That’s $25 for a revocable license to watch it once and $5 more for a revocable license to watch it as many times as you want until the service folds or they decide to memory-hole it in order to get out of paying residuals to the cast and crew. The only way to own something is to steal it.
It’s weird how people were told it’s theft and they simply repeated it forever despite knowing exactly what theft is and knowing piracy is literally not the same thing.
Way to be dishonest. Comments do not make for people’s livelihoods. Piracy is theft of income from the creators. People here are dishonest and try to do all these mental gymnastics to justify their specific version of piracy. The only form of piracy that can be argued to be somewhat amoral is pirating media that is not available legally. Otherwise, no matter how you look at it, you are stealing an income or livelihood from whoever created it.
Please understand that copying intellectual property and theft are, legally speaking, two different things. If I build a machine that just makes endless copies of your intellectual property, just because I can, it doesn’t affect your income whatsoever. You don’t get more poor for each copy that’s made.
I agree with you about pirating media that’s not legally available. However, a lot of great content will become unavailable at some point in the future. Making a copy for the archives while it’s possible is a good idea for any media you care about, since there’s no guarantee that anyone else cares.
If I build a machine that just makes endless copies of your intellectual property, just because I can, it doesn’t affect your income whatsoever.
More dishonesty. This isn’t what’s happening. People are ingesting media that they have no right to. Stop trying to cover it up with flowery language. If I make some form of content and am offering it for sale then the only way to ingest it legally, and morally, is to pay for it. The copying of the media isn’t the issue. That’s only an excuse that people like you give to try and justify their specific brand of theft. The only reason piracy is defined differently than theft is because someone is deprived of a good in theft whereas, in piracy, there is no physical good to deprive someone of so the theft is of income. If you’re ingesting the content and you’re not paying for it, then you’re stealing income from the creator of that content. There’s no way to argue that this isn’t the case.
You can even try to argue that you only pirate things by huge studios that don’t need the money or that the media that you’re pirating was created as a work for hire so the people who made it already got paid but that’s all irrelevant to the point because, even in those cases, you’re reducing the future work that those people will receive. We live in a capitalist system where dollars earned dictate the work that people get hired for. No matter what way you slice it, you’re stealing from the content creators - whether it’s the income that they deserve for the work you’re ingesting or the future work that they would have received.
I know that in the EU, if you buy a video game and it runs poorly or not at all because of the DRM put in place by the publisher, you are allowed to use a crack. Dunno if it’s the same for a movie tho.
With a physical item, first sale doctrine clearly applies, so you can own the movie, and resell it to somebody else, or lend it to your friends, or give it to a library. None of which is possible with a digital DRMed "ownership "
That’s $25 for a revocable license to watch it once and $5 more for a revocable license to watch it as many times as you want until the service folds or they decide to memory-hole it in order to get out of paying residuals to the cast and crew. The only way to own something is to steal it.
Piracy is not theft.
It’s weird how people were told it’s theft and they simply repeated it forever despite knowing exactly what theft is and knowing piracy is literally not the same thing.
Now apply this same reasoning to other life concepts we’ve been told, and welcome to enlightenment.
(Or black pilling, YMMV)
You need to get yawnpilled. Check it out: some of the things people commonly accept as true actually are true. Up your grind and get on my level
It’s not the same thing but that doesn’t mean it’s not theft, nonetheless.
It’s not the same thing but that doesn’t mean it’s not theft, nonetheless.
^ Would you really consider that comment stolen, rather than digitally copied?
@dpkonofa@lemmy.world
Way to be dishonest. Comments do not make for people’s livelihoods. Piracy is theft of income from the creators. People here are dishonest and try to do all these mental gymnastics to justify their specific version of piracy. The only form of piracy that can be argued to be somewhat amoral is pirating media that is not available legally. Otherwise, no matter how you look at it, you are stealing an income or livelihood from whoever created it.
Please understand that copying intellectual property and theft are, legally speaking, two different things. If I build a machine that just makes endless copies of your intellectual property, just because I can, it doesn’t affect your income whatsoever. You don’t get more poor for each copy that’s made.
I agree with you about pirating media that’s not legally available. However, a lot of great content will become unavailable at some point in the future. Making a copy for the archives while it’s possible is a good idea for any media you care about, since there’s no guarantee that anyone else cares.
More dishonesty. This isn’t what’s happening. People are ingesting media that they have no right to. Stop trying to cover it up with flowery language. If I make some form of content and am offering it for sale then the only way to ingest it legally, and morally, is to pay for it. The copying of the media isn’t the issue. That’s only an excuse that people like you give to try and justify their specific brand of theft. The only reason piracy is defined differently than theft is because someone is deprived of a good in theft whereas, in piracy, there is no physical good to deprive someone of so the theft is of income. If you’re ingesting the content and you’re not paying for it, then you’re stealing income from the creator of that content. There’s no way to argue that this isn’t the case.
You can even try to argue that you only pirate things by huge studios that don’t need the money or that the media that you’re pirating was created as a work for hire so the people who made it already got paid but that’s all irrelevant to the point because, even in those cases, you’re reducing the future work that those people will receive. We live in a capitalist system where dollars earned dictate the work that people get hired for. No matter what way you slice it, you’re stealing from the content creators - whether it’s the income that they deserve for the work you’re ingesting or the future work that they would have received.
Just admit you’re stealing and get over yourself.
I want to steal their income they hate me and everything I stand for
Then there’s no reason to pretend it’s not stealing. 🤷
It is. It’s just not theft of a good.
Buying the disk is still owning it (which is another $5 less on amazon BTW) though it is not out yet.
What’s the DRM like on a disc copy? I’ll admit that I’m not caught up, it’s been a long time since I bought physical media. Is it revocable?
Gray area at best.
It’s not even grey - in the US it is illegal under the DMCA.
I’m not up to date on ripping tools, though.
US allows you to have a personal backup copy.
The DMCA supersedes that - it’s still a crime to bypass copy protection mechanisms, and there are very few exceptions to that rule.
I know that in the EU, if you buy a video game and it runs poorly or not at all because of the DRM put in place by the publisher, you are allowed to use a crack. Dunno if it’s the same for a movie tho.
With a physical item, first sale doctrine clearly applies, so you can own the movie, and resell it to somebody else, or lend it to your friends, or give it to a library. None of which is possible with a digital DRMed "ownership "
Revocable: no.