this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1110 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54627 readers
929 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
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (53 children)

Theft isn't specific to property, you can steal services too.

The water is certainly muddy with digital media, but this is just another oversimplified argument.

If you need to do mental gymnastics to feel OK about pirating then...idk find something better than this.

See comments below for more mental gymnastics

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (33 children)

Theft isn’t specific to property, you can steal services too.

You can't really "steal" services, even though they sometimes call it that. You can access services without authorization, but you're not stealing anything. You can access services you don't have authorization to access and then disrupt people who are authorized to use those services. But, again, not stealing. Just disruption.

Stealing deprives a person of something, copyright infringement and unauthorized access to services don't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So if someone creates a piece of art and I take a photo of it and sell the photo, or create prints of it, or even just give it give that photo to lots of people, what is that?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who cares? The point is, it's not theft. The person who had the art still has the art, so it's not theft.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.

load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments (49 replies)