No shit. How have they not figured this out 15 years ago when every DVD had non-skippable anti-piracy messages?
I thought it was sorted 35 years ago when they put the FBI warnings on VCR tapes.
I’ve always said, if you can’t sell me something based on interest and quality entertainment, then I’m pirating it, because I never would have bought it anyways.
Piracy is a service issue. Give people the option to stream all of their media with an option to download for the nerds, and sell it at a reasonable price, you will hurt piracy. Splintering all media up into a thousand streaming services and implementing black box licensing agreements is what pushes people to piracy.
Also, the number of seeds are a good measure for popularity of media that one might not had in their radar at all. Meanwhile, platforms try to push all sort of content only because they produced it, recommendation algorithms are needed (and insufficient), because there a huge load of crap being produced at such a high rate…
People who bought the movie seeing anti-piracy ads: 🤡
People who pirated the movie not seeing anti-piracy ads because they’ve been cut out: 😎
Classic: punish the law abider while the law breakers have it made
If buying is not owning, copying is not stealing. Simple as that.
I can’t find it now, but there was that one text post that went something like “1. Copying a movie costs the studio money, 2. Download a movie, 3. Make 1000 copies, 4. Studio goes bankrupt”
I saw one where it went:
- Publish a copyrighted work
- Sell it for 10 bucks
- Have a friend pirate it 100 million times
- Declare bankruptcy
- Have the friend delete his copies
- You’re a billionaire now
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. It’s definitely stealing. This is a piracy community. Don’t feign moral superiority. They offer a product, you don’t want to buy the product so you find it for free elsewhere. A digital file that you experience for a cost is no different than a book you buy from a store, regardless of the state of ownership after the fact. And regardless if it’s a locally published author or a multi billion dollar studio, there’s a cost of entry. Semantics is all you’re arguing, not the legitimacy of piracy, when you share that copypasta.
Cocksucking cabin is over there --> https://www.motionpictures.org/
Ever been to a library? Try it. They don’t bite.
“Theft” has a legal definition that at least in my jurisdiction is not met by downloading copyrighted materials. So, no, copying is not stealing.
Actually, even if you are an EU citizen, downloading copywritten material for free is very much considered theft. Ever read those FBI or Interpol statements at the beginning of films?
It’s legally called “Copyright Infrigement” and it’s not even part of Criminal Law in most Legal Jurisdictions, unlike Theft.
You’re talking off your arse so hard that by now you must hovering on your own farts.
You are wrong. You are talking about copyright infringement, which is a civil matter and not a criminal one. That means the party whose rights have been infringed must prove that and sue you. But you won’t go to jail if convicted, you’ll have to pay damages. That’s why the Netherlands, for example, used to be safe for torrenting. It wasn’t legal, but copyright holders did not have the right to get account details from providers for IP addresses that were caught sharing content (sharing, not downloading) and thus had no one to sue. If it were a criminal matter, the state would be after you and they have a lot more rights.
In many places, downloading is legal. It’s the uploading that’s illegal.
In this case, the phrase’s become more popular because people buy digital goods and, due to business shenanigans, they lose access to it, like buying a digital copy of a movie, “owning it”, then no longer being able to access it because Sony couldn’t be arsed to get the rights sorted out.
There’s also the numerous situations where you can’t legally own media, simply because it’s not up for sale, like the vast majority of content on streaming sites. There’s no way to own and consume some media except through the provider. It’s still illegal, it’s still an unauthorized copy, but in this case, it’s the only way to “own” something.
Despite crappy licensing agreements and the tenuous relationship between consumers and ownership of a thing, finding a way to circumvent paying for a thing that is for sale in one form or another, is theft.
By that definition making coffee at home and taking it with you to work instead of buying is theft.
Even further anytime you make a product or do a service yourself or get a free alternative (for example, open source software instead of a close-source alternative) instead of buying would be theft by that definition.
That’s not the legal definition of “theft”, it’s not even the historical or common sense definition of “theft”, it’s some kind of neo-Capitalist Dystopia definition of “theft” that only makes sense if you’re starting from a foundation of there being a “right to make money”.
How dare you cook dinner for yourself when McDonald’s is right there? How will the franchise owners or the brand owners be able to buy meals for their children!?
Look man, I get that piracy isnt an ethically clean solution, but the current state of legal digital media is nowhere near ethically clean either, and I’m far more likely to root for a person than I am for a corporation. Especially since its because of corporations that the digital ownership sphere is so fucked
It’s not stealing unless you delete the original when you download it. It’s forgery at best
It’s copyright infringement.
I prefer the term appropriation:
the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission
Still doesn’t fit, because you’re not taking anything, you’re making a copy.
I will gladly take a position of moral superiority, because copyright has evolved from a very limited monopoly, intended to encourage creativity while balancing public access, into a licence for corporations to seek rent.
So, call it stealing if you like, I will sleep well tonight regardless.
You’re taking a thing that costs money, for free. I don’t see how it’s anything other than stealing.
If you go to a theme park, and they want $20 for you to enter, and you decide you don’t want to pay, you’ll be in violation of their rules. Those that did pay will leave the park at the end of the day with a great experience, but with no presumption of ownership of the park. This is analogous to piracy by copying a movie. You didn’t want to pay the entrance fee, so you found a way to have the same enjoyment for free. The people that paid for their media, however shitty the licensing agreement is, received the agreed upon service with no presumption of ownership.
I’m not here to defend streaming services or crappy licensing deals, but to pretend that it’s not stealing, gaslighting everyone here into following your train of thought, is the definition of unearned moral superiority. You’re not entitled to free media.
He didn’t take the movie/music from them. They still have it. It still exists on their tape/film/drive. If you are going to argue, at least argue in good faith, with words that mean what you are trying to say.
It’s like refusing to pay the $20 park entrance fee and then making your own copy of the park in your backyard. Is that stealing $20 from the park?
I mean it’s still possibly copyright and/or trademark infringement, but…
The only theft going on is the ongoing theft from the public domain, due to corruption of copyright law by special interests enabled by law for hire. Your analogy is irrelevant as the marginal cost of operating a park for an extra visitor is not zero.
Trolls ripped me a new one for saying that. I hope they wont do the same to you. But yes I agree.
I started this meme and have been having a ball watching it go wild. 😁
FYI, the original context was about a software company that bricked it’s customers’ lifetime licenses to force them into a subscription model.
I‘m pretty sure I remember the article about the incident.
It’s a Louis Rossmann video.
Thats possible! Thanks for sharing.
If your business model needs undercover advocates to fake grassroots legitimacy you may have a problem.
Whos going to tell them?
Bankruptcy court?
I think bribing politicians to make it illegal to own anything is more likely.
But stealing is not owning so QED
Dudes rock
I would gladly pay good money to just download an MP4, but they have never given me that option.
Like GOG, but for movies. GOM?
Hello, yes i would like to buy high res music files, please show me a store that has a large catalog that I can choose from. Oh there are non?
I guess I’ll have to look else where
There’s qobuz but they don’t have everything
Also Bandcamp.
Bot they also don’t have a lot (i buy from both those sites btw)
Qobuz has a lot of DRM-free high-res music.
Oh thanks i haven’t heard of that store I’ll check em out
The media corps have people hooked on non downloadable streaming services. Today’s youth don’t know what an mp3 or a flac file is. Hell, a lot of them have never owned a CD. They’re buying vinyl records (lol) and don’t even own a vinyl record player.
gnutella
You could use streamrip to download high quality FLACs from Tidal and Qobuz if you have a subscription.
Qobuz and Bandcamp have almost everything
I’ve been using bandcamp mostly for the indie artists i listen to, seems like Qobuz has a pretty decent selection of more mainstream artists
Bandcamp now is most user friendly, but even the creators cheat by deleting their 1$ offerings, and Yes I hate bundles of 600 albums for a price of 1$
I have just the song for this
Thanks, i needed this 🙏
You’re very welcome 🙂
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If a paid streaming service give users a worse experience than pirating, that’s on them!
The conclusion doesn’t follow the study.
Threatening messages decrease piracy by women by over 50%, while increasing piracy by men by 18%.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
If I put the over/under at 10x male pirate to female, are you taking the under?
Bittorrent is also only a portion of pirating, but that’s showing 3:1 globally, https://marketsplash.com/torrent-statistics/
Complete garbage website. Tons of conflicting info, suppositions, and when you bother to look at the sources, their claims quickly fall apart. For example,
In 2022, pirate website visits hit a record of 215 billion.9
-9. “Average Teenager’s iPod Has 800 Illegal Music Tracks” by The Times - written June 2008
46% of pirates in the UK were women in 2018.
Based on what data?
University of Amsterdam Institute for Information Law, indirectly sourced from here: https://dataprot.net/statistics/piracy-statistics/
I guess we’ll just have to take their word for it since they don’t actually link to anything or provide the data. In fact, that whole statement doesn’t even appear to be attributed to the University of Amsterdam. It appears the preceding statement about 25-34 year olds pirating is what’s attributed to the university.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
That would not surprise me at all.
I would suspect there are many times more male pirates than female.
Why?
Because of the technical skill required for pirating and the tech industry being mostly men currently.
My wife set up an ARR stack, because she didn’t like downloading individual episodes. It’s not that hard.
The point is that your wife is in the minority. The vast majority of people wouldn’t consider torrenting, let alone *arrs. People with a greater willingness to tinker and learn technical stuff are the ones who’ll consider it, and that group is overwhelmingly composed of men as of right now.
I’m seeing 3:1 male female from this source, but I figure data collection on torrent users is tricky: https://marketsplash.com/torrent-statistics/
Result of gender stereotypes affecting the behaviour of female and male children, so male children grow up to be more encouraged to learn about technology and engage in risk taking behaviour.
Also inclination to risk taking behaviour is much higher in biological men than biological women, which would also give a potential reason why this advertisment works on women but not on men.
As always these attributions only represent the average of the women and men populations as a whole. Ofc. there is risk averse men and tech savvy women.
The word cis or cisgender is right there my friend. Trans people are still biological, after all.
It’s the equivalent of “no balls, you won’t”
My balls just got 18% bigger when you said that.
I actually spent time on ripping the ‘you wouldn’t steal…’ video from the first DVD that I had with it on it, just for the sheer irony. 😅
Fuck you I won’t do what you tell me.
Now you do what they told ya… now you’re under control
Unexpected rage
*Expected rage
I guess I should have capitalized the R.
I don’t really understand the gender difference thing, because I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what “ownership” is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with “licensing” where we have to buy the same movie every 10 years on a new format, and now that streaming is THE format, companies have made The Producers real, where they can make a whole movie, shitcan it, and get a tax break.
I mean, going back to when the music companies were suing music fans for downloading music, they did research that if the max payout was given to every rightsholder for all the piracy going on, that it would be a bill larger than the amount of money that actually existed.
When the fines for all piracy that exists would be bigger than the amount of money that exists, its clear that the system is fucking broken and has been.
Nobody respects copyright, and that started when Disney fucked us all over with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act in the 1990’s.
The rightsholders did this to themselves by making it increasingly draconian.
When cops are playing copyrighted music when they’re being filmed so people can’t post it online without it being auto-removed for having copyrighted music in it, things are flat out fucked and everybody knows it.
It’s akin to living the end stages of the Soviet Union with Hypernormalization. Everything is totally fucked, but everyone is running around trying to pretend that nothing has changed and everything is fine.
I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what “ownership” is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with “licensing”
Your mistake is thinking that the average person
- Knows that this is happening/has happened, since it’s rarely clearly or prominently stated,
- Understands what it means, since it doesn’t often affect them,
- And in the uncommon scenario where both 1 and 2 are met: actually cares at all.
It’s wild, because it used to be that you bought a movie and it didn’t matter that the rights ran out you could still watch your fucking movie in your own home.
I understand the concern and I’m sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?
No argument against anything you said related to copyright laws, just to be clear.
I understand the concern and I’m sure it does happen, but I have literally never heard this complaint from a single person that I actually know. What movies/services has this actually happened to?
Pretty much every digital platform at some point or another.
Here’s an article that was discussed extensively on HackerNews about how Apple has the rights to remove items you’ve paid for from your digital library:
https://theoutline.com/post/6167/apple-can-delete-the-movies-you-purchased-without-telling-you
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17970197
Here’s an example where Amazon removed books from people’s Kindles, although to be fair to Amazon they did attempt to change how they handled situations like this. However, the licensing issue should have been handled before customers could buy it, yet in this instance customers were initially punished for something they had no control over (how are they supposed to know Amazon is offering ebooks without proper licensing?).
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
On Friday, it was “1984” and another Orwell book, “Animal Farm,” that were dropped down the memory hole by Amazon.com.
In a move that angered customers and generated waves of online pique, Amazon remotely deleted some digital editions of the books from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them.
Here are two separate examples of Warner Bros. canceling finished movies wholesale because it’s a “wise business decision.” These are completed films that will not be released.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/batgirl-movie-shelved-dc-studios-head-peter-safran-1235506921/
Lots of shows/films are being licensed to streaming services and then disappearing altogether, since there was never a “physical” copy available to begin with. Here’s a short list of some that you can’t find anywhere anymore.
https://www.looper.com/1333407/best-streaming-shows-you-cant-watch-anywhere/
Finally, every company has a right to not do business with you. If Microsoft, Apple, Google, or any other content providers decide to ban your account (a very effective way to choose not to do business with a person), all your digital purchases are gone with it. That alone should be proof enough that you don’t and never “owned” any of it. In the “olden times” Blockbuster couldn’t come into your home and take back all the movies you ever bought from them (I know they mostly did rental, but they did sales, too) and smash your VHS so you couldn’t watch anything anymore.
Also, I’m pretty well aware that most average people don’t understand this subject at all.
Two examples I’m aware of for that last part, I believe, are the TV shows House M. D. and Quantum Leap. For House, the intro music in most places you can find it has been replaced by the music in the end credits, and with Quantum Leap, i think a number of songs on the show have been swapped out due to rights and licensing
I’m not 100% sure on either of those if my memory is correct or the reasoning matches, but I do know there are other examples
Scrubs has different music in many places in the streaming episodes compared the original broadcast and DVDs.
I think its simply, at least for a while, the tech space was male dominated. And depending on the type of piracy, it requires an amount of tech skills
Probably the reason, pretty valid point here.
Also, there’s so much “free” content that a lot of young ones don’t even bother or care about learning about piracy and how to do it
I am a woman, and therefore speak with authority for All Womankind (jk). In reality, I have no studies but some thoughts pulled together from gender differences and potential differences in experiences.
Tech stuff is often male dominated, dig into less mainstream stuff on forums with patchwork moderation and some pockets get really unfriendly to women really quickly. Lemmy is about as deep as I go while still openly saying I’m a woman. Even here, I have Lemmy alts from which I don’t mention my gender so I can ask questions as an “assumed male by default” user.
I think one could also frame it in terms of risk tolerance. Testosterone levels affect men’s emotions and ability to think logically (there are plenty of studies on this). For example, they aren’t worse drivers than women but take bigger risks that put them in more dangerous situations with more damaging outcomes because high testosterone can literally make them impulsive and illogical. Any time I see a gender disparity in crime in particular, I wonder about correlation to testosterone levels.
As a man… that sounds about right lol. I was watching a show and then realised if I wanted the later seasons I’d have to subscribe to a different service and I took that personally and got annoyed and now I just pirate stuff. No one tells this manly feller what to do.
I don’t know where that hatred comes from, but I can only assume it’s because those guys couldn’t find good ladies to be with. They probably got rejected a lot and now they don’t like wimen at all. But I don’t know for sure.
I’m not sure you responded to the right thread, or you’re just referring to the depths of the Internet being misogynistic? Whatever, i’ll roll with it.
“You wouldn’t download a car… unless that stuckup bitch Suzy doesn’t go on a date with me. I don’t like her anyway, I only offered to take her out because I’m such a Nice Guy. I would rather stay home and torrent all episodes of My Little Pony anyways”.
Too much? I think the MLP is too much but I was blanking on any other stereotypical neckbeardy media. And the character definitely did go neckbeardy when it could have just as easily gone Andrew Tate fanboy.
It sucks that you have to deal with misogyny on-line like that.
I would say risk taking isnt always bad and not always illogical. But yeah, as a man I know what you mean when you talk about testosterone and risk taking.
I imagine it used to have quite a lot of benefits back when we were still sleeping in caves, shure you might die when facing a mammoth, but you could also feed the whole tribe for weeks when you succeed.
Indeed. Piracy is good because it is preservation
As a woman into tech I’ll chime in. We seem to have a mild case of ignorant as shit. My friends are all completely blind to tech and piracy. Now I don’t blame them because they’ve been taught by capitalist culture to care about pointless things since birth, but god does it hurt sometimes and make me want to claw my eyes out. Patience and education will solve the gap.
What is even more painful is seeing friends glued to TikTok on their phones all day when they have STEM degrees. I didn’t grow up in a typical household, so I have a hard time relating to other women, but I don’t get it either. Do your friends with kids seem to be this way more than those without?
