I pirate movies because I think digital access to them is overpriced, goes to the copyright holder instead of the creators, it’s convenient and most importantly because I can.
I can’t pirate going to the cinema, nor can I afford to build my own, therefore I gladly pay to have a seat and enjoy a movie there.
Edit: I thought this may be relevant to the movies example I gave. I don’t think movie studios, giving nothing back to society after massive profits are the ones we should debate the morals of stealing with.
I mean it is misleading if you’re not aware of the context. The “bot account” option should honestly be put in a special “Developer” section, not intermingled with style options
I’m ok with it, what if you don’t want to see these “Nice counter bots” and the like? You untick, you don’t need to be a developer to not like those types of bots and have the option to remove them
See, this is what I was talking about. I’m not saying to move the “Show bot posts” option, but the “This account is a bot account, not a normal user account” option.
I'm not comparing renting to owning, I'm pointing out that they are different things, and each has an appropriate place. The image in the OP makes a blanket statement implying that all payment equals permanent ownership.
It is certainly true that there are things people pay for that they should have more rights of ownership over, but don't (even, and maybe especially, if they are led to believe they have ownership rights that they do not).
But even ownership of, for example, my car, does not extend to me the right to reverse engineer my car and build another identical one, and then sell that.
When you enter into a contract, where you pay for a product or service, there are a wide variety of rights you do or don't receive, depending on the agreement.
Edit: Since your employer pays you for your labor, they own you, right?
My employer is paying for my time. Saying that they may own me for that is just absurd and makes no sense. They are paying for my labor, not for me physically. Lol. Buying your car doesn’t give you the right to reverse engineer it, true, but it doesn’t deny you the right to drive it whenever you please. No one is reverse engineering movies and TV shows, they just want to be able to watch the fucking thing whenever they want and without having to connect to the Internet, they want to own it, meaning watching it whenever forever. that’s all what people asking.
Let me restate the thing I was originally responding to:
Piracy can't be stealing if paying for it isn't owning.
This statement is so childishly oversimplified that it's just wrong. It might make people "feel better" about piracy (in particular, their own piracy actions), but it does so based on a plainly invalid argument. That's what I have been trying to point out.
Are there problems with the way media sales are handled? Absolutely. When Amazon is able to pull your purchases back out of your access that they made consumers feel that they would have unlimited and perpetual access to (even if the very fine print said otherwise), that's a huge problem. If a particular piece of media just isn't available anywhere except for via streaming (or, frankly, anywhere at all outside of piracy), that's also a problem.
OP's post doesn't address any of that. The suggestion is that "If I have paid for something, I (edit: should) have full, unlimited, and perpetual ownership rights to it." That's just not true; the landscape of commerce is far more complicated than that, and it's a mistake to just join into a weird hug box about it.
I guess it all depends on how one interprets ops cryptic message. Lol I read it as “I paid for it by pressing the ‘purchase’ button on a movie, so now it is mine”. You’ve probably read it “I should own the right to all of the movies and tv shows on Netflix since I’m a subscriber”. I don’t agree with the second, but sure as hell believe the first one from the bottom of my heart.
Actually it’s worse than nothing. Youtube promotes comments based on engagement, so while only an upvote increases the tally, voting at all still makes it more visible.
I’m very curious to see how (actual) websites / ways to access this data will change how Lemmy not only deals with this as a potential security issue, but how it will change the culture of Lemmy and they way people interact on here
Obviously I’m concerned with the ramifications as well, but I’m also very intrigued how things will go
I think it would be good to have some kind of a concept of “trust levels” between federated instances where the default level isn’t full trust. Then the amount of information that gets shared depends on the trust level.
Things these days should be designed with the fact that there’s bad actors out there, some driven purely by greed, some driven to specifically cause problems either for individuals (trolls) or society in general (troll farms). And it isn’t always clear who is who.
This is inaccurate. You are not buying it (the media), you are buying the right to stream it (as long as the seller provides the media as a stream). You don’t “buy” a movie unless you are paying for it’s ownership, which would be millions of dollars. For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM). And you generally don’t have a right be able to “buy” or have access to all media.
But all that doesn’t automaticly make it amoral. this comment is gonna be downvoted to hell
edit: There are probably gonna be more responces, so this will address everything else I have to say. What I wrote is how things are legally, more or less. I don’t like that either. I do consider piracy stealing (under current laws) and morally right. Stealing is just not that great term for digital stuff. Please don’t try to (uselessly) sway me and don’t infight
That’s kind of their point, because we are not in fact buying the media the argument is that piracy has some moral element. Put another way there is no option to own it outside of piracy.
this meme is a criticism of that. it shouldn’t be like that. if I buy a chair, I own the chair. I can then choose to sit on it, burn it, or give it to my neighbor, whatever. if I buy a movie, it’s suddenly not like that – but not because of some inherent quality that would make it impossible, but only because they say it is like that. but they have one weakness: it’s only like that if we actually stick to those rules. they’re all arbitrary anyway! we can therefore treat a bought movie just as it should be: a physical copy that we actually own. we can then decide to watch it, to lend it to our neighbor, to play it for everybody to see on the street, to cut it and remix it and do something new with it. will they come and claim we’ve “pirated” their media? yes of course, but this is nonsensical, dead law, that has to be broken again and again by just – ignoring it, and making it not so. if I buy a movie, I do own the movie, and the company that says otherwise can get fucked. that’s what this is about.
For physical releases you buy the disk and the right to watch it under certain conditions (DRM).
I’d like to point out German law (maybe this expands to EU and other countries) with traditional media.
Traditionally you bought movies and music on physical discs. You had a guaranteed right to be able to sell it to other people, as well as make personal copies of it for private use/backups.
DRM has always tried to oppose this right. And obviously, in the last decade(s) a lot went into service-oriented streaming and temporary access instead of owning even on a partial or theoretical level.
If I’ve bought the right to play the game, what’s “the game” that I’m entitled to if they decide to take away what makes it the thing I agreed to have access to?
lemmy.world
Hot