You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] supernatendo 1 points 92 points (+93|-1) ago  (edited ago)

"Piracy" is a pejorative term. It attempts to equate digital sharing and open-ness with the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea, killing, beheading, raping, kidnapping, enslaving, human trafficking, and pillaging.

in order to actually “steal” something, you must deprive the owner of whatever that thing is.

That’s not to say that copyright infringement is or isn't morally justifiable (arguments can be made for and against both viewpoints).

It is much more appropriate to equate file sharing with concepts like unauthorized use, trespass, and misappropriation, rather than trying to equate digital copying and sharing with "piracy".

It does a disservice to people who were and are victims of actual piracy and cheapens the word.


[–] xoitus 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Very well said. It seems to be the way we are going as a culture: using strong pejorative terms against people or ideas we don't agree with.


[–] ChaoticNeutral 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

That's racist or bigoted or sexist or ... something


[–] TFP191 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 

Shut up you conspiracy nut!


[–] White_Raven 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

"I don't like your ideas, therefore: check your [class/race/fillintheblank] privilege and stop oppressing me"


[–] greycloud 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

i think copyright infringement is morally justifiable, in fact i think it is copyright laws that are NOT morally justifiable.


[–] Devieus 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

It's plenty justifiable, but not with the direction the Micky Mouse ruling is putting it. But as far as games go, if the devs don't get any cash from it anymore, all bets ought to be off, because then it's just copyright juggling.


[–] SolarBaby 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Copyright infringement was supposed to make sure that someone else couldn't steal the artwork created by your blood, sweat and tears by calling it their own and profiting from it. Or just plain marketing it on their own without giving the creator a cut.

It has been twisted to mean total dominion over a creation even after a copy has been purchased. They turned it into a thing where you are only licensing a copy instead of owning what you bought. That is all bullshit. Nobody cared when people listened to songs "for free" over the radio. It was called promotion. Nobody cared when they played movies on TV. It was promotion and it was good. Nobody cared when people taped radio songs onto cassettes and passed them around. It was good exposure and promotion.

Media creators should see the benefit in not creating mountains of toxic waste in manufacturing a separate CD/tape/LP for everyone on Earth. They should enjoy the free promotion of people listening to music they like and take advantage by offering premium products for true fans, and filling up concert venues for their live shows.

Again, the real crime here is when people steal profit and credit for someone else's hard work. Someone checking something out or enjoying something without paying anyone for it is something any real artist would feel good about and fine with.


[–] Vansen 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Ah, someone with a modicum of civility and common sense.


[–] sozcaps 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Which is rare on Voat? :)