• Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      132
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh but it’s not buying! The big “Buy” or “Purchase” button might have said so, but if you’d have careful read through 35 pages of user agreements, you’d see that you only rent the license to stream it.

      Which obviously is total bullshit and the whole fucking system should be burned to the ground.

      • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is precisely why I refuse to buy digital games. (And it extends to other media, but games are where I actually spend money)

        I’ll pay for a rental service designed to be a rental service (ps+, for example) but will not buy individual games digitally. Who knows when they will become unavailable for some reason, and I can no longer download a copy. It’s bad enough when servers are shut down within 2 years of launch, but when the whole game gets pulled, then what?

        I’ve decided I’m not even bothering with the next generation of consoles. So few things are even released on disc, with half the consoles being digital only, that it’s not even worth it. I’ll pirate instead.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is where the law needs to step in, it should be illegal to call it “Buy” if you are just leasing it. It’s absolutely misleading to most consumers.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      5 months ago

      Pirating isn’t stealing either way.

      Also, copyright infringement never even used to ever be a crime, although now there is a form of criminal copyright infringement, if it’s done for money or if the value is above a certain amount. Thanks to lobbying from wealthy industries. Most copyright infringement still is not a crime, though.

      The reason industries lobby for harsher copyright laws is because they know they can make more money if people can’t pirate. They take the piss with their pricing, but they’re acutely aware that if they take the piss too much then people will turn to piracy. By prohibiting piracy and levying harsh penalties they can get away with even more unfair pricing, and maybe even profit from piracy through punitive damages (which is mainly a US thing, most sensible nations only allow you to sue for actual damages).

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        72
        ·
        5 months ago

        It is. You’re stealing income from the person that created the thing you took and didn’t pay for.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          By that logic, creating a competitor and wooing over customers would also be theft.

          Note they are not saying piracy is legal, or that it’s not a tort. They are saying it’s not theft, and it should be discussed separately, as we criminalize theft because someone loses their property, not because the thief gets free shit.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            35
            ·
            5 months ago

            Creating a competitor is not the same logic at all. That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.

            The issue is that time and effort are put into something that is being made to get compensation for that time and effort, not to be given away for free. If you’re going to a competing product, you’re not ingesting the initial product without paying for it.

            I’m not arguing legal definitions. I’m arguing against the bullshit mental gymnastics that piracy is not stealing. It is. Just admit it and move on. I don’t care if people pirate. I just can’t stand the dishonesty of trying to justify theft. If you ingest something that an artist made to try and make a livelihood and don’t pay them, you’re stealing that livelihood.

            • pivot_root@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, it’s exactly the same logic.

              The argument that digital piracy is theft is predicated on the idea that pirating is depriving the creator of their rightful property: the money from a sale. In the absence of said sale, that money wasn’t their property to begin with, however. The only way to reconcile this is by treating potential income as property.

              In doing so, a number of stupid things can be argued for:

              • Creating a new product is theft because it deprives the competition of their potential income.

              • Boycotting a company is theft because it deprives them of potential income.

              • Not purchasing a new phone is theft because it deprives the manufacturer of potential income.

              • Not hiring Tom because Bob was a better candidate is theft because it deprives Tom of potential income.

              There’s a reason that piracy legally falls under copyright infringement rather than theft. You aren’t depriving the creator of property by making a new digital copy of their media, but you are violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized copy.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                5 months ago

                It is not the same logic. You are not ingesting the work of the creator by going to a competitor. The issue is that you are gaining something from the labor of the creator without compensating them for that labor (which they gain from). It is an unequal exchange that both parties have not agreed to. It is theft. Going to a competitor and buying from them is an equal exchange - you’re paying money for the product of their labor.

                Everything else you’ve said continues to be dishonest because it is based on this very simple, fundamental flaw in your original argument.

                • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You are still off the mark. Profiting off someone else’s work is not theft. Maybe a crime, maybe immoral, but it’s a separate concept. Theft specifically is bad because you lose something you have. Copyright infringement is considered bad because we want people to be incentivised to create original stuff, and we want people to feel like if they create original stuff, they get to have special rights over it.

                  You don’t steal an IP by piracy, you infringe on it. If you stole it, the original owner would not have it. The whole argument around theft and piracy is that by equating theft with piracy, we get to a false dichotomy that if we don’t prosecute the random pirate or OpenAI for infringing on copyright, we can’t prosecute car thieves or wage thieves or whatever either in all fairness. Which is not true. Societies with the concept of property but without the concept of copyright did and do exist.

                  It’s all fair if you say copyright should be protected, and infringement punished, but it’s as much not theft as it is not murder. I mean, since you harm IPs by piracy, and one can argue excessive piracy can “kill” an IP, would making a pirate copy be assault with a deadly weapon? Or vandalism? That’s why words have meanings, and different things have different names.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              5 months ago

              That competitor gets paid when someone buys their product.

              What if I don’t sell it? If someone opts to use FreeCAD instead of Fusion360, did FreeCAD steal income from Autodesk?

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                Another dishonest argument. FreeCAD is explicitly granting people use of its product for free. They are not selling it. If someone opts to use a free product instead of a paid one, that is not stealing income from the creator of the paid product because you’re not using their product. The entire issue at hand is that people are using the product and not paying for that use.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  What about Autodesk pissing in the face of users who bought a “lifetime” license, not only superceding their product but degrading it such that it doesn’t work anymore?

                  You should pick your examples more carefully.

                  You should also take an objective position and consider that not all rightsholders are acting in good faith. But then, in order to do that, you would have to be acting in good faith.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Ingesting something doesn’t only mean eating it. It literally means “to bring into”.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            5 months ago

            It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.

            • Zirconium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              The workers already got paid. It’s executives that are being “stolen from.” ( I’m too broke to buy it anyways)

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.

                • nyctre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  If you weren’t gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn’t lose anything, how can it be stealing?

                  And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.

                  Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we’ve had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we’re having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we’ll probably keep having this conversation forever

                • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.

                  I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.

                  Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.

                  https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/2/20677237/anime-industry-japan-artists-pay-labor-abuse-neon-genesis-evangelion-netflix

            • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s not stealing lol. If I pirate something or if I don’t, the creator sees no difference.

              Stealing income would be reducing the income for the author (piracy doesn’t alter it) and you getting it instead (you don’t).

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.

                • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.

                  Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.

                • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Don’t worry, you’re correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn’t pay something to someone prior.). If you didn’t pay, it’s theft, and it doesn’t matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          By this logic, everything you don’t buy is stealing income. Every item you walk past at the grocery store was made by someone for money, and by not buying it, you’re denying them that income. How dare you eat at a friend’s house for free?

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, it’s not. If you are just walking past that item, you’re not consuming the value of that item. If you’re being honest about this argument and attempted to make the analogous argument, you wouldn’t be watching the movies that you’re not paying for. The entire issue is that you’re not just walking past the items at the grocery store, you’re eating them and not paying for them. A better analogy would be grabbing a magazine off the rack at checkout and taking pictures of all the pages and not paying for it. The magazine is still there and the store was deprived of nothing but yet you’re now able to gain the value of that magazine’s content without paying for it. That’s still stealing. You can either pretend it’s not or you can say “Yeah, it’s stealing but I’m ok with that because those magazines are garbage anyways”.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Lemme use a different, better example. Say I buy used copies of everything I watch. How is that different from watching shows on sketchy streaming websites? Either way I consume the media and the people who made it get nothing. If anything, it seems worse to me for me to lose money and the creators to gain nothing, while some random person on the internet profits from reselling their work after they’ve already consumed it.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s not a better example. You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product. While you’re reading that book, no one else can read that. There is only 1 copy of it. Someone can get another copy of it but the one you hold is physical. Movies and other digital content is intangible. It’s not bound by that scarcity.

                It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing. We’re discussing a situation where you gain something and the creator gains nothing.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You’re comparing a physical item with tangible scarcity to an intangible product.

                  And you’re ignoring the fact that the producer treats their digital product with no real scarcity as if it was a physical product that cost a significant amount to produce and distribute. By your own reasoning, the digital product should be much cheaper.

                  If it wasn’t for piracy, the product (digital or physical) would be even more expensive. As it is, producers know that if they price too high people will turn to piracy, if that wasn’t an option then there would be nothing holding them back.

                • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It would be worse for you to “lose” money and the creators gain nothing but that’s not the situation you’re discussing.

                  That is literally the situation I’m discussing. I want to watch Haibane Renmei. My options are a) find whatever streaming service has the rights to it, pay them their toll, and have temporary access to it, b) find a streaming service that doesn’t have the rights to it, don’t pay them anything, and have temporary access to it, c) find a new copy of it that gives money directly to the original creators, or d) find a used copy of it, and give money to some random person on the internet. Edit: there’s also e) renting the DVD from Family Video. Functionally the same as D, re: the creators getting their money from me watching their show.

                  The only one of these that you seem to have a problem with is B, and I don’t think that’s morally consistent. You’ve been saying time and again that piracy is wrong because I gain something while the creators gain nothing, and that’s exactly what happens when I buy a used DVD.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Piracy is defined as a civil offense, meanwhile theft is defined as a crime. Theft is also defined as depriving someone of something - eg, if I take your bike, you no longer have a bike, but if I copy your bike and build my own then you still have your bike and haven’t lost anything.

          “Potential lost income” is abstract, it doesn’t necessarily exist and the victim of copyright infringement isn’t really losing anything - they don’t even provide the bandwidth you download it with. Ultimately 1 pirated download =/= 1 lost sale, as people download more crap than they would be willing to buy.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m not arguing the legal definition of this so everything you’ve said is irrelevant.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              The legal definition is THE definition, it’s literally what the word means, and where the concepts of both originate.

              What you’re saying isn’t irrelevant, it’s just completely ignorant and wrong.

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                I have to agree with Zoolander on this one very particular point: the legal definition of a word isn’t the only definition of a word. For example, civil asset forfeiture is objectively armed robbery, but because it’s the police that do it, it’s not legally armed robbery.

                Funimation taking your purchases away from you is theft by any reasonable definition of the word, but they won’t see any legal consequences for this.

                Zoolander is absolutely wrong about piracy being theft though

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah sure, it’s not the only definition, but it’s the most detailed one.

                  Copyright infringement is similar to theft, in that both involve the loss of a potential sale. Theft is unique in that it includes a more significant loss as well - the tangible item that is was taken and is no longer under the control of the rightful owner.

                  Funimation taking your purchase away is also not theft, because of the details of the licensing agreement. However, it is still patently wrong, in the same way that copyright infringement is wrong. You paid for a thing, you had a reasonable expectation that the thing would continue to be available, it suddenly not being available with no recompense is harmful.

                  I’m really hoping that YouTuber Ross Scott (Accursed Farms) goes ahead with his lawsuit against Ubisoft after they shut down The Crew. I’m really gunning for that. Unfortunately, so far YouTube lawyers (Legal Eagle and Steve Lehto) haven’t got back to me with their opinions, but I still think money could be raised to form a proper class action. We really need clear definitions formed on digital rights - win or lose - and the best way for that to happen is if people take it to court.

                  Even if the lawsuit ends in a loss, it will be far better to have a clear definition of what things are sold as. Businesses shouldn’t be selling services with a finite lifespan as if they’re a good you can own indefinitely. Plus, clear boundaries would open up the market for people to openly sell actual goods that people own, distinctly different from the services that businesses want to rent.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                5 months ago

                The legal definition is not the definition. That is just nonsense. There are an innumerable amount of terms that have a literary definition that is not the same as the legal definition.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You’re trying to say that your definition is the only valid one, which conveniently is one that your argument is entirely reliant upon.

                  It isn’t valid, you’re wrong, your argument does not hold water.

                • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          …If nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property"

          –Thomas Jefferson

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is a dishonest response. Movies and media are not ideas. They are representations of ideas that take time and effort to create and that are created so that the artist that made them can make a living and pay their bills. Stealing those representations without compensating the artist for their time and effort means they can’t pay their bills which means they have to stop creating in order to get a job where the fruits of their efforts aren’t stolen.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                That statement makes no sense in this context, regardless of whether I reflect on its poor grammar or not.