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.
- When the content is no longer available for retail purchase (i.e old games or shows that have been pulled entirely [see Infinity Train])
- You have a physical copy, but want a digital version.
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.
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.
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.
@hoodatninja @majestictechie @vis4valentine @Kushan @charles Isn’t it obvious? They want many players to have all of the content. Which is possible, because content doesn’t run out if one service plays it too much.
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.
All media content under all services.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 >:(
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!”
We’ve all got our lines, mate. That’s the point of this post.
- 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.
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!!
Concerning the first point there is also the case of content getting altered. For example TV shows that switch songs because of licensing.
- Content that you cannot acquire by any “lawful” means.
- Content that you already own a copy of (Yes, this includes “only” having a “license” to it; you own what you own).
- 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)
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.
Content that isn’t legally available in your geographic location
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.
3a. Nintendo.
Doesn’t stuff like childporn fall under category 1?
Lawful content and lawful aquisition are two different things. CSAM is never ethical, doesn’t matter how you aquired it.
That’s one way to self-report.
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.
many, if not most, authors of such papers are more than happy to provide a copy if you were to ask them directly.
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.
Isn’t there an archive site for scientific papers that are freely distributed? I forgot what it was called, should bookmark it.
deleted by creator
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.
When the money goes to people who did not create the media. Support creators, not exploiters.
That’s almost everything.
Correct.
That’s why I pirate almost everything
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
IMO it’s better to not pirate small indie content (mostly games in my case).
Assuming they release on Steam of course
Steam really needs their 30% cut, good you’re here to provide it to them
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
Happy to
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.
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)
Culture should be available to everyone, I agree.
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
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Sure makes sense. I think once kids are involved you pretty much have primacy in 90% of scenarios out the gate.
The only (ethical) reason not to pirate games is indie. But I still buy on Steam/Gog cause its convenient / I don’t risk malware.
Yeah, when the game won’t let you run it in a vm that is sketchy af.
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.
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.
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?
-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
I’ll add to protest a company’s practices.
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 pirateif 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
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.
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
asdfasfsd
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).
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!
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
There should be a way to pay only the workers when you buy something. In that case, you could pay them but only after pirating and making sure you enjoy it. Since there is nothing like that, I think you should pay only content from small creators. Big creators already have plenty, and paying for anything else just gives money to greedy executives who then lower the quality of the content to make more money. Of course, if you have the means and don’t pay anything, you are just making sure there will be less of that content made in the future. It isn’t scalable; if everybody pirated content without paying a single cent, there would be no content made except by hobbyists who don’t want to make a living out of it.
I know someone who’s pirated books and then donated directly to the author or signed up for their Patreon for a few months.
Oh yeah I was thinking more along the lines of video games or movies where there are too many people creating it. For books, etc you can definitely donate.
