2 ms·

If purchase is not ownership then piracy is not stealing. Simple as.

by phone8675309 3y ago

omneity 3y ago
Fascinating perspective. I wonder if such an argumentation could stand on legal grounds.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I doubt it. The laws are written by corporations to protect corporate interests and you may find industry sympathizers all over the place (see https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ and https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-be...)
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Your mistake is imagining that piracy gets legally persecuted for more than one in a million cases. Sure, they make an example of some poor guy every now and then and they cross their fingers hoping that this scary PR turns people away from piracy, yeah. Which is wishful thinking and they know it. 99.9999% of everyone pirating though? They are never going to be persecuted. Turns out, if you ask people to pay and can't even withhold a fair bargain from your side -- as in, don't delete stuff from people's libraries -- they stop caring about the legality of it all. Especially with the extra context that this legality is a table that's severely tilted in the favor of the vendors and is not consumer-friendly. The truth that the copyright holders don't like is this: people, even very technically illiterate people, are not as stupid so as to pay ownership but get rented goods license in return. It ain't happening. They coasted on the public's indifference for a long time but it's visible that the public's perception is changing.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >Your mistake is imagining that piracy gets legally persecuted for more than one in a million cases. that 1 in a million tends to be the one person serving the million, though. That's why they don't waste time chasing the customers like the war on drugs. Go right after the dealer and throw the book at them. >Turns out, if you ask people to pay and can't even withhold a fair bargain from your side -- as in, don't delete stuff from people's libraries -- they stop caring about the legality of it all. Good thing most people still pay in that case. The other part of that metaphor is that 999,999 people may pirate, but 5m or so are still making that product profitable. anti-piracy isnt just about making pirates relent, but to shut down future pirates in later products. >They coasted on the public's indifference for a long time but it's visible that the public's perception is changing. could have fooled me. If we're being realistic, I doubt this will affect more than 10k people. How many people really used a play station store to buy a digital movie? And remember that PS shut down their movies side 2.5 years ago.
    - pdimitar 3y ago
      > could have fooled me. If we're being realistic, I doubt this will affect more than 10k people. Could have fooled me x2 -- we both can pull numbers out of our bottoms. ;) The part you seem to be downplaying is this: there are things that can't be directly measured. Public resentment is one of them. It's one of those variables that grows and grows until at one point an eruption happens. Include that in your analysis, history has proven that this factor does exist. > Good thing most people still pay in that case. The other part of that metaphor is that 999,999 people may pirate, but 5m or so are still making that product profitable. anti-piracy isnt just about making pirates relent, but to shut down future pirates in later products. Obviously, yes. It's a scaremongering tactic. I'll admit they are succeeding, one after another trackers fall down with a tempo that the pirate community does not seem to be able to sustain; they bring some other trackers back up and that seems to be enough for them for now, if I read TorrentFreak's articles well that is. So back to the original topic: what stands in court is only a short-term factor. Again, looking at the pirate scene and the steadily declining revenue from streaming and the slow and steady grow of piracy (again), I'd say part of the people had enough. Start persecuting more aggressively and things might escalate in unpredictable ways. How will this unfold? Beats me, and you, but I am interested in following the battle.
- gymbeaux 3y ago
  The only legal grounds that really matter are that (in the US) an IP address cannot be used to identify an individual. https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2011/05/privacy-data-protection/judge-rules-ip-address-does-not-identify-user/ https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2011/05/privacy-data-p...
r0ckarong 3y ago
If there's no owner, there is no one to steal from.

If purchase is not ownership then piracy is not stealing. Simple as.

omneity 3y ago

Fascinating perspective. I wonder if such an argumentation could stand on legal grounds.

autoexec 3y ago
I doubt it. The laws are written by corporations to protect corporate interests and you may find industry sympathizers all over the place (see https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ https://www.wired.com/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ and https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-be...)
pdimitar 3y ago
Your mistake is imagining that piracy gets legally persecuted for more than one in a million cases. Sure, they make an example of some poor guy every now and then and they cross their fingers hoping that this scary PR turns people away from piracy, yeah. Which is wishful thinking and they know it. 99.9999% of everyone pirating though? They are never going to be persecuted. Turns out, if you ask people to pay and can't even withhold a fair bargain from your side -- as in, don't delete stuff from people's libraries -- they stop caring about the legality of it all. Especially with the extra context that this legality is a table that's severely tilted in the favor of the vendors and is not consumer-friendly. The truth that the copyright holders don't like is this: people, even very technically illiterate people, are not as stupid so as to pay ownership but get rented goods license in return. It ain't happening. They coasted on the public's indifference for a long time but it's visible that the public's perception is changing.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Your mistake is imagining that piracy gets legally persecuted for more than one in a million cases. that 1 in a million tends to be the one person serving the million, though. That's why they don't waste time chasing the customers like the war on drugs. Go right after the dealer and throw the book at them. >Turns out, if you ask people to pay and can't even withhold a fair bargain from your side -- as in, don't delete stuff from people's libraries -- they stop caring about the legality of it all. Good thing most people still pay in that case. The other part of that metaphor is that 999,999 people may pirate, but 5m or so are still making that product profitable. anti-piracy isnt just about making pirates relent, but to shut down future pirates in later products. >They coasted on the public's indifference for a long time but it's visible that the public's perception is changing. could have fooled me. If we're being realistic, I doubt this will affect more than 10k people. How many people really used a play station store to buy a digital movie? And remember that PS shut down their movies side 2.5 years ago.
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    > could have fooled me. If we're being realistic, I doubt this will affect more than 10k people. Could have fooled me x2 -- we both can pull numbers out of our bottoms. ;) The part you seem to be downplaying is this: there are things that can't be directly measured. Public resentment is one of them. It's one of those variables that grows and grows until at one point an eruption happens. Include that in your analysis, history has proven that this factor does exist. > Good thing most people still pay in that case. The other part of that metaphor is that 999,999 people may pirate, but 5m or so are still making that product profitable. anti-piracy isnt just about making pirates relent, but to shut down future pirates in later products. Obviously, yes. It's a scaremongering tactic. I'll admit they are succeeding, one after another trackers fall down with a tempo that the pirate community does not seem to be able to sustain; they bring some other trackers back up and that seems to be enough for them for now, if I read TorrentFreak's articles well that is. So back to the original topic: what stands in court is only a short-term factor. Again, looking at the pirate scene and the steadily declining revenue from streaming and the slow and steady grow of piracy (again), I'd say part of the people had enough. Start persecuting more aggressively and things might escalate in unpredictable ways. How will this unfold? Beats me, and you, but I am interested in following the battle.
gymbeaux 3y ago
The only legal grounds that really matter are that (in the US) an IP address cannot be used to identify an individual. https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2011/05/privacy-data-protection/judge-rules-ip-address-does-not-identify-user/ https://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2011/05/privacy-data-p...

r0ckarong 3y ago

If there's no owner, there is no one to steal from.