If buying is not owning, copying is not stealing. Simple as that.
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
I can't find it now, but there was that one text post that went something like "1. Copying a movie costs the studio money, 2. Download a movie, 3. Make 1000 copies, 4. Studio goes bankrupt"
I saw one where it went:
- Publish a copyrighted work
- Sell it for 10 bucks
- Have a friend pirate it 100 million times
- Declare bankruptcy
- Have the friend delete his copies
- You're a billionaire now
Trolls ripped me a new one for saying that. I hope they wont do the same to you. But yes I agree.
If your business model needs undercover advocates to fake grassroots legitimacy you may have a problem.
Those Ads at the beginning of legitimate copies of DVDS and movies, really bugged me, like why are you annoying the people who actually bought the product!? Also the people downloading stuff online seemed cool in those videos so I think the ads had the opposite effect a lot of the time.
Plus they come off like those ridiculous anti-drug ads that make it seem like a single puff of weed will make you shoot your friend in the face and run your dog over. They're just way over the top to the point that they're comical and easy to mock.
We are cool get in it with us chud.
I don't really understand the gender difference thing, because I would think that in general it comes down to understanding what "ownership" is and that it has been taken from us, replaced with "licensing" where we have to buy the same movie every 10 years on a new format, and now that streaming is THE format, companies have made The Producers real, where they can make a whole movie, shitcan it, and get a tax break. We're dealing with items we've paid for being removed from our digital storage boxes, because the "rights ran out." It's wild, because it used to be that you bought a movie and it didn't matter that the rights ran out you could still watch your fucking movie in your own home. Same for old video games. If you have old copies of Grand Theft Auto, you can still listen to the great soundtrack, because they hadn't stripped the music they lost licensing for out of the new copies.
I mean, going back to when the music companies were suing music fans for downloading music, the RIAA sued Limewire for so much that if the max payout was given to every rightsholder for all the piracy going on, that it would be a bill larger than the amount of money that actually existed.[^1]
When the fines for all piracy that exists would be bigger than the amount of money that exists, its clear that the system is fucking broken and has been.
Nobody respects copyright, and that started when Disney fucked us all over with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act in the 1990's.
The rightsholders did this to themselves by making it increasingly draconian.
When cops are playing copyrighted music when they're being filmed so people can't post it online without it being auto-removed for having copyrighted music in it, things are flat out fucked and everybody knows it.
It's akin to living the end stages of the Soviet Union with Hypernormalization. Everything is totally fucked, but everyone is running around trying to pretend that nothing has changed and everything is fine.
For citizens who get nothing but working themselves to death and taxes that do nothing for them, piracy is one of those small "fuck you"'s that we can give to the rich.
[^1]: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) estimates that filesharing website LimeWire owes it over $72 trillion dollars (£46 trillion) in damages. ... Given that the combined wealth of the entire planet is around $60 trillion (£38 trillion), the RIAA likely has no hope of securing this in damages, but believe this is what it is owed, reports Computerworld.com."
Indeed. Piracy is good because it is preservation
We only started pirating after Amazon refused to let us play movies we paid for because our hardware was too old for their DRM. It was a 2014 PC made of recycled parts. At the time, it was less than 10 years old. We pirated the same movie and realized it was easier to find, higher quality, and surprise, surprise, capable of playing on a PC we kept out of the landfill.
When I see anti piracy measures that punish people that don't pirate, such as massive performance hits or privacy violating features, it makes me want to pirate more.
It poses a significant challenge to creative economies worldwide, costing industries billions annually.
Other studies found, that piracy actually increases sales, offsetting the (always oversestimated) loss of revenue.
So, no, that's a lie.
The real challenge to creative economies are the billionaires sucking all the profit from album sales or deleting television shows from the face of the earth for a tax writeoff.
Piracy is a service issue. Give people the option to stream all of their media with an option to download for the nerds, and sell it at a reasonable price, you will hurt piracy. Splintering all media up into a thousand streaming services and implementing black box licensing agreements is what pushes people to piracy.
Also, the number of seeds are a good measure for popularity of media that one might not had in their radar at all. Meanwhile, platforms try to push all sort of content only because they produced it, recommendation algorithms are needed (and insufficient), because there a huge load of crap being produced at such a high rate...
You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then STEAL IT AGAIN!
Username checks out and I have officially read all your comments in Richard Ayoade's voice.
People who bought the movie seeing anti-piracy ads: 🤡
People who pirated the movie not seeing anti-piracy ads because they've been cut out: 😎
I remember the commercials "Piracy is not a victimless crime" pissed me off so hard, and drove me to download much more than I otherwise would have
"oh, right. If I had just pirated this my content wouldn't be delayed by these stupid piracy warnings."
Sony lost any moral high ground when they put a commercial for a Toyota on my Blu-ray of 1408 which retailed for $35 at the time. And of course, you can't skip it.
That reminded me about those long, unskippable previews on DVDs... extremely annoying. VLC at least could skip straight to the disc menu though, pretty much ditched Windows Media Player and PowerDVD after that.
Now here I am on the high seas, with all my media consumption devices running some flavor of Linux. Have not had a single annoyance since.
I have two hypotheses to explain the gender gap.
1. The effectiveness of the threats is inversely proportional to the tech expertise of the person being threatened. And your typical woman knows less about files, piracy, internet and the likes than your typical man.
If this hypothesis is true, then splitting cohorts based on tech expertise should show a smaller gap between men and women.
2. Society trains women and men to react differently to threat. In simple words: men are expected by society to fight back, while women are expected to passively accept the threat and play along.
If this hypothesis is true, you should be able to see and measure the different answers in other situations that don't involve piracy.
With that said, "perhaps" those anti-piracy messages would be more effective if they didn't rely on bullshit, to the point that sounds a lot like "I expect the viewers of this message to be both tech-illiterate and gullible".
I’m suspicious of the idea that women respond favorably to those notices.
“You wouldn’t download a car…”
Women: Gee, officer, that’s a good point.
Riiiiiiight…
Yeah, proper cohort attribution seems to be a little lacking by this data analyst. I'd say gender bias has already occured before your specific sample point... bro
No shit. How have they not figured this out 15 years ago when every DVD had non-skippable anti-piracy messages?
The conclusion doesn't follow the study.
Threatening messages decrease piracy by women by over 50%, while increasing piracy by men by 18%.
So, unless there are three times as many male pirates as female, those messages are effective at reducing piracy.
It's actually advertising. "Ha, that's right, I can just clone the files."
Fuck you I won't do what you tell me.
Now you do what they told ya... now you're under control
Men. 🏴☠️
I actually spent time on ripping the 'you wouldn't steal...' video from the first DVD that I had with it on it, just for the sheer irony. 😅
I love it when corpos remind us that there is an alternative to purchasing their add bloated products.
Ai summary because it seems like folks aren't reading the article:
The study finds that threatening anti-piracy messages aimed at deterring digital piracy have the opposite effect on men, finding they increase piracy behaviors by 18% in men. However, such messages can reduce intended piracy in women by over 50%. The research also showed educational messages had no impact on intended piracy for both men and women. Notably, those with more favorable views of piracy saw even higher increases in intended piracy when exposed to threatening messages. The findings suggest anti-piracy groups should tailor their messages for different genders and consider alternative educational approaches to avoid unintended consequences like increasing piracy.
Seems like threatening messages specifically drive piracy up in men, but not for women. If you have a favorable view on piracy then the aggressive ads make it more likely that you'll follow through.
It's pretty much saying that the industry may want to reconsider the way they frame their warnings because it may actually be influencing people to take action.