5 ms·
I would not call it a "piracy" streaming site. I would call it a hero-site. That's what they are - they are heroes for unrestricting information. Take ublock
by shevy-java 11mo ago
I would not call it a "piracy" streaming site.
I would call it a hero-site. That's what they are - they are heroes for unrestricting information.
Take ublock origin. Now, many say it is an ad-blocker; the ublock origin author says the extension is a generic content blocker. I agree with that but I go further: I call ublock origin a hero-blocker, or better, a heroic blocker. It blocks unwanted things in general. For similar reasons I think the term "piratebay" is old. It made more sense in the 2000s. Now I would call it herobay.
People may wonder about those terms, but I think it is important to use better terms than old terms. The old terms often were hijacked by the law system and mega-corporations with their own particular interests. It is time that the people re-define the law. Law should serve the people.
- patanegra 11mo agoPirating of course exists. You might rebrand it, but hardly as hero-, more like theft-. Theftbay would sound good to me.
- cwillu 11mo agoFound the villain.
- patanegra 11mo agoLOL. Does intellectual property exist, or not? If yes, then it can be stolen. If no, then it is fine to take any source code, any photo, any information, and do whatever I want with it, right?
- lazyfanatic42 11mo agoCopying isn't theft.
- prasadjoglekar 11mo agoDown the rabbit hole we go.
- JohnLocke4 11mo agoPreventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft - not matter how it is done. Copying a dead person's work isn't theft because a dead person can't create value, but stealing a dead person's car is still theft, because something of value is gone. Stealing a car you were never going to buy and making an exact replica of a car you were never going to buy is two entirely different things.
- davedx 11mo ago> Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft No, it's not. You (or random large media corps) do not get to unilaterally redefine words of the English language like that. Pass whatever laws you want about it, enforce them however you feel is appropriate, but don't try to redefine language itself to push your agenda. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft
- kube-system 11mo ago"IP theft" is not counter to that definition. Intellectual property is a 'something'. That definition, does not require depriving someone else of something. As another valid example, see "identity theft". Furthermore, English is not prescriptive; dictionaries are a lagging reference of observed use... so yes, the users of English absolutely do get to redefine language. That's how all modern English words originated. And finally, if your dictionary doesn't account for "IP theft", you have simply found an incorrect dictionary, because that usage is undeniably widespread -- whether or not you agree with the concept politically.
- Telaneo 11mo ago> Intellectual property is a 'something'. Good thing I don't recognise the existence of that. We live in a society that does, and I despise that. At least the EU has the sense to not recognise software patents, so 'intellectual property' is not all-encompassing. Maybe one day they can loosen the grip further. > As another valid example, see "identity theft". 'Identity fraud' is a much better term for what this is. Someone using my name, phone number and my mother's maiden name to get money in my name is not stealing my name and phone number; it's just fraud. It's much closer to lying than stealing.
- Aurornis 11mo agoIf copying isn’t theft then I guess we can stop worrying about open source licensing. Anyone, including corporations, would be able to take open source code and copy it into their own products, reselling it without consent or releasing their changes because they haven’t stolen anything, just copied it, right? If you spend years of your life writing some software and then it accidentally gets revealed to the world by mistake, anyone can copy it and use it as their own? Because copying isn’t theft, theft they haven’t stolen anything from you, so you have nothing to complain about?
- hamdingers 11mo agoI can't tell if you're sarcastically describing the world we live in or if you genuinely haven't realized all these things happen regularly. Poe's law I guess.
- kube-system 11mo agoIt isn't sarcastic. Copyleft depends on copyright law.
- Telaneo 11mo agoCopyright infringement isn't theft. It's illegal, but it's not theft.
- kube-system 11mo agoIt does not qualify as the legal offence of "theft" in many courtrooms. It may be theft in colloquial English.
- Telaneo 11mo agoA pretty big part of theft is the victim no longer having whatever is stolen. When I steal your car, phone, bike or milk, you no longer have it, and no longer enjoy the benefit of it. I'm fairly certain that's the part of theft most people have a problem with. If I zap your car and produce a perfect duplicate, and drive that duplicate away, leaving your car as if nothing had ever happened, other than minutiae like the VINs and licence plates being identical, I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with that. Nobody is going to call that theft. If you still believe that's theft, then I cannot understand where you're coming from. This does not hold true for copyright infringement. When I copy Die Hard 3: The Expendables' Return of the Jedi, the original owner/copyright holder still has it. As they still have it, I have not deprived them of their work or good, and calling it theft makes about as much sense as me making a copy of the milk in your fridge and taking that copy.
- patanegra 11mo agoWell, 'theft' is more of an artistic licence. It's a breach of intellectual property rights owner.
- raincole 11mo agoReally? Have you read this post at all? This is a monetized streaming site that spams reddit users. This is the hero in your mind? Is your philosophy that as long as the legal IP holders don't get paid it's great?