It doesn’t matter if it’s a CD, a Film, or manual with the instructions to build a spaceship. If you copy it, the original owner doesn’t lose anything. If you don’t copy it, the only one missing something (the experience) is YOU.

Enjoy!

Of course, if you happen to have some extra money for donations to creators, please do so. If you don’t have that, try contributing with a review somewhere or recommending the content, spread the word. Piracy was shown to drive businesses in several occasions by independent and biased corps (trying to show the opposite).

  • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    What? No. Denying the option to distribute something is not theft.

    Your point about Brand A selling something named a derivative of Brand B makes me think there’s a misunderstanding here. This would fall under the realm of trademark violation, which I wasn’t aware was being discussed.

    if you wrote the “super personal top secret book” and a library somehow got a copy without your permission and made it public, you’d be pissed too and they’d deny your right to distribute or not distribute.

    I’d be pissed that the library somehow stole the physical book from me or that they hacked into my computer and stole the books manuscript file from me, which both would be examples of actual theft. If I sold the library the physical book and an epub version with DRM, the library removed the DRM, then began loaning out the DRM-stripped epub I could potentially be mad, but it certainly would not be because of theft because no theft would have occurred in that scenario.

    • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      They never said it was theft. Its taking away a “right”(CONTROLLING distribution, being able to DENY it to some) that should not BE a “right”. Saying grocers have the right to deny food they were going to throw away to those who would eat it is little different than saying Israel has the right to deny the entry of aid in the form or food and/or medical supplies into Gaza.

      It’s a “right” to FORCE people to starve, and to FORCE others to let them starve. “Right”? Its no such thing.

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        They never said it was theft.

        My bad, you’re right they did not. In the context of the OP and the quote used in the top level reply, “the owner doesn’t lose anything” clearly means “the owner does not lose a physical good or object”.

        Saying grocers have the right to deny food they were going to throw away to those who would eat it is little different than saying Israel has the right to deny the entry of aid in the form or food and/or medical supplies into Gaza.

        It’s a “right” to FORCE people to starve, and to FORCE others to let them starve. “Right”? It’s no such thing.

        Ok, I’m losing the thread here. I’m not really sure what this has to do with piracy or whether piracy constitutes theft at this point. If you’re trying to draw an analogy between two situations I’m just not understanding it.

        • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Not an analogy, a parallel. Israel literally prefers that food be left to rot or dumped at sea rather than reaching “certain” people who need it.