this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
544 points (98.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

70111 readers
957 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:

Gaming:

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
unruffled@anarchist.nexus
544
Why people Pirate? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How to prevent pirating?

https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-6-player-with-over-400-hours-gets-full-refund-from-steam-after-key-modes-were-removed

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bzipitidoo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Tried to read an e-book from the local library. No problem downloading it, but the file was encrypted, and only an Adobe app that does not run on Linux could decrypt it. I used Wine in Linux to run the Windows version of this app, and it worked right up to the point of actually decrypting the file. Couldn't read the e-book I'd checked out. So I pirated the book.

I went to some trouble to download and install Wine and the Adobe software, and I resent that. Tried to do things the legal way. Could've saved myself much bother by pirating first and skipping the public library. I also deleted the Adobe garbage.

[–] nures_731@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 minutes ago

There is actually an adobe deacsm extension you can install in calibre on linux, in order to rip books in linux

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

Exactly. It's like jury nullification, but for copy rights. The government serves us not visa versa.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[–] queueBenSis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Audible pulled the same shit to me when i was in the middle of reading How to Hide an Empire. only half way through, suddenly “no longer available”, yet no credit refunded to my account. Fuck you Jeffery

[–] sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

That's why I created local backups of my Audible library.

https://getlibation.com/

[–] percent@infosec.pub 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

It's interesting how we jumped from owning physical media to "buying" permission to stream the file through the cloud.

Is there no service for people who are willing to pay for a downloadable, DRM-free copy of the file? It might be a bit niche, but it could at least make more than the $0 they make on each pirated copy.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

GOG if you want to buy DRM-free games. Hoping to find a movie version of the site, I want digital copies of "Them!", "Patlabor", and so on.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 1 points 20 minutes ago

Yeah Steam has some DRM-free games too. It's interesting how this is an option for other media, but not movies (AFAIK)

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There are a few authors and musicians who do things like that, selling things DRM-free on their own site. But, the US "content" industry is a handful of mega companies who are doing everything possible to maximize copyright so they can lock up and control as much stuff as possible.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah I've bought some music like that before. I've also bought vinyl records that would include a small paper with a download code on it, which is cool.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 8 points 12 hours ago

If they could kick in your door and take away your DVDs, they would. Fuck em, pirate away.

[–] mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

it's there, its free, just take it and enjoy it

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm gonna be the grumpy one and point out it's "eat your cake and have it too". That was the original version. It's just that people are dumb and couldn't understand that it's supposed to be a paradox, so they started saying it backwards

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks Mr. Kaczynski!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 20 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I cannot stand piracy, but my computer recently escaped its containment and started downloading all these movies and TV shows that I like to watch. Does anyone know how to stop this behavior? So far I've tried nothing

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

Tell it to download things you don't like, too! That's the best way to stop it.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If there is DRM, you’re only renting it. You may be renting it until further notice for a one-off payment, but your lease could be unilaterally revoked at any time. The supplier framing your lease as a purchase is at the very least being misleading.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The items are sold online. It is not misleading because it's actually fraud.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago

We need to start regulating words like "buy" and "sell." These words should only be usable in advertising if they refer to permanent sale that the seller cannot later revoke. Anything else should be required to be labeled "renting."

[–] Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

I don’t buy any of this stuff, if I can’t find it on a current streaming service that I pay for then I’m pirating it.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 48 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It’s never been stealing, it’s infringement of copyright, which aught to carry much less of a penalty since the original owner was not deprived of their property.

But we live in hell, so capitalism literally bankrupts families when they film their kid dancing to music that was playing on a public broadcast on FM radio.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 17 hours ago

The record industry has always claimed that every pirated album is a lost sale, but that is t really true. Studies that have been commissioned by the record biz itself have shown that the biggest music PURCHASERS, are also big Pirates as well. These are people who spend every last cent on music, and still need more.

I generally use pirating to audition artists and albums I'm curious about. If I like them, I'll buy their CDs, because I want the actual item, and I want to support the artist. But I can't afford to buy random music just to see if I like it enough to financially support it.

Pirating is just the modern version of the radio.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think people should be paid for their work. I was happy to pay for music and movies and games. But I am not going to pay for something just to have it ripped away at a moments notice just because of corporate greed.

Additionally, I fully understand why someone would pirate when the thing they want isn't available to them to purchase, or is out of their price range.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Also, what makes you think a purchase benefits the creator? And if it doesn't, what is the moral case for purchasing?

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 3 points 10 hours ago

What makes you think creatives don't benefit? I think it depends on what it is and who publishes the thing. Lots of Indie game developers do benefit from purchases of their games. There are entities that tend to benefit more (publishers, store fronts, etc), but that doesn't mean that the people who made the game don't benefit.

It's the same with music. Labels definitely benefit more. Streaming services benefit more. But at the same time that doesn't mean the artist who made the music doesn't benefit.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

Sure, they may not get as good a deal as I would like, but the people who make movies don't work for free.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 97 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Piracy isn't stealing anyway

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They call it stealing because the real legal term is unlawful copying or reproducing without copyright permits, and that sounds closer to a misdemeanor.

If we claim someone has stolen thousands of songs causing millions of dolars in damages it does look like a felony, and that is the way they've chosen to scare us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatyrSack@quokk.au 12 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I feel the same way about people applying terms like "theft" to events of intellectual property misuse like copying another artist's art style, reusing another comedian's jokes, etc. Those things are problems of their own, but should not be called "theft".

[–] borkborkbork@piefed.social 2 points 8 hours ago

when people do it, it's interpretation - it's only theft if they're portraying themselves as the original artist, trying to leverage someone else's work for profit.

now, when machines do the same thing, I think that very much is theft and should be illegal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Honest question, if the movie reappears in the catalog on Google does the "ownership" return to the customer? My money is on no they would have to repurchase

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Only if it's exactly the same version. They'll say you only have a license for that specific cut, and in the version now online there is one additional second of material so the license didn't count.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 6 points 16 hours ago (9 children)

Piracy isn't stealing, period.

It was totally ok to pirate movies before this practice ever took place. Information had always wanted to be free.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 6 points 15 hours ago

Yes and no. People so have to make a living. They are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. But at the same time fuck the corporations.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] eah@programming.dev 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

It should say rent instead of buy and give the expiration date corresponding to the date on which the license term ends.

"Rent. Unlimited viewing until January 1, 2027."

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

This should be legally mandated labeling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hundun@beehaw.org 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Piracy isn't stealing, period.

It was totally ok to pirate movies before this practice ever took place. Information had always wanted to be free.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›