• Chozo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven’t paid for.

    And media costs money to make.

    If I wasn’t going to buy it anyway they haven’t lost anything.

    If you weren’t going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That’s the thing, if you’re interested enough in a product to want it, then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.

    If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you’ve actually cost them resources.

    How do you think scene groups get their materials in the first place? They just find it on a flash drive on a park bench?

    More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do. The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

    • Zworf@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

      The origins of most of all western countries’ wealth comes from theft, full stop.

      More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do.

      That’s only the case for pre-Bluray release content. Most of it was just captured from rips, Amazon Prime or Netflix.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      And media costs money to make.

      But not to copy, which is what you are asserting is being “stolen”. No one is claiming that turnstile jumpers are taking away money from train manufacturers. You’re having to mix analogies, because copying something isn’t theft.

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. The point is that in both examples, somebody is exploiting somebody else’s labor without paying.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          There is no labor in making digital copies.

          You are trying to blur the line between the media/art/music/film, etc, and the reproductions of it.

          Artists do deserve to be paid for their work, but artists do not deserve to maintain ownership over the already-sold assets, nor whatever happens to those assets afterwards (like copies made). If you want to say they should retain commercial rights for reproduction of it, sure, but resell of the originally-sold work (e.g. the mp3 file), and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work? Nah.

          They didn’t put in labor towards that. To say they did expands “labor” far beyond any reasonable definition.

          • Chozo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’re trying to blur the line between what is and what should be. We don’t live in an ideal world.

            • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yup, many people (like you) consider copyright morally okay, and many people (like me) consider copyright infringement morally okay.

              Not an ideal world for either of us, I guess.