1046
Raising prices you say? Oh that's too bad.
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
1046 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
45201 readers
2680 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I pay for a bunch of crap because I split it with my ex, but now I'm waiting for them all to throw a bitch fit over multiple households so I can just go back to the implied activity.
I like paying for things, and have been more accepting than most about price hikes cause I get that servers cost money. Lately though I've been tired of reading about the "pay more as we strip content" strategy everyone is utilizing. The real kicker though is watching people who outright paid for content having it stripped from them.
If purchasing isn't owning, piracy isn't theft. Of course I'm aware of the legal reality of content ownership, but it's still implied that by "purchasing" a title you'll retain access to it. Like on Steam, if something gets pulled but you own it, they still have it tucked away somewhere so you can still download it in the future - They don't just tell you to eat a dick.
Copyright infringement (piracy) has never been theft. The statement about purchasing and ownership gives ground to see creating more of something to be the same as taking something.
Plus you don't own games on steam, you've purchased a license. If you owned them you could resell them.
While I don't particularly see harm coming to a multibillion dollar corporation if someone torrents a 20 year old movie, piracy is still theft in the sense that something with value was had for zero dollars. The "copying vs taking" argument is irrelevant. Whether or not you're being charged for direct ownership of a tangible item, or being charged for a 1 time viewing of an item, circumventing that agreement is still theft.
I don't disagree, but I definitely do not agree fully with your sentiment. "theft" implies a loss to the owner. (and sorry to folks in the other side, "piracy" also implies theft/loss)
So if folks can sit on top of a skyscraper and look into a ball park to watch the game, it's not theft, but they are enjoying something of value without paying for it, and society generally accepts this behavior in that case. But not if you splice your neighbor's cable to watch for free. (is that even still possible?)
Maybe call it, "involuntary gratis"? It implies some harm, but not on the same degree as theft.