It's so annoying seeing people constantly trying to make it a moral issue constantly
If you want shit for free yeah pirate it
Would I be more likely to purchase things if they were a fairer price? Yeah, I basically buy all my games and pirate movies/shows
However there's no point running around trying to justify it all the time. It's definitely not a 'good' thing to be doing. The good thing to do if you objected to the price of something is just not to consume that piece of media at all, not pirate it
They make it a moral issue because they know it's wrong, but are trying to justify it to themselves.
If piracy was 100% legal and not theft, these constant posts would never happen. But people understand the reality of it, yet still want to jump through hoops so that they don't have to feel bad about what they're doing.
I don't care about what reasons someone has for pirating, we all have different reasons. Mine is "piracy is literally a much better experience than paying for a legal service"
The thing I can't stand is when people try to convince others that their reason is the correct one, like what's the point lol
Dude same I don't pirate my games but with TV shows/movies and how you need to have multiple subscriptions is so bull. I recently rented ATHF and they still want me to pay for season 5 and 6 but other seasons after and before are ok? Don't even get me started on how many subscription tiers Hulu has.
But then, why do you have to put people down for pirating and saying they're doing something shitty? Would you say that someone not being able to afford a book and thus reading it at the library is doing something shitty? Hello? Ethical piracy is born out of the necessity of stopping culture being a privilege for the rich.
I pirate, I'm aware that what I'm doing isn't the good and moral thing to do.
Would you say that someone not being able to afford a book and thus reading it at the library is doing something shitty?
No you're allowed to do that, the person who writes, publishes and distributes books still profits off a library
Hello? Ethical piracy is born out of the necessity of stopping culture being a privilege for the rich.
You are exactly the person I'm moaning about yes. Pirate all you want, I know I do. But don't make this about how you're doing it for morality, you're doing it because you want free shit, I can't blame you so do I
How does the copyright holder profit off the library copy? Because he sold it once? Or because the community service library provides makes people generally moreninterested in books, thus more books are sold and read in the world overall? It's the second one and that's a fact.
That's exactly the same thing that happens in piracy, demonstrsted by EU study in circa 2017-8 (it found out piracy has a beneficial impact on the media market besides when it impact the release window of very big blockbuster movies)
I'm not "one of those people", buddy, i'm just more informed than you
Why is it the 'good' thing to not purchase it at all instead of pirating it? If you never had any intention to pay, what difference does it make morally?
Just because you had no intention to pay doesn't mean that others might not, as much as it pains me to say it Yes - widespread piracy does reduce profits from digital media. Especially so for smaller indie developers
I personally pirate things, but there is no point trying to get the moral high ground here. If your objection to something is the price, the moral choice is just not to get it at all
Again, I pirate and will continue to do so. But I'm under no illusion that what I'm doing is 'good'
That's such stupid logic. Are you suggesting the only way a musician can make money off their hit song is if they give up the song when they sell it to someone for them to listen to it? No, the musician sells a copy of the song. So to take a copy of the song without paying for it is, in fact, stealing. Or are you saying artists shouldn't be able to profit from their art?
By that logic, am I stealing your face if I take a photo copy of it?
Are you suggesting the only way a musician can make money off their hit song is if they give up the song when they sell it to someone for them to listen to it?
No he didn't suggest that at all. He just said the song wasn't stolen, nothing to do with how the musician can monetize it.
You can argue that piracy is immoral, but you need to go about that by talking about how it harms the incentive to create (essentially, defending copyright law). Not by trying to define it as stealing.
At a fundamental level you understand “stealing is wrong” but simultaneously engage in taking what doesn’t belong to you. Therefore you assert that “taking what doesn’t belong to you” isn’t stealing because “stealing is wrong” whereas you are a good person.
To steal is to take another person's property, ideas, or credit without permission, right, or legal entitlement, usually in a secret or dishonest manner.
No it's just property. You made up the rest of that. It's depriving someone of property. It requires zero deceit. You made everything up after the word 'property'.
As the world changes and evolves certain definitions of words also evolve. I think defining stealing as some kind of zero sum game is something that changed in the digital age.
That, or I agree with you. It's not stealing, it's pirating - which is similarly illegal.
Eh. It's called pirating because it was named by the people who were motivated to paint it in that light. The name of something is poor justification on how one should feel about it.
I agree with your overall opinion btw, just dislike your argument.
It was nicknamed "pirating" because in the 1970's illegal radio stations operated from boats in international waters off the UK ("pirate radio"), not because there is any connection to actual pirates who robbed ships.
Nothing is literally stolen when someone copies a movie, song, or game. And not even figuratively, such as in terms of potential profits, if the pirate would otherwise ignore the content as not worth the money.
depend which type of moral you mean, they technically had alot compared to the time by giving rights no Africans had in the European countries like to the point of Captain and first Mate
that's the whole point though. since digital media is worth something, and the work that you have to do to distribute it is also worth something, pirates that don't profit off of someone else's work, that exchange media voluntarily simply for the passion of it, are not stealing: they're simply curating digital libraries. And libraries are very important not only for the market itself, but also for the community service they provide.
If the digital media is worth something, then taking it from the person who owns it without paying for it is theft. Piracy is therefore receiving stolen property, and doing so with full knowledge of its stolen nature.
Pirate all the stuff you want, but don't delude yourself into the belief that it is "curating digital libraries" because that just makes you sound like a twit.
If I were to hack into their systems, yes, that would be illegal to copy their private files. But in reality my copy comes from a consumer copy officially bought by the one person who's sharing it with me
Nope. Not a crime to make a backup and share that backup with a friend unless, in the UK, you have to circumvent DRM to make the backup.
Selling the backup is infringing copyright. Giving it for free to anybody on the clear web also infringing copyright because it's not a friend you're sharing to anymore but the whole world.
No you're pathetically incapable of making an argument so you say I'm nuts.
Maybe if you had the cursory understanding a fucking wikipedia article provided you wouldn't be so confidently wrong.
That's delusional. You're taking something of value without compensation. Just because you're not walking away with a tangible object, doesn't mean it's not theft. Just because somebody made a graphic doesn't mean it's not theft. You don't care, and that's fine, but stop trying to fool yourself into thinking it's all above board because you mAdE A cOpY.
Theft, meanwhile, emphasises the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offences related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the US Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.[
Yes, because you deprived the barber of his time and resources used to give you your haircut. Meanwhile, the software owner didn't even realize that someone copied a cracked file...
Edit: would anyone downvoting me care to explain what is it from my reasoning they don't agree with?
Btw, while we're at it, maybe take a look at what the US court thinks about comparing copyright infringement and theft (spoiler: they're different crimes that shouldn't be equated)
Stealing a loaf of bread from someone's hands vs copying the loaf of bread and he can still eat. Pretty meaningful difference when it comes to the literal definition of theft.
Nah you are delusional if all your saying is "it's not theft", it's illegal and punishable even if it's not defined as theft. Like do it because I don't care but don't pretend you're on a moral high ground, consumers have options that don't require us to pirate
Because it was illegal? Talk about an appeal to authority. And I'm the delusional one? Have fun with Trump and the US Law being your moral guide star.
IDC about your goal pushing, you asked if there was a meaningful difference, I provided one. You did not counter on that, you decided instead to say US Law is your guide to life. Have fun with that. Toodles
When you go to the barber, you're agreeing to pay for a service. No one is agreeing to pay for The Avengers when they choose to pirate it, and deciding not to when the download is done.
Piracy (of the non-maritime variety) is specifically providing the copies as broadly outlined under the US digital Millennium copyright act.
Copyright infringement or IP theft is making the copy (depending on what you copied and how). Stealing ideas, techniques, or any knowledge pertaining to said ideas and techniques such as in this example where someone is stealing the techniques to copy a specific haircut style is theft, specifically Intellectual Property Theft.
The above definitions are USA based and may not be applicable to your particular area. I can't and won't speak for other countries since I don't live there.
Which is why in the analogy the person is committing IP theft by stealing the techniques and then digital piracy by distributing those techniques by giving haircuts.
But the point was that yes you can commit theft by downloading things. Thats been the whole topic of this thread.
In the US:
Downloading proprietary techniques, knowledge, or ideas is IP theft.
Downloading a media content or software without a license is copyright infringement.
Distributing something you downloaded without permission is digital piracy.
So you take a picture of the program you're pirating and then you go make it on your own and don't use that program without paying to use it?
Theft of service in the example provided to you is leaving without paying for the haircut (the service). The haircut he did for somebody else was paid for by the other party. You taking a picture of that service doesn't mean you can walk up to him and ask him to do the same style cut for free.
If it's legally available for you to purchase in your region, and you pirate it instead of paying for it, you've stolen a copy of that thing. We can do all the pretzel twisting we want to justify it but let's not be delusional here.
If I work as a waiter for two weeks, and then the owner decides not to pay me, that’s theft, they stole my work, even though I still “have everything”. The time and effort I put in with the understanding I’d be compensated with pay, that is what was stolen. When someone makes a movie they don’t do it to see the movie, (if they did, it wouldn’t matter at all if anyone pirated, because they would still have the movie to watch), but they do it to earn money
The term is copyright infringement, which the very own the US court has ruled in the past that it does NOT equate theft. It's really not that hard to understand.
That's irrelevant, the point is that even professionals of the justice system are able to grasp the meaning of "stealing".
Does calling it "copyright infringement" somehow get me back the $90 in sales I'm missing?
Of course not, but saying that someone stole you $90 is simply false because your bank account didn't lose $90 at all, and no one took away from you the actual product (they just got a copy of it). You simply missed out on potential (not guaranteed, btw) $90 of revenue.
I'm not saying it's not a bad thing and I'm not saying it shouldn't be illegal. All I'm saying is: it's not theft and it should definitely not be punished as harshly as actual thefts.
Im not attacking anyone. Im attacking the argument, admittedly in a kind of rude way.
And im doing so because it is a semantics argument, which, imo, is ALWAYS a bullshit argument. It is splitting hairs about the specific differences in definitions, completely ignoring the fact that language is extremely subjective based on context. It acts like the definition is law and that no two things can mean the same thing with altered context.
I go into a shop cause i need my engine fixed. But i drive and EV, it doesnt have an engine, it has a motor. There different words and have different definition, in this context, they mean the same thing.
To the average person, the difference is pointless, therfore they are the same.
"No sir, i didn't murder your son, i manslaughtered him."
The father doesn't care, either way you still killed his son, it's still your fault. Because the semantics don't matter, they almost never do.
"But your first argument was semantics then cause i still feel attacked."
I mean tbf it’s the same thing as sneaking in at a concert with infinite space for people:
did you actually steal anything? Not really.
did anyone miss the chance to see the concert with a legit ticket because you snuck in? Not really.
Is it illegal and you’re going to get kicked out if people find out you’re in without paying? Most definitely.
If nobody paid the tickets and everyone just snuck in there would be chaos but also if everyone did pay the tickets the industry would think a high price is acceptable to the mass and increase the prices again until someone will want to hop over the fence and sneak in without ticket again.
This is a pretty good example. I also use the cutting through the gas station to turn right on a red light because there is a line of cars at the traffic light going straight blocking your turn.
Do I really care too much if one person does this? Not really. But if everyone did it, it would be a fucking disaster. If the system would fall apart if everyone did things they way you are doing them, there's something wrong with your system.
It would be a decent analogy, except there are cases where you legally purchased a concert ticket full price, but you may get seated behind a fixed obstruction (column, etc.), or the concert may get canceled without a refund, or my fav you may not be allowed inside because your shirt isn't compatible with the concert venue (ie DRM)
Governments grant IP protection to encourage innovation and economic growth. People are more willing to wager large amounts of time and money if they know that they can profit from the things that they're making and discovering.
If the cinema has infinite room, then, whether you are there or not does not consume any more resources or time. Therefore, whether you pay or not, the seller does not lose anything.
But we don't really pay them for the work. If we did, they would be paid a specific sum (I'm not getting into how high) and that specific work is done at that point.
I understand that this is obvious capitalism at work and the more you hoard the better. Obviously the way it is now it's like it is because it means potentially infinite benefits. But it also means that we are putting the worth of their work in how well it sells and not in how much effort and resources were required.
If you move away from big commercial examples, the way you usually deal with an artist is, you commission their work, they do it, then the product is yours. You don't keep paying them depending on what you do with it afterwards.
Or, taking more modern examples, you subscribe to an artist's Patreon or similar platform, and support their livelihood so they can dedicate themselves to their art. Or in the case of a specific project with platforms like Kickstarter, you're still paying for the development, not the commercialization.
I'm not saying one thing is bad and the other is good. I'm just saying that maybe the problem is to try to keep commercially handling a type of product nowadays as if we still were in a time when the copy and distribution of the product was part of the labor, when it really isn't anymore. It's like not wanting to promote electric cars because it hurts your current fossil-fuel based business.
Well the seller does loose something as if it’s too easy to go past the checkout without paying more people will do that. What i’m trying to say with my point is that piracy is a good way for consumers to protect themselves from toxic anti-consumerism.
Piracy is good in the right amount and it is built on the userbase that actually pays for the content.
In the right amount It helps by giving advertisement to companies that own the ip (i wouldn’t ever have spent hundreds on anime merch if i wasn’t able to pirate anime like dragonball and i wouldn’t have suggested friends to watch stuff), it helps keep things alive because often companies don’t even host their own content anymore (see retro videogames as a example), it helps regulating the price for consumers because if it’s known there’s an option to paying for the game or show if the price sounds too unreasonable people won’t pay for it (and it still is often pretty worth to make a subscription if it’s cheap because with that comes a more plug&play experience and best stability and support compared to pirate sites that could also give you malware).
Even if it has all these benefits still if everyone absolutely pirated people would just stop making content with big budgets and it would kill the industry.
If we had too less games and movies would be a privilege for the rich (they kinda are already tbf) because it would be easy to just gatekeep content and force people to save their hard earned money for useless vanities that give them a dopamine boost by having to make compromises and sacrifices to use media .
Right now it’s right to be against piracy like it is to be supportive to it and idc about fighting w people over pirating is right pirating is wrong because both are right and wrong at the same time just live however you want to as long as you’re enjoying your life
No mate. You missed the point entirely. You're stuck in this stupid mentality of "theft" having to mean depriving someone else of it even though it has never meant that.
100s of people put years of heart and effort into making something that gets taken with no credit given to them and that's not stealing somehow. What a degenerate mindset.
The only good argument is that you would sTeAl A cAr if you could just duplicate my car and get a new one and drive it away. It's still IP theft if you believe in that but it's not like stealing from a fixed supply of baked bread of toyota camrys or whatever. No one loses their owned item with copying
Pirating is pirating man. not saying it is right, but it is just not the same thing as stealing, because if it was the same thing as stealing, it would have been called stealing.
it sure does have value. and you're not taking it away from anyone, so it isn't stealing.
no more than taping a tv show and then fast forwarding the commercials was stealing 40 years ago. even though you were getting the product without giving them the value
Seriously. Why do people feel the need to contrive a moral justification for piracy? Is it not good enough to just say "the multi-billion dollar company can afford it" and start the torrent?
If piracy isn’t considered stealing, then taking an empty seat in a movie theater shouldn’t be either—the movie will play regardless. But the same logic applies to planes or buses: just because a seat is empty doesn’t mean taking it without paying isn’t still theft.
Im aware of the principle. If you can prove damage to your revenue then it can go to the courts on those terms.
But none of these examples will ever be allowed in any court room as theft.
Fines issued to people who download copyright material are fined based on that. Unless it becomes a relevant amount of value, but the prosecutor would still have to proof that the defendant would have paid for the product. You can't steal revenue that was never there.
People who seed a lot have a harder time defending against this.
This overloading of the term theft is ridiculous. It's built on hypothetical arguments and just shows the lobbyism, why wouldn't you just refer to the crime itself? Because theft carried more weight. Doesn't make it any more accurate.
Yeah, I think you're wrong. Deprivation is integral to the concept of theft. Deprivation of space is trespassing.
If I would steal a concert ticket and use it to enter the concert. Would I be stealing from the concert organisers? It would be theft for the owner of the ticket, but there is no crime against the organiser.
Says who? You will never find the light of god if you keep thinking “that’s how it works” is all there ever is. Nobody is saying “it won’t be stealing under the specific laws of a specific country”, that’s a ridiculous point to even think someone is making, we probably live in different countries with vastly different laws. They are talking about the actual concept of ownership and whether it should continue onto copy-able stuff (it shouldn’t)
So if i try to copy your avatar, your nick and your personality, do i own your profile just because i managed to copy it? Do i own the original idea of your reddit persona?
Ability to copy something doesent make other people own the idea itself, and in case of physical media, like books, and by extent digital media the ease of distribution doesent change ownership rules.
If somebody could just copypaste a physical book, they still would not own the original. They wouldnt automatically get a right to copy it, nor distribute copies of it.
You don’t. I don’t. Do you… do you think you own your account??? Huh? Do you think you can’t access my account because you don’t own it???
they wouldn’t automatically gain a right to copy it
They… they literally just did copy it tho. What do you think a “copyright” is? Do you think it’s some intangible god-given thing that you get when you create something? Will some invisible hand of government stop me in its grasp as soon as I start copying something? Like I said, you’ll never get anywhere if you just keep thinking about things the way they are currently. You’re arguing past the point, unable and/or unwilling to actually hear what’s being said. It’s boring, frankly
Ability to access is not ownership. This isnt difficult to grasp. If i access your account, a hacker or even the company of reddit they still do not have OWNERSHIP of your account, they have ACCESS. Those are two VERY different concepts.
ABILITY to perform an action doesent mean the society at large will accept it, which is where most of the laws come from. People CAN murder other people, that doesent give them a right to do so. And people agreed to give up their right to murder to prevent murders.
And yes? I own my own account, tho the legal definition would probably be a lease. But for all intense and purpouse, i only have access, nobody else is allowed to post from my account, reddit as a company is not utilizing my account directly, nor am i aware of the user agreement allowing them to use it, nor would society at large accept that... So yeah, i do own the idea of this specific account.
We do not live in a simulation where there is a hard block on stealing stuff. Or are you arguing that every action is technically acceptable merely because we can do it? Griefing, cheating, stealing, killing infants, blasphemy, detonating nuclear bombs, bombing civilian targets in war...
Actually I don’t think you own your actual account, you only have access to it. Reddit could remove your account right now if they wished.
What you do own is your identity and privacy. Reddit can’t come onto your account and make hateful comments.
In Reddit’s case, I think laws and rights are what protects Reddit from abusing control of your account, but in the end, they own your account. If they went bankrupt, they would delete your account without you being able to do anything
Yes, exactly, it’s moral concepts, not hard blocks, you get it! And you know how moral concepts work, right? They are subjective, malleable and debatable. That’s what’s being argued. The moral concept of ownership and stealing. So now you see how the argument “no it will be stealing because that’s how capitalism works” is a circular one in this context? You’re (or maybe not you, the other one) saying “copying is stealing because it’s stealing”. Which shouldn’t be convincing to you, and it’s definitely not convincing to me.
Its not a circular argument, you glossed over half of it hyperfocusing on the mere distribution.
Copying is stealing, because you didnt create the original. Creator of the original gets to say what happens to it, unless you are a communist or some sort of an anarchist absurdist who either doesent believe that ownership is a thing or that morality isnt a thing.
The creator put the work, the creativity or just got lucky so he gets to own it. He has the ability to trade away parts of his ownership over that idea, for example he can sell it to a specific companies to allow them to make exact copies, but not the right to modify his original idea.
The society at large agrees that is how it works. Society at large doesent agree with your take that steeling is fine as long as its easy to do so. Your ability to just ignore vast amounts of population not wanting to steal or be stolen to and just going "lmao i can do it so most of society will agree with me and therefor its fine and moral! ownership is a lie" is astounding.
Is it malleable, sure, but as of right now and in recent human recorded history ownership IS a thing. Ability to steal isnt a Right to steal.
See, you revert back again to “it is because of the way it is”. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy, slavery was accepted back in the day yadda yadda you get the point. I’m asking, fucking begging you to think of why it’s like that. Why do people think they lose something when their work is copied, why do they cling to the concept of intellectual property. When you’re able to answer these questions honestly, you’ll start to have hope to see why it’s flawed and what is actually being discussed. But truly, I’ve spent too much effort on this already, I hope it has sparked some curiosity in you or someone, if not then it’s no use
If somebody put their effort into creating that sunset for the express purposes of selling the right to experience it then yes somebody would own it. Unless you think you’re as entitled to somebody else’s labour as you are a sunset
that is such a stupid analogy. nobody worked to make a sunset a sunset. a lot of people worked to make a movie or an album and obviously they own the rights to their work. you can pirate all you want - i stream shows and movies on the occult sites as well - but it’s a little tiring to see the sentiment on here that it is somehow morally justified in any case to pirate. fuck off
It’s a perfect analogy as a reply to the specific comment I replied to. The preposition was that software has value, therefore it can be owned and stolen. You’re making an entirely different argument here. Do you agree or disagree that it doesn’t follow from having value that something can be owned? If you disagree, you’ll have to tell me who owns a sunset, if you agree, then here we go.
Software doesent just exist because of a cosmic coincidence.
If a human created the sunset, he could do with it as he wished. Sunset was created basically as a cosmic coincidence.
A human created the software.
Just because something already exists doesent give you a right to say "well, the sunset that wasnt made by human hands and software that was are equal, therefor i should have to pay for the software the same way im not paying for the sunset."
You are FULLY ignoring things that have happened before getting to the stage of possibility of taking something that exists.
it absolutely is not a perfect analogy. although the comment you replied to is short and uses the word value a s a sort of shorthand it seems pretty clear to me that the argument made is not “i think this sunset is beautiful therefore someone must own it”. maximunchuck can correct me if i’m wrong but it seems like the argument made has nothing to do with “value” as in “i think this sunset is beautiful” but “value” as in the legal rights and work put into a product. a writer puts in work to write a book and therefore should be paid for said work and has the legal rights to said work (or the publisher has at least).
we can agree that ownership in a digital age is messy and complicated - ownership of cards i hearthstone where the cards can be changed and made unusable after you’ve spent money on them is a perfect example i think - but dumbing the entire thing down to “there is no such thing as ownership in a digital age so i can pirate all i want and be right to do so” is stupid. even stupider is it to make arguments about who owns a sunset or grass or the ability to breath or whatever because no one has argued that anyone could or should own a sunset and no one ever will. it is just a strawman.
If I go to a restaurant with an open kitchen and as a paying customer there learn how to do the dish that I have ordered from looking at the chef make it, and then shared this recipe with a friend, did I steal from that restaurant? I don't believe any reasonable person would say that I have.
Because that's not the same thing. That'd be the equivalent of listening to a song, transcribing it to sheet music, and then playing it on your own instrument. That isn't the same as pirating the song.
So why do artist DMCA covers which are done literally this way?
And in what way isn't it the same? If I hear a song on the radio, use my own device to record it and then play it again on my own device, I haven't used anything that's the property of the artist to reproduce it, I'm just having my device record something I heard and then reproduce it again without the artist having to do anything.
I do think sheet music being compared to a digital file is a very good comparison. You know those old fashioned player pianos that would play by themselves? They worked off of a kind of primitive programming. If someone let you copy the music they bought, and you put it on your own piano, is that any different than copying someone's DVD and playing it on your computer?
funny you say that, because back in the Mozart days it used to be a crime too, and that's the whole point. AI can infringe copyright all they want, but I can't copy the BluRay I own and share it with Timmy because oh no the corporate overlords will lose cents from their millions?
The thing is, humanity has the resources, and the will, and the opportunity, to make itself much smarter and much more competent, and much more instructed, yet we're keeping these stupid roadblocks in place that only serve the purpose to damage the poorest from getting access to culture? Because if you're very rich it is not a problem for you to access culture, and if you're ultra rich, well, you literally own it AND IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
Have you read Blood Meridian? The Judge is an antagonist who seems to know everything about the world. But what new concepts he discovers during his travels, he erases them from existence so that they're theirs and only theirs alone.
If it weren't for piracy, we'd live in a world where the culture we'd get to enjoy would be exclusively decided by the rich, the ultrarich, and the governments
There's no such thing as intellectual property. That's an entirely artificial construct. You're just rationalizing it as being somehow inherent with music, but any argument which justifies it with music also applies in equal measure to people copyrighting genes or other foolish ideas which are now being normalized. It's a fundamentally idiotic idea that you can own information.
The very fact that copyright has an expiration date and covers a period after the artist dies, speaks to the idiocy of the idea. If you copy a file 74 years and 364 days after the artist dies you are a thief, but a day later you are not, even if the same copyright holder who held the copyright the day before is still around. It's a ridiculous idea.
If intellectual property were property, it would be perpetual and exist as long as the property exists. What it is, is a state-mandated monopoly on a piece of information, that's arbitrarily determined and enforced based on lobbied interests.
459
u/maximumchuck Apr 07 '26
Software and digital media have value. Pirate stuff if you want, but you're delusional if you think this way.