Hi guys, first of all, I fully support Piracy. But Im writing a piece on my blog about what I might considere as “Ethical Piracy” and I would like to hear your concepts of it.

Basically my line is if I have the capacity of paying for something and is more convinient that pirating, ill pay. It happens to me a lot when I wanna watch a movie with my boyfriend. I like original audio, but he likes dub, so instead of scrapping through the web looking for a dub, I just select the language on the streaming platform. That is convinient to me.

In what situations do you think is not OK to pirate something? And where is 100 justified and everybody should sail the seas instead?

I would like to hear you.

  • majestictechie@lemmy.fosshost.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. When the content is no longer available for retail purchase (i.e old games or shows that have been pulled entirely [see Infinity Train])
    2. You have a physical copy, but want a digital version.
    • charles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Slightly more gray: content I’ve already paid for in one form or another. I spent like $100 going to the theater to see Mario with the family. I’m not losing sleep over adding it to my Plex when it hits VOD.

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I pay for a smattering of VoD services, I don’t lose sleep over watching something that isn’t available on them.

        If corporate greed didn’t force a hundred different services on us, then it might be different.

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You say you don’t want 100 different services, but do we really want all media content to be under one roof or just a few players? Consolidation is also terrible for media/art. That’s basically why so many people are against the Actibliz acquisition.

          • Tunawithshoes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It could also have music streaming style. Where the features of platform is the more pull then content.

            Spotify supports far more range of devices. Tidal sounds so much better, deezer is slightly worse quality than tidal but for more country. YouTube music gives you add free YouTube etc.

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’d love that but it’s just not realistic because of how the media publishing landscape currently is. Happy to advocate for that but moving that needle will take decades. My response is it’s usually somewhere in the middle. 5-10 major players, maybe some smaller ones as well. I don’t need access to literally everything ever made. Libraries already have a wonderfully large free collection as it is (for anyone reading this Hoopla is amazing and countless libraries have massive catalogs on it)

              • Kushan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, it’s not an easy thing to achieve for sure, but I won’t lose sleep over them losing revenue because they can’t figure it out quickly enough.

                Even moreso where it comes to media that’s just not available any more. If you, a content IP owner, don’t make that content available for purchase, then you have only yourself to blame if people pirate it.

                • hoodatninja@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you, a content IP owner, don’t make that content available for purchase, then you have only yourself to blame if people pirate it.

                  I don’t think we are entitled to someone creative work just because they made it. That opens way too many doors.

      • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is doubly true for games, which tend to be re-released over and over again on different platforms. This is true to a lesser extent for things like movies, but it’s much worse with gaming where each console is a closed ecosystem that’s incompatible with other systems. At least with Blu-Ray, you can expect any Blu-Ray player to play the movie you’ve purchased. It’s not like a Toshiba player will only play Toshiba brand Blu-Ray discs.

        Companies love to use the “you don’t own the game, you own a personal license to use the game” line when revoking rights to play games you’ve legally purchased… But that goes both ways; If you own a personal license to use the game, it shouldn’t matter what platform it’s on, because it’s the same game regardless of whether you’re playing on PlayStation or PC.

      • Cyanogenmon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Straight black but I still consider ethical:

        The entire “going to the movies” experience is terrible for me and my wife, only going to get worse with a runt on the way. It’s certainly a fault of the theater I try and attend, but I’m not driving 2 hours for a decent viewing experience.

        I pirate like CRAZY. BUT if I find a film/TV show I really enjoy, I certainly do my part in word-of-mouth or digital marketing for them. It’s certainly once it’s left the theaters but I wasn’t going to that anyway. It also gives a chance for older films/series to get some funding that I may not have picked up otherwise.

        Occasionally if there’s a film/show that’s a standout, I’ll buy a physical copy. Honestly I never open them as I have a more convenient digital copy on plex but I do put in some for it.

        That said, watch Grave Encounters 1 (not 2…) and Cabin in the Woods. I believe they’re both on Netflix but absolute top tier movies if you’re into horror for GE or horror parody for CITW, cabin possibly being in my top 5 of all time.

        Also that said, I’ve seen way too many episodes of MTV Cribs for me to care about it too much >:(

      • money_loo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Paying for a ticket isn’t the same thing and I’d argue that’s not morally justified piracy. You went from a rental to ownership at a rental price.

        I thought you were going to say something like “I already bought a copy of Star Wars thirty years ago, then THEY made the way I watch it obsolete, so I don’t feel as bad getting another copy since I already paid for it once.”

        That would be closer to moral than “well I watched it in the theaters once, so I totally own a copy!”

        • charles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We’ve all got our lines, mate. That’s the point of this post.

    • Corroded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. You have a physical copy, but want a digital version.

      Kind of similar but I feel like pirating content you have legal access to (Steam, Spotify, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) in a way to get around DRM is ethical.

      For example wanting to listen to songs you have on Spotify on an iPod or reading ebooks purchased from Amazon on your PC.

    • fades@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or content you have purchased and have now lost access too, or shit if you buy something at all you can ethically pirate it. You already paid!!

    • golli@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Concerning the first point there is also the case of content getting altered. For example TV shows that switch songs because of licensing.

  • dog@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. Content that you cannot acquire by any “lawful” means.
    2. Content that you already own a copy of (Yes, this includes “only” having a “license” to it; you own what you own).
    3. Content that is outrageously priced, and/or from large companies where the people who worked on the product will receive nothing from sold copies. (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc)
    • passepartout@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      Third category also contains works so old that only the people hoarding rights to said works profit from giving out licenses to them bc they never worked on them.

      • glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most TV shows in foreign countries, and a billion movies are like this. Since they refuse to take my money, I can’t feel guilty for getting it for free.

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lawful content and lawful aquisition are two different things. CSAM is never ethical, doesn’t matter how you aquired it.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Scientific articles. You’re not robbing the authors of a single penny, because they don’t get a cut of the sales by the publishing house anyway and the journal reviewers are volunteers.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      many, if not most, authors of such papers are more than happy to provide a copy if you were to ask them directly.

      • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That indeed should be the preferred route when you’re not in a hurry and the contact info is up-to-date, but when you want to binge very quickly through a dozen articles as I used to do a lot that becomes impractical. Sometimes authors are unresponsive too, or deceased in the case of old articles.

    • hoodatninja@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      As some else said, you really should just reach out to the authors. You would be surprised at how many will gladly send you it. Plus, you now have a direct line to the person to ask questions and are showing them that people want to read their work. Academics really appreciate that generally.

  • matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the money goes to people who did not create the media. Support creators, not exploiters.

      • secret_j@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My take on this is summed up much better by Cory Doctorow, and best written up in the foreword of his book “Makers”, which he published for free online.

        There’s a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists out there who pose a clear and present danger to the future of authors and publishing. They have no respect for property or laws. What’s more, they’re powerful and organized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press. I’m speaking, of course, of the legal departments at ebook publishers.

        Why am I doing this? Because my problem isn’t piracy, it’s obscurity (thanks, @timoreilly for this awesome aphorism). Because free ebooks sell print books. Because I copied my ass off when I was 17 and grew up to spend practically every discretionary cent I have on books when I became and adult. Because I can’t stop you from sharing it (zeroes and ones aren’t ever going to get harder to copy); and because readers have shared the books they loved forever; so I might as well enlist you to the cause.

        • hoodatninja@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s a great excerpt and I’m now interested in this book but it doesn’t really address the issue of money not going to the creator. He’s just in a position where he can afford to go without the income. Millions of artists can not. I imagine neither of us wants art creation to be solely the domain of the wealthy. Reminds me of how in college the only people who could do “good” internships were those who could afford to go a summer (or longer after college) without income and live in D.C. and other expensive cities. It’s wrong to not pay people to do a job of course, but that was a major secondary issue. Only people with money could get the internships that got them jobs that made good money.

    • Chev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are saying that you would prefer to get paid per sale instead of per hour?

      I did both and prefer my money per hour. No matter if the sales are low or high. The fluctuation of payment is an insecurity that i don’t want.

      • azalty@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam really needs their 30% cut, good you’re here to provide it to them

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          To run a storefront and do R&D to develop handheld PC’s, simple at-home streaming, and higher quality VR? Yes, it’s reasonable for them to charge an industry standard rate as a storefront

        • herrvogel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Steam offers rather valuable services to the developer in exchange for that fee though. You get to use Steam’s existing infrastructure for content delivery, payment processing, advertising, community management, authentication (not necessarily DRM), multiplayer services, etc. instead of having to implement and maintain it all on your own. Self-publishing is not easy nor is it cheap.

  • Marxine@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many people already said stuff I agree with, but I’d also include low-income families being “justified” in pirating stuff, be it for work, study or entertainment (as entertainment is a basic right imo)

  • esty@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    to answer the opposite of your question i would say it’s unethical to steal things from indie developers and creators; the same way its more wrong to steal from a local corner store than it is to steal from Walmart

    • Dreyns@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even though I agree with you, I’d like to enphasize on piracy NOT being theft. Your analogy is great but I prefer to say it again just in case.

    • Rabbit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If items in the physical world could be stolen like it is for digital materials then it would mean the world has created a duplicator. Which would be absolutely awesome and that society has really advanced in technology. So good news all around.

      But, sadly we cannot steal stuff in the real world like we can for digital because there is no duplication machine. There’s no copier so real world theft is going to result in one person losing possession of the item they had.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any piracy related to scientific papers I consider ethical. That kind of knowledge should NEVER be hidden behind a paywall

    Abandonware is a very clear cut case of ethical piracy, too. Without it, a lot of digital stuff “wouldn’t exist” anymore. Mainly games, but also loads of productivity programs, doubly so for discontinued platforms, like Amiga computers.

  • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Piracy is always justified. The issue is with private property rights, which is further exacerbated by their lack of updates in the digital era.

    Artists shouldn’t be dependent on distributors. Artists should be supported because they are artists and our society needs artists. Artists deserve to live and thrive whether or not they are successful, just like all people deserve.

    We need to decouple the profit motive from every aspect of life and the human experience. Piracy is one such decoupling in action. It is an attempt to live by one’s own ethics instead of a corporate ethos that dictated to us, even if that is not directly the individual’s motivation.

    People will say that piracy hurts the creators. But it really hurts capitalism, and capitalism then passes the pain on to the creators to disincentivize change. Alternate modes of consumption exist, but they would cause a collapse in the power/economic hierarchy which is unpalatable to those on top.

    • AngryHippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any content that exists solely to put ads in front of my kids is 100% fair game and not just ethically allowed, but creates an ethical necessity to remove it from it’s advertising.

        • AngryHippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I am thinking specifically of broadcast tv kids shows that I have no problem with my kids watching, but that are broadcast with kid targeted ads in my country. I much prefer to rip them and let the kids watch them without commercials.

          • hoodatninja@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sure makes sense. I think once kids are involved you pretty much have primacy in 90% of scenarios out the gate.

  • mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Archival of information and software that is no longer available, such as NES games.

    Any and all book piracy is ethical. It’s just like a library. If libraries are ethical libgen is ethical.

    • DigitalBits@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Libraries are ethical because they pay for the books. If we’re limited to only physical books, then they buy new ones every ~8-12 rentals. Additionally (though I couldn’t verify this through a search), I’ve heard they also pay more to buy them.

      • mister_monster@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How does them paying for it make it more ethical? If I buy a book and put it on libgen does that make it OK then?

        I have never, ever heard of a library rebuying the same book every 8-12 rentals, ever. What do they do with the old ones?

  • Underpay@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    -Not available to buy or only second hand for exorbitant prices (cough cough Nintendo) -Overpriced subscription (cough cough Adobe) -Getting a version of a game you already bought free of invasive or resource-heavy -Trying out a paid program/game/etc. with the intent of buying it if it you like it and it runs well

  • milkytoast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    if you owned a game but your license got pulled for no reason (assassin’s creed)

    although pirating triple a titles is always ethical imo, devs usually get paid the same no matter how the game does

    also pirating to try a game. steams 2 hour refund policy isnt enough, as 2 hours often is not enough to get into a game and see if u like it

    pirating retro games
    if the only way to play a game legitimately is to pay $500 for a cartridge, it’s ok to pirate

    if you can’t afford a game (ex. low income countries), it’s ok to pirate. there are places where a full months salary isn’t enough for a single triple a titile

    • hoodatninja@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if you owned a game but your license got pulled for no reason (assassin’s creed)

      I’m not quite sure what you mean. So you paid for it (not a physical copy I’m assuming) and when you woke up one day they took it away and you’d have had to pay again to get it? Just understanding what happened here.

      • milkytoast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        no they pulled everyone’s license

        to add on to that, they put it on sale to get some quick bucks before shutting it down

          • BearJCC@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are games and software that check a server to see if you are entitled to use it when you run it. If that server goes down or they geo block you, or ban you then you may not use the game or software you purchased (unless you crack/pirate it).

            • hoodatninja@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Another example of terrible policy no doubt and a great justification for cracks. But I know what AC games he’s talking about and I believe that doesn’t apply here. Correct me if I’m wrong though!

              • BearJCC@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In this case you can’t play your purchased dlc (or online multiplayer) but you can still play your game. Games affected: Anno 2070, Assassin’s Creed 2, Assassin’s Creed 3, Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, Assassin’s Creed Liberation HD, Driver San Francisco, Far Cry 3, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, Silent Hunter 5, Space Junkies, and Splinter Cell: Blacklist

  • dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anything I’m legally not allowed to buy. So, old videogames (not just Nintnedo) or content of streaming services that show fuck you to my country.