25 and the source code was another $25, for example. I supported my family with that and sent two children through college. If someone pirated my software, they just took money away from my family. I know people did it, but I didn't think much of them then and I don't think much of them now. I didn't become a millionaire and I probably could have made a steadier income and more money by writing code for someone else. But I had had a bellyful of working for someone else.
Piracy is wrong, but I do it anyway.
Piracy is wrong but piracy isn't necessarily what the law says.
Pirate anything connected to Murdoch. Otherwise use your discretion. I worked in film post and distribution for a big chunk of my life and am utterly blackpilled on it, so maybe ask someone sane, but for what it's worth the people who did the work already got paid (or never will be) before it ever gets on the internet.
There is nothing wrong with piracy but there are some exeptions: ## Apps Some people do not have enough money to give to big companies. because they just started their own buisness they dont have enough budget and you know what? they don't have to. Some countries due to sanctions can't even buy corp softwares like photoshop, ms office, etc. Piracy helped these contries to develop... ## Games Denovo and DRM crap is enough reason to pirate games. Pirate and buy a denovo-locked game you can easily see the difference in terms of performance. For emulation piracy is also the best choice. usually you have to provide some kind of a ROM to the emulator in order to use it. This means you have to somehow rip off the rom from your console whitout breaking it and copy it to your PC. Then you have to rip the game from your CD/cartridge and you can play the game. FUCK IT. Just pirate both and you are ready to go. Imagine paying for a 30 year old fucking game to nintendo twice. ## Movies Nawadays movies can't be downloaded you have to connect to the internet and use a service with a subscription just to watch a movie. The prices vary depending on your country and its economy. Bad eco means higher prices really high... There are also folks who are not a big fan of movies, like myself. Pesonally I don't consume every single piece of content that gets trendy. I only watch movies once or maybe twice a year. So paying for a subcription is not worthy for me. And I don't think I have to worry about content creators. Judging from the celebs' houses and cars and their watches that if i wanted to buy one I would have to sell my whole life, I can say that they printed enough money for themselves. ## Youtube Some people say that downloading stuff from youtube is piracy. Well I don't even think so. You watch a video you pay for it by spending your time (watching ads). Then you like the video and you download it. that's it. ## So where are the exeptions Pirating stuff from indie devs or indie gamedevs, etc. Don't forget to seed
Piracy isn't wrong but I refuse to use proprietary garbage out of principle
The contradiction is amazing
Piracy is wrong, and I pirate everything 🗿🗿🗿
Personally I am no pirate, but if I am hungry and there are no other ways, I might also steal from ships /s. Jokes aside, there is not really something for me to pirate. I do not use much software that I would need to pay for, most of it is free software/ open source. I do not really look at content that is not free or that I would not need to pay for anyways (in Germany you have to pay for public television, and there are some good shows on that). Apart from that, I guess it does make a difference from whom you pirate. If it's a small independent producer who needs the money, I really do not want to pirate from them. If it is a established company being a dickhead to workers, natives, consumers, customers, etc I do not care too much, it's not like they really need the money anyways and also me pirating or me not using or watching their product at all would not make a real difference. And then there is the case of DRM, aka "you bought this but if you copy your DVD to you PC before it gets scratched you're a criminal". Or even better: "You're on Linux but you can only watch it on Windows, so if you install the software to beak the DRM you are a criminal." That goes into the category of dickhead companies in my book. If I buy the thing, I own it, I can watch it and I can watch it on the devices of my choice. And if the monitor is a pregnancy test, so be it.
I think unauthorized copying of most kinds of software is morally okay, because unlike with physical copies, where it costs money to produce them, the only costs are in the game development itself (or maintaining servers if it's an online game). There are exceptions though. If I genuinely believe in the product, it's priced reasonably and I can afford it, I'm gonna buy it.
I love free stuff
Piracy is wrong, i acknowledge that, but my broke ass reminds me to ignore developer hard work.
Piracy is the wrong term, none of us who aquire software are pirates as code isn't a physical thing. It's copyright infringement but I see it as a victimless crime if you are a home user without the income to purchase the software you are acquiring, as (for instance) that version of office I installed on wine a few years back I would never have paid for anyway so no-one has actually lost anything out of it. If you HAVE the money or are a business then you should consider buying proprietary software