this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
551 points (98.6% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
70120 readers
1210 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Piracy has never been stealing.
When you steal something, the real issue is that the other person is deprived of some tangible item they used to have.
When you "pirate", you're merely violating a copyright. The government granted someone a monopoly on the expression of an idea, and you're not respecting the government's decision on that item's exclusivity.
Sure but game companies need to get paid or they won't make games. Right? Luckily there are many others who pay for games so you can pirate, but without them paying, there wouldn't be a product you can pirate.
I just picked a game company as an example but of course you understand this.
Exactly. It's like jury nullification, but for copy rights. The government serves us not visa versa.
And like. I'd be fine with that if the primary function in practice was to ensure the original creator gets financially compensated for their work and then they can pay for copyright controlled distribution services if that helps therm make sure they get paid but that is not why or how current law is used and I'm kinda losing that it even can be.
Right. Copyright is supposed to be for the good of the population. In order to encourage people to create things, they're given a short monopoly on it after which it enters the public domain. The original copyright term was 14 years, I think.
The new setup is absurd. The public doesn't benefit for more than a century, at which point the copyrighted item is probably of next to no value.
And, like you said, the artist rarely benefits. Writers are probably the ones who come the closest to benefitting. They only have to pay their agent a cut, their publisher, then, finally Amazon. With advances, etc. you have to wonder how much they get paid for each additional book sold. Musicians basically don't make anything anymore, with the bullshit that Spotify (partially owned by the record companies) does. And then movies, TV, and other video stuff, the amount that creators get is massively watered down, and that's after the "Hollywood accounting" makes profits from even successful things disappear.
I really don't respect copyright anymore because it doesn't benefit me (a member of the public) nor does it benefit the artist. It's just a tool to hand money to certain entertainment conglomerates.