22 ms·

Piracy isn’t stealing, and if companies want to pretend piracy doesn’t exist and that they’re not competing with it that’s their own look out. In the immortal w

• dpc050505 2y ago
  A law only matters when it's enforced. Who the fuck is going to go after me for downloading a few films and songs?
  • tracerbulletx 2y ago
    They did this during the napster era.
    • TexanFeller 2y ago
      Indeed, back then there were headlines on Slashdot every day about the RIAA and Metallica band members suing random kids that downloaded music. Probably the only reason they don’t go after people often now is because people mostly use paid streaming instead of piracy, but that will surely change if piracy becomes more widespread again.
      • iczero 2y ago
        Didn't the RIAA completely ruin their reputation (along with the other AAs) by doing that? Now it seems like most people just equate them with a huge pile of lawyers in suits who care not about art.
        • Exoristos 2y ago
          Possibly an upgrade, then, since their early reputation was a huge pile of gangsters in leisure suits.
        • jeffgreco 2y ago
          Who cares? Industry associations are there for building reputations, they’re there to wield collective power.
      • ramenbytes 2y ago
        I don't have it on hand at the moment, but I think I saw something about how the victims of those lawsuits didn't actually end up paying. Might have been related to bankruptcy, and certain things being non-enforceable. Basically the RIAA cottoned on to it not being worth their time and money to ruin their public image for little to no return. Edit: Still can't find it, but did find this EFF article covering a bunch of people who apparently settled for some amount. Haven't followed up on the people who took things to court yet. https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later Edit 1: I think it might have just been a high-profile case or two that escaped paying, it seems there were oodles of people who did pay based on the EFF article.
• mvdtnz 2y ago
  No one in this thread used the word "stealing" before you. I know you think you're being a big tough guy standing up to your corpo overlords or whatever but there are also the people and companies out there creating the media we like to consume and I'd like to see them getting paid at least somewhat commensurate with their value. If we simply accept piracy as legitimate then that value drops to near zero. I don't think this is fair.
  • mike-cardwell 2y ago
    > No one in this thread used the word "stealing" before you It's right there in the comment he was responding to
• nadermx 2y ago
  "The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...