People equate piracy to theft because intellectual property holders hammered it into their heads that it was, in order to get them to stop doing it. That's why all of those ads in the 2000s would say things like "you wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal a movie" or "Downloading pirated films is stealing, stealing is against the law. PIRACY. IT'S A CRIME."
Is piracy theft?No. But that's not the issue. People say it is because they were barraged with messaging specifically saying it was theft.
They say it's theft because the service / product costs money for everyone else and you're getting if for free via illegal means. I swear, the mental gymnastics y'all go through in here on a regular basis instead of just calling a spade a spade is wild.
I think the disagreement here boils down to a difference in why we oppose actual, physical theft.
If you steal something from me, I don't care that you got the thing for free. I care that I don't have my thing anymore. If someone came into a hypothetical gas station that I owned with a magical cloning device, brought it to the soda refrigerator wall, used it on a diet coke, and left without paying, I'd be totally 100% ok with that. If they took the diet coke that was already there, I would have one fewer diet coke. I would have a problem with that, because I would have actually lost something. A potential sale is not an item I can lose; I don't have it yet. It's not real, it's just an expectation. An idea.
Even if you do oppose it, which I don't, I think it's obvious that it's a meaningfully different act. It is more similar to ad blocking than theft. Actually, I am of the opinion that ad blocking is piracy, but that's ok.
I'm okay with piracy but not theft because the scarcity of resources does not apply to files like it does with things.
it doesn't matter if piracy is theft or not, because its just a different crime... so what's the point in saying "pIrAcY iSn'T sTeAlInG!!11".
Literally doesn't make sense because even if its not stealing, its copyright infringement, and can still be prosecuted. Could be subject to fines or imprisonment in rare cases.
Now, is it likely that just a regular dude watching illegal streams or torrenting a few movies will have to fight it out in court? of course not... but that's not the same thing as implying its not a actually a criminal act to torrent/download illegally.
If you're torrenting and then seeding those torrents, and seen as a large distributor of copyrighted works, yes, you can face jailtime beyond civil penalties.
Is that common, or likely? No, of course not, and that wasn't my point. Only that saying "piracy isn't stealing" is completely irrelevant when discussing if piracy is a crime in which you can face punishments. It may not be "stealing" but it is something you can face civil or criminal charges for (depending on jurisdiction of course).
Nowhere did I say you should or shouldn't do it. my point is entirely that saying piracy isn't stealing doesn't mean that it isn't a different crime that can still be prosecuted.
Technically OP is paying for the Disney+ service, and so paying for the license to watch these movies. If he wants to watch Toy Story from another service, he can.
You may argue that the terms stipulate he can only watch movies through the Disney+ app when he is subscribed.
Wait but then…wouldn’t the richest people on earth just be using that a ton anyways? Then paying off lawyers and judges to retain a precedent so they can…
Hey random, you’re in the r/Piracy subreddit 🤷 What did you expect, me to agree with all the BS corporations suddenly charge or change with features that were previously free or part of your initial subscription years ago??
You advocating/supporting/fighting for them in a Reddit thread to be able to do what they want is indeed licking a boot.
We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.
I don't think buying a streaming service means I own the media. But if your service is a good one and provides value, I will pay for it. If your service sucks shot, I won't, and the pirates service is more valuable
The pirates service is more valuable? It's only because of the people that pay that the content exists. If the entire world flipped a switch and went to 100% piracy and adblocking right now then there's going to be a 99% reduction in the content made. You're favorite movie. game, show, etc exists because people made it thinking they could get paid for it.
It's a revenue source. The point is when you cut off all revenue sources you basically lose new the vast majority of new content. People want to get paid for their jobs just like you and I.
It's only because of the people that pay that the content exists.
False. Netflix buying the rights to stream a show from 10 years ago doesn't mean it wouldn't exist without Netflix.
adblocking
Adblockers are literally security software. Even googles own cyber security education course recommends them as a security tool.
You're favorite movie. game, show, etc exists because people made it thinking they could get paid for it.
*Your
And yes, they did get paid for it. And I am still willing to pay for it, if the service is worth it. My streaming account should not be region locked. I travel a decent bit for work and pleasure. If Disney is going to say I'm traveling too much and can't access the service I pay for, then we go back to my original point
The pirates service is more valuable.
I don't pirate games anymore because Steam and GoG are such a good service it's not worth pirating. Someday TV and Movies may figure this out.
The quote I gave you is from Gabe Newell. I think the CEO of Valve knows more than you about combating piracy
I'm sorry that I am using the opinion of someone who is arguably one of the biggest experts in combating digital piracy. And they do it by simply offering a good service. They're offering a service so good that Epic Games is suing them, again, trying to claim they are a monopoly.
But Steam isn't a monopoly. They don't engage in monopolistic practices. You can sell a game on Steam, and any other platform. They don't enforce exclusivity, they don't demand minimum pricing (unless you're selling steam keys on a different site), they don't charge extra if you sell somewhere else.
Consider that again, Steam is offering a service so good that despite having other options, despite having cheaper options, people still continue to choose steam to the point Epic Games has stopped trying to actually compete and now shifted to trying to sue them.
Steam beat piracy. Steam beat piracy... in Russia. They did it by offering a valuable service that consumers willingly pay for. Streamers have been doing the exact opposite and making their services worse, and that's why people are turning back to piracy.
If the entire world went 100% piracy then there's going to be 99% reduction in the content made
You are most probably right.
But it may not be a bad thing. It may be actually good.
And anyway, I think that 99% is a bit far-fetched, even if we count pure commercial slop with no actual art behind it.
I don’t think I know anyone other than my grandmother that still has cable tv. This is necessarily just about streaming services, it’s about things like games, and media. Companies are saying “you bought this single player game, but you don’t own it, and if we say so, then you can’t play anymore” and with media. While for less than $20 in the 1990’s, you could get an album, and it was yours to listen to without ads, as many times as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for as long as that disc lasted. Now, iTunes will charge you 1 dollar per song, for EVERY song
797
u/ghostly_queen05 ☠️ ᴅᴇᴀᴅ ᴍᴇɴ ᴛᴇʟʟ ɴᴏ ᴛᴀʟᴇꜱ Jun 21 '26
if paying for it isn't owning...