It doesn’t matter if it’s a CD, a Film, or manual with the instructions to build a spaceship. If you copy it, the original owner doesn’t lose anything. If you don’t copy it, the only one missing something (the experience) is YOU.

Enjoy!

Of course, if you happen to have some extra money for donations to creators, please do so. If you don’t have that, try contributing with a review somewhere or recommending the content, spread the word. Piracy was shown to drive businesses in several occasions by independent and biased corps (trying to show the opposite).

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Using the term “piracy”, instead of “filesharing”, was always pro-corporate framing. In his 2010 essay “Ending the War on Sharing”, Richard Stallman wrote:

    When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

  • HopingForBetter@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So, please read this as serious and no ulterior-motivation.

    I’m hoping to release a game in a few years, and naturally I would like to sell it.

    I am also supportive of this community and understand somewhat about the release date underground release.

    I’d rather either get the revenue from my work directly, or give it away in exchange for donations, trade, or even nothing at all.

    All this especially in light of how often independent creators get their shit stolen by megacorps.

    Is there something I should be keeping an eye out for, or preparing for so everything goes smoothly at least with regards to this community?

  • SDK@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”

    They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose. As the owner, it’s technically their right to deny access to the work, and you are taking that right away from them.

    I’m not a shill, and I am never going to be a customer of big media. If I can’t get it without charge, I’d rather go without. But, I am taking that right away from the owner. I sleep ok.

    • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Based on this interpretation libraries are stealing from book publishers and food banks are stealing from grocery stores.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Libraries and food banks have their inventory paid for, though. Neither one of them accepts stolen goods. What are you talking about?

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          So if I torrent something from someone who paid for it, it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection and not piracy. Got it.

          /s?

          • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            it’s like checking it out from a library’s collection

            Yes, exactly. But better, because by “checking it out” you’re not preventing anyone else from also enjoying it at the same time (on the contrary, by nature of the bittorrent protocol you’re improving the availability of said cultural work, helping to preserve it, and culturally enriching society to a greater extent than libraries can unless they don’t artificially restrict access to digital works).

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      That right is something they should not have. Streaming services greenlight shows, get them made, then cancel them after two seasons to prevent artists getting residuals.

      Then if they lose popularity they pull them off the site and even the people who worked on them can’t see them anymore. Animators have to rely on piracy just to show people their own portfolio. That’s where respecting copyright leads.

      The copyright owner is just whoever fronted the money, and the only reason we’ve decided they “own” anything is because people with money have decided money should be the most important thing in our society.

      • DuffmanOfTheCosmos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Perfect example of this is the movie Dogma. Kevin Smith has stated he would love to do a follow up on it, but he as the creator can’t because the IP is owned personally by Harvey Weinstein, and he refuses to give money to Harvey to license or buy it because obvious reasons. So, his own creation is locked away from him because a monster put up the money for the original before Kevin or most people knew they were a monster.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Yup, copyright doesn’t help artists. Its main purpose is to allow the hoarding of property into the hands of the wealthy, just like basically every other property relation under capitalism.

          We can see with things like patreon that people love to support artists they like even if most of their work is free. We really don’t need gatekeepers to make art happen.