It’s not theft, because it doesn’t deprive the original owner of anything.
But if it did, theft from billionaire hollywood studio owners is cool and good.
You’re not paying the wages of the hollywood workers, you’re just increasing the funds the studios have to break the worker’s strikes and further depress their conditions.
What’s legal is not necessarily what’s moral, and there’s nothing immoral about freely procuring an infinitely replicable digital product. If anything, it’s immoral to enclose upon them and charge rents for them. No better than landlords, the big streaming companies, save for the fact that entertainment isn’t vital for living.
I’m quite aware there’s some silly laws written by those same billionaire’s lobbies and passed by their politicians.
Copying something is quite obviously not stealing from someone.
But again, stealing back some of the wealth the billionaires have stolen from us is morally good. If you’re not stealing from them, you’re stealing from your family to support your family’s further deprivation.
It’s not theft, because it doesn’t deprive the original owner of anything.
That’s not how theft works. It’s called intellectual property. You are depriving the creator of compensation for the work they have dedicated resources to producing.
If it wasn’t, no one would ever develop any kind of software or scientific research or write a book or produce any kind of intangible work whatsoever.
This is complete nonsense fabricated by entitled children and it is exhausting.
theft from billionaire hollywood studio owners is cool and good.
You can justify it however you want. That’s what any criminal does. It doesn’t make it not theft.
Not so. The people who actually produce media (actors, writers, production crew) rarely if ever see fair compensation or residuals for their work. The only people you’re stealing from are the people who already stole the value that the actual creators generated, i.e. the studio. And in my opinion, you can’t rob a thief anyway.
This logic doesn’t hold with smaller and/or independent projects, which even the saltiest pirates acknowledge should be payed for in the usual manner.
Edit: Your point about compensation doesn’t even have a completely factual basis. Numerous scientific and medical advancements throughout history have been produced without compensation, often because their creators intentionally declined to profit from them. Sir Banting is a favored example around here; he was one of the first to synthesize insulin, and he and his colleagues opted not to patent it so that it would be as widely available as possible.
who the fuck pays to watch ads. what a ludicrous proposition. that’s the part that makes no sense to me.
People used to do it with cable TV. It cost a fortune and was full of ads.
No one pays to watch ads. They pay to watch movies and shows, which are (optionally) supplemented in cost by ads.
But you can watch those movies and shows for free. The only part you’re paying for are the ads.
…what are you talking about? No it’s not.
I assure you all movies and TV shows are absolutely free to the end user should they so choose
There are many things that are free if you just ignore the law. Cars are free. Groceries are free. People’s wallets are free!
I’m downloading a car right now
You mean should they choose to steal them? No shit, everything is free if you steal it. Not everyone wants to be a thief.
It’s not theft, because it doesn’t deprive the original owner of anything.
But if it did, theft from billionaire hollywood studio owners is cool and good.
You’re not paying the wages of the hollywood workers, you’re just increasing the funds the studios have to break the worker’s strikes and further depress their conditions.
It’s legally theft. You can try as much mental gymnastics as you want to try and convince yourself you’re not breaking the law, but you are.
It’s probably the most victimless theft that there is, but it’s still theft.
What’s legal is not necessarily what’s moral, and there’s nothing immoral about freely procuring an infinitely replicable digital product. If anything, it’s immoral to enclose upon them and charge rents for them. No better than landlords, the big streaming companies, save for the fact that entertainment isn’t vital for living.
I’m quite aware there’s some silly laws written by those same billionaire’s lobbies and passed by their politicians.
Copying something is quite obviously not stealing from someone.
But again, stealing back some of the wealth the billionaires have stolen from us is morally good. If you’re not stealing from them, you’re stealing from your family to support your family’s further deprivation.
That’s not how theft works. It’s called intellectual property. You are depriving the creator of compensation for the work they have dedicated resources to producing.
If it wasn’t, no one would ever develop any kind of software or scientific research or write a book or produce any kind of intangible work whatsoever.
This is complete nonsense fabricated by entitled children and it is exhausting.
You can justify it however you want. That’s what any criminal does. It doesn’t make it not theft.
Open source software developers, fan translators, emulation developers, etc.: lol.
Not so. The people who actually produce media (actors, writers, production crew) rarely if ever see fair compensation or residuals for their work. The only people you’re stealing from are the people who already stole the value that the actual creators generated, i.e. the studio. And in my opinion, you can’t rob a thief anyway.
This logic doesn’t hold with smaller and/or independent projects, which even the saltiest pirates acknowledge should be payed for in the usual manner.
Edit: Your point about compensation doesn’t even have a completely factual basis. Numerous scientific and medical advancements throughout history have been produced without compensation, often because their creators intentionally declined to profit from them. Sir Banting is a favored example around here; he was one of the first to synthesize insulin, and he and his colleagues opted not to patent it so that it would be as widely available as possible.
deleted by creator