A eVTOL Flying Taxi Flew Over Abu Dhabi
Archer’s first test flight of the Midnight eVTOL was conducted to assess the aircraft’s performance under conditions specific to the UAE.
16 ATR 72-600s: ATR Wins Largest-Ever African Order by Air Algérie
Deliveries of ATR 72-600s are scheduled between 2026 and 2028.
American Flight Diverts After Nosy Passenger Causes Bomb Scare
An American Airlines flight diverted to San Juan after a nosy passenger misinterpreted another passenger's "RIP" text message.
Second Day Of French ATC Strike Causes Chaos For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Passengers
Friday is expected to be even more chaotic, as it's the last day of school for French schoolchildren.
Second Day Of French ATC Strike Causes Chaos For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Passengers
Friday is expected to be even more chaotic, as it's the last day of school for French schoolchildren.Paul Hartley (Simple Flying)
China's Boeing 737 Competitor Is Allowed US Made Engines After All
The US has reportedly permitted GE Aerospace to resume shipments of jet engines to COMAC.
Error when trying to publish after editing a post
I've edited posts in the past, but now when I edit and click the "Publish" button, I get the following error:
Your edit was not accepted because 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'replace'
Sorry, access is denied
You cannot access this area.
Back
The post I'm trying to edit:
- piefed.social/post/1009378
like this
Oofnik, hornface, melroy, SolacefromSilence, SuiXi3D, FartsWithAnAccent, yessikg, PokyDokie, dandi8, xep, unknown1234_5, CrankyPants, Luca, imecth, Maeve, TheFederatedPipe, 100_kg_90_de_belin, adhocfungus e eierschaukeln like this.
I'd rather download some bicycles, but yes.
I wished, we could pirate food.
like this
ElcaineVolta e yessikg like this.
Dont let them catch you with your pink pineapples or you might get in trouble:
patents.google.com/patent/USPP…
Pineapple plant named ‘Rosé’
A new pineapple ( Ananas comosus ) variety of the Bromeliaceae family was developed, via genetic engineering of MD2, named ‘Rosé’ is provided.patents.google.com
Disclosure: I have been sailing the seas for years, but...
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it.
They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.
It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator's/distributor's profit.
Devil's Advocate: Many pirates would have not paid for access to that media so to say it takes away from the creators profit isn't exactly true since one act of piracy does not equal one lost sale.
Devil's Advocate Part II: There is s significant amount of research that supports the notion that pirates actually spend more money on media than the average person.
I personally am an example of part II. I pirate a lot of music but I refuse to use Spotify because of how little it pays artists and I have also spent significant amounts of money buying music from artists I enjoy via Bandcamp or buying from the artist directly because I know they get a bigger cut of the profits that way.
like this
TVA, yessikg, xep e TheFederatedPipe like this.
Ditto on Spotify. I have big love for piracy of FLAC for my personal music server, but I also have a decent rack filled with physical offerings from my favorite bands.
My Bandcamp collection is also getting up there, since a few of my favs say they are treated well there, and it's FLAC friendly as well.
Physical media or merch directly from the band is absolutely the way to go every time if possible.
like this
yessikg likes this.
I'm having trouble finding a link to substantiate it, but I remember in the early 2000's a group of artists having to sue their record labels because of the lawsuits on file-sharing users. The record labels said they were doing it for the artists, but the artists had to sue the record labels to even ever see a penny from the fruits of those lawsuits. The record labels were just pocketing the money for themselves while saying it was "for the artists."
Anyway, long story short is that kind of behavior from the recording industry made me want to give money directly to the artists and cut out these selfish middlemen who did nothing but claimed all the profits.
like this
yessikg, xep e TheFederatedPipe like this.
Before piracy there were demos and shareware, which let you see if your machine could handle the game or content and give you a vertical slice, and let you show it to friends for word of mouth advertising.
Then, Steam put a two hour refund window with no questions asked, which helped a lot of "this crashes on start, I can't open this at all on a RTX 4090/high end PC, 15 FPS in the fog, etc".
Developers learned from that and they began padding/gating content behind two hours of gameplay, so you wouldn't know until 3-4 hours in that the game was grindy dogshit (SCUM, Ark, Empyrion, and countless other Early Access and sometimes full release titles like NMS on launch day for example).
So the correct thing to do, and it's what I do: Pirate the game, make sure it runs/works and is fun and there's no "gotcha" traps or hidden DLCs or other predatory mechanics involved, and THEN pay for the full title on Steam+DLCs and just continue the save.
My Steam Account has actually already been flagged over a dozen times for this because my primary savegames are like Razor1911.sav, and so far it's still in good status because I am actually spending a couple thousand/year on content.
having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data.
According to who?
I guess herein lies the potential fallacy of my statement.
Decreased desire is a Subjective observation.
One cannot draw a direct correlation, but there is data to conclude that not having a piracy option will boost sales of data initially, at least when it comes to games. (Hence why publishers continue to use Denuvo)
arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/10…
The true cost of game piracy: 20 percent of revenue, according to a new study
Analysis of Denuvo DRM cracking shows significant impacts on publishers’ bottom lines.Kyle Orland (Ars Technica)
Counterpoint: When Louis CK (prior to being outed as a sex pest) released one of his comedy specials on his website DRM-free for $5 he became a millionaire almost overnight.
boingboing.net/2011/12/22/drm-…
Price point matters, too.
It also jives with early Steam Sales when Valve would cut titles like ~~Left 4 Dead~~ Counter Strike down to 90% off, and they would sell so many digital copies that they were actually making more money off the lower price.
geekwire.com/2011/experiments-…
Now we did something where we decided to look at price elasticity. Without making announcements, we varied the price of one of our products. We have Steam so we can watch user behavior in real time. That gives us a useful tool for making experiments which you can’t really do through a lot of other distribution mechanisms. What we saw was that pricing was perfectly elastic. In other words, our gross revenue would remain constant. We thought, hooray, we understand this really well. There’s no way to use price to increase or decrease the size of your business.But then we did this different experiment where we did a sale. The sale is a highly promoted event that has ancillary media like comic books and movies associated with it. We do a 75 percent price reduction, our Counter-Strike experience tells us that our gross revenue would remain constant. Instead what we saw was our gross revenue increased by a factor of 40. Not 40 percent, but a factor of 40. Which is completely not predicted by our previous experience with silent price variation. …
Then we decided that all we were really doing was time-shifting revenue. We were moving sales forward from the future. Then when we analyzed that we saw two things that were very surprising. Promotions on the digital channel increased sales at retail at the same time, and increased sales after the sale was finished, which falsified the temporal shifting and channel cannibalization arguments. Essentially, your audience, the people who bought the game, were more effective than traditional promotional tools. So we tried a third-party product to see if we had some artificial home-field advantage. We saw the same pricing phenomenon. Twenty-five percent, 50 percent and 75 percent very reliably generate different increases in gross revenue.
like this
yessikg likes this.
Cool argument, except a huge quantity of pirated works aren't "owned" by the creator or even a group that funded it, but instead by parasitic companies that abuse capitalistic tools to actually steal value from those creators.
I have thousands of purchased games. 3 categories here:
1: obtained as part of a pack (humble gog etc)
2: purchased AFTER trying out via pirate copy to know if it is my kind of thing
3: picked up early access due to demo or general interest from being a known smaller dev/studio (hare brained for example)
With less and less access to shareware and viable demos, piracy is often the only conduit to prevent me getting ripped off of $80 for something that looks like a shiny sports car but end up being another "buy $800 in dlc for the full story!" Ford pinto.
Additionally, I now flat refuse to fund the likes of Denuvo, and wish that piracy actively hurt the bottom line of companies deploying that kind of anti-user shit.
or even a group that funded it
I noted I'm ok with investors.
I'm against parasitic groups that feed on properties and prevent money getting to the actual dev folks.
Places that buy other companies to dismantle or lay off large chunks of staff and take over IP with minimal or absent quality to show from it. Just maximize that investor dollar.
Microsoft, Disney etc.
The harm performed far outweighs any investment from a "toward the artists" I see come back.
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
It does though, since no harm is being done.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
They also don't receive profit from not copying, unless there's a purchase made. By your logic, watching something on Netflix or listening to it on the radio is actively harmful to creators, which I think most people can admit is absurd.
but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data.
You made this assertion, but don't really back it up. If you were correct here, being able to copy cassette tapes or burn cds would have killed the music industry decades ago. Piracy is the original grassroots promotional method.
At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it.
That's a separate argument and doesn't relate at all to the supposed financial harm.
They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.
That's a loaded assertion. If I sing a song right now, what am I entitled to be paid for it? And you're ignoring that most of the "work" of being a musician (in most genres at least) is playing live performances, the experience of which cannot be pirated.
It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator's/distributor's profit.
I don't think it's definite at all. Most of what musicians make these days is from merch and ticket sales, which piracy contributes to by bringing in new fans.
You have some very entitled opinions, if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media. You're free to not watch movies or listen to music but it's pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
Edit: I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget but apparently not.
Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you'd need some kind of income to support that hobby.
FOSS is the same but you need some income to survive.
People do it for clout or for love. Sure, the Hollywood blockbusters would cease being made but that might be an overall social good IMO.
I agree with Brian Eno who describes how, if we had a universal basic income, we would see more artists creating content just for the hell of it. He also explains how there is no "genius", there is instead what he calls "scenius" where it is an entire artistic scene which breaks new ground but only one or two happen to go viral.
Artist Brian Eno just learned about basic income and loves the idea
Here's the podcast [http://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-briefing/817/] where he is interviewed by Georgina Godwin for a special edition of The Briefing. He starts talking about basic income at around 18m30s into it.Scott Santens (UBI Guide)
With UBI that would change
You have some very entitled opinions
Nah, the entitled opinions are coming from the "pay me, but you can't own media" folks.
if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media
If everyone thought like me, people could buy digital media in convenient formats at reasonable prices, and buying media would probably still be a lot more popular. My Bandcamp library is in the tens of thousands and growing. I support digital purchasing more than most, when it's done well.
but it's pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
As the whole crux of the thread makes clear, no taking is involved. You might want to go re-read the OP again, speaking of asinine.
if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media
This is obviously incorrect.
Piracy is somewhat similar to vigilantism to me. My ability to consider it a negative is directly related to how fair I consider the legitimate methods available to be.
If similar efforts were focused on consumer protection laws as we do IP protection, I don't think pirates would have much leg to stand on, and they'd be seen in more of a negative light.
But since consumers are regularly fucked by corporations, all I see is two sides both doing bad shit and I'm not feeling all that charitable for the faceless megacorp. I also dislike pirates who pirate from small time creators. But that's about as far as I can care given the state of things.
We should be focusing on stronger consumer rights to truly fix the problem for all sides.
There is absolutely a connection between how shitty corporations are treating their customers with how likely those customers are likely to stop paying and start sailing.
Netflix in its prime was the GOAT, showing a very significant decrease in piracy. We're only seeing a rise now because of the proliferation of streaming companies. No one wants to pay for 4+ streaming services.
There's another comment further up about a statistic showing that people who pirate content are more likely to spend more money on content as well compared to people who don't pirate content. It seems that there's a correlation between people who pirate things and people who care about the ethical treatment of creators. Stuff like people who pirate music from Spotify and then spend money to buy the music from the band on Bandcamp.
In that context, I have an even harder time caring about people pirating from the megacorps when they're supporting creators at the same time. That's closing in on Robin Hood style activities at that point.
It's not a money thing for me, it's a lack of consumer respect, and I can't stand it. If I pay for a product, don't try to squeeze every last drop of profit you can off of me by selling my activity. It's why I use a paid Android TV launcher that doesn't have ads on the homepage, and I don't let it connect to the internet. It's why I buy all my music and stream it on Symfonium, another paid app, instead of a Spotify subscription. I'm just tired of having to set up all these self-hosted services just to get big corporations off my back.
Investors became investors by paying creators for their work in advance without knowing what they'd produce. It's incredibly short-sighted to say "hey, the creator already got their paycheck so my purchase makes no difference now".
Maybe it would help to think of it as paying the creator for their next game.
Thats a pretty story, but completely unconnected to reality. If it worked like that, id be okay with it.
Also, when you pay for stuff, abd like it, and want to revisit it later you usually cant. And that always makes me feel like a fool. I don't like feeling like a fool. I don't like paying to feel likeva fool. I don't like expecting a thing i like to be there then it not being there; that ruins my day. And the sheer fucking regularity of this makes. Me think it's going to keep happening.
When you steal it, they cabt steal it from you, 'cuz they don't know you have it.
Thats a pretty story, but completely unconnected to reality. If it worked like that, id be okay with it.
What do you think an investor is then?
the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire
Also, the person deciding whether or not they "would have" paid for it, has a strong incentive to kid themselves that they wouldn't. Imagine if cinemas worked that way, and you could just walk in and announce that you weren't going to buy a ticket anyway and since there's a seat over there still empty it's not going to cost them anything for you to sit in it. They'd go out of business by the end of the week.
Also also, either the thing you're copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn't. If it's of value, then it's reasonable to expect payment for it. It's it's not of value, then you shouldn't miss not having it.
The scale is a bit different, but the scheme works.
It might not work to support a lifestyle of AAA company CEO, and it might not work at pushing out hundreds of unimaginative boring microtransaction machines, but I would say it's just a bonus
Also also, either the thing you're copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn't. If it's of value, then it's reasonable to expect payment for it. It's it's not of value, then you shouldn't miss not having it.
Doesn't this contradict the whole rest of the argument? It either has value or it doesn't. It being available for free somewhere doesn't change the value. If it's not of value, then they shouldn't miss you having it.
it’s not blatant nonsense. jesus fucking christ you people lack a brain.
the art/media/fucking whatever intellectual “property” = no intrinsic value, worthless itself
the labor to create the art = valuable
the labor to distribute the art, be it through “legitimate” or pirated means = valuable
it’s that simple. there needn’t even be any long moral/ethical arguments. piracy is righteous because information deserves to be free. there is no way to enforce ownership of information without wanton violence from the state.
Again, the point is you were saying (or agreeing) that copies being available for free decrease the value. You then later say it has intrinsic value.
I'm not arguing that they don't have intrinsic value. I'm arguing that you undermined the point of value decreasing if it exists for free by admitting this. It doesn't. It's worth something no matter what someone else paid, and no matter what you paid.
A game decreasing in price over time isn't doing so because it's worth less (usually, with the exception of online games). They're decreasing the price to capture customers who don't agree with the original valuation. It doesn't change value to the consumer based on the price changing. The object is not suddenly less valuable when there's a sale and more valuable again after. It has a degree of "goodness" no matter what. The price doesn't effect this.
Adding on to say: no. It doesn't cost the creator anything when a pirated copy is made. They potentially miss a sale, but if their item wasn't in a store where someone may have made a purchase you wouldn't call that actively harmful, right?
In addition, most media the creators don't actually make money from the profit. Most of the time they're paid a salary, maybe with a bonus if it does particularly well. The company that owns the product takes the profit (or loss), not the actual creators.
Also, a lot of media isn't even controlled by the same people as when it was made. For example, buying the Dune books doesn't give money to Frank Herbert. It goes to his estate.
So a little more in depth:
So, a little more in depth:
Im poor as fuck. So the option isnt 'buy/pirate' its 'pirate or get nothing'. Fuck you if you think i should live without art.
The artists generally do not recieve profit when a copy is streamed/sold. It simply is not done; their unions are too weak. This is blatant corporate propaganda.
The entire mechanism to do that is fucked anyway, even if it were hooked up to something. I'm sorry, but i wouldnt deal with that shit show for free. Even new releases or classics have to be hunted down like cult films, and then even if i buy them, i lose them at some arbitrary later date. Music was the last thing i tried to pay on, and i just could not keep a cohesive collection together-at this point, if it's not on bandcamp, i assume the artist doesn't want money. And even bandcamp has disappeared tracks i paid for, reducing me to local backups. So fuck em.
I'm sorry. I really would love to support art and artists, but it simply isn't possible to do that systemically within capitalism. There is no clear systemic option. Just ways to lick corporate boot and waste your fucking time.
although
I bet i do actually pay artists-cast crew and musicians at least-more than you do. When i dine out, rare as that is, in los angeles, i tip ~30% in cash. So i am actually supporting the arts, while you, my boot licking friend, are not. Youre supporting the corporate ghouls who feast upon them.
it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.
Oh no! Not the distributor's profit!! Oh holy Supply Side Jesus, I pray in your name- protect the profits of the Capitalists. Take the money I worked hard for and give it to the do-nothing rich, they clearly deserve it more than me. Amen
It's not my fault if somebody makes content at a loss and isn't able to recuperate their losses. It happens all the time, sucks for them. I mean that earnestly by the way, though it sounds callous -- it really does suck for them, and I feel bad for artists who can't turn a profit.
However, I just don't agree with you that "objective harm" is done when one pirates media. If this were true, you must admit that it's equally objectively harmful to the IP holder for one to not consume media at all. I just don't see how you can square that.
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
"Financial harm" is a loaded term. People expected to make money and then didn't, but is that a bad thing?
What if the US president declared that it is now a legal requirement that every American subscribe to a new paid tier of Facebook, and that declaration was rubber stamped by the lawmakers. Anybody who didn't capitulate would be doing "financial harm" to Meta, but is that really a fair way to frame that? If a bully wants your lunch money and you resist, are you doing "financial harm" to the bully?
The way I see things, the initial copyright laws were a relatively fair trade: a 14 year monopoly on something, that could be renewed for another 14 years if the author was still alive. In exchange, everything after that term became part of the public domain. So, it would encourage people to produce writing, and the public would benefit because a reasonable amount of time later what was produced would be available to everybody at no cost. Modern copyright terms are a massive give-away to Hollywood, the record labels, etc. So, while it's true that infringing copyright does reduce the potential amount of money a copyright holder might hope to receive, morally it's closer to fighting off a bully than it is to theft.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied.
No, they're not. Not earning more is not the same as losing what you already have.
Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways,
Yet studies have shown the opposite happens.
content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies
Does your granny know what a torrent is?
not to pay for the data, which is not what the ~~creator~~distributor wanted in creating it.
There, FTFY
That assumes you were entitled to something that nobody owed you.
If the money was never yours, can you say it was stolen from you?
like this
Zier likes this.
tbf I did do this a week ago and nobody downdooted me lemmy.uhhoh.com/comment/118866…
as it is already
Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as "stolen property" for the purposes of a prosecution under the National Stolen Property Act of 1934.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowlin…
This is an interesting argument. I don't think the two are completely analogous, and the whole thing falls apart once you go beyond consumer level usage due to piracy's inability to make new things like AI can. While piracy isn't going to get any game developers or musicians fired, AI image gen very likely will. The more it improves, the harder it will be for companies to continue justifying paying real artists.
That said, you do make a good point that many pro-piracy arguments can be used all the same to be pro-AI image gen. At least at the individual consumer level.
In Canada it's very hard to get into trouble for piracy unless you make a profit from your piracy.
Or well...until these LLM showed up. That's the part I take issue with.
It would be like if a publishing company took some book, removed random parts of it then replaced them to parts from other books, then sold that instead of paying authors to write books.
I for one would definitely download a car, if I did not already own one I really like.
I'd happily let's others download mine, if it didn't affect me or my car in any way.
Yeah, why the fuck not?
Obviously, something made in a specialized vehicle manufacturing plant will be better/more durable/whatever, but given the option between downloading a car vs spending a year's salary to buy one.... I'd rather download one.
Unless my wages get better (which they are not) or cars get cheaper (which they won't), I'll continue to have this opinion.
There's a nontrivial number of cars that cost more than a house did in the 80's and 90's. So it's entirely possible for someone to spend the same dollar value on their home, when purchasing it in the 90's, as they do 25 years later, buying a house in the 2020's.
Stupid.
I am 100% down for sailing the high seas. But let's not sugarcoat it, this analogy is always been kind of crap.
Somebody went to your mailbox took out your paycheck, made a copy of it, put the original back in your box, went to the bank and cashed it.
Theft still took place. You're probably still getting paid. Maybe it got taken up by insurance and everyone's premium goes up a tiny fraction, maybe it got taken up by the bank or by your business.
It's still an incomplete analogy but it's a little bit closer.
That's not to say that the vast majority of piracy isn't people who wouldn't pay anyway. And back in the day, you certainly got more visibility in your games from people who were pirating.
But now that advertising is on its toes and steam exists, I won't think they're getting any serious benefit from piracy and I don't think that they're not losing At least modest numbers of sales.
like this
Chozo likes this.
I am 100% down for sailing the high seas. But let's not sugarcoat it, this analogy is always been kind of crap.
It's less an analogy than the literal legal definition of theft.
Somebody went to your mailbox took out your paycheck, made a copy of it, put the original back in your box, went to the bank and cashed it.
This analogy is crap. When they took your paycheck, that was theft. Even if temporarily, you didn't have the check. If they cash the fraudulent check, they're not copying the money; it's coming out of your account. That's also theft. Both cases, the original is being removed, whether it be the physical check or the money from your account. The only reason there might be a "copy" in your analogy is some sort of fraud protection by the bank, at which point it's the bank's money getting stolen. Still theft though.
Depriving owed earnings is also considered theft.
I mean, so is not doing anything... wait i better not give them any ideas.
hence why piracy is considered theft because there is a debt owed for the pirated media
This is objectively false in any meaningful way. It's certainly not considered theft (at least in the US), and there's absolutely no debt owed for pirated media (unless you count seeding it forward).
This is a horseshit analogy.
Stealing money from your account is theft, it's not still there afterwards.
The concept I think you might've been looking for is opportunity cost in that pirating deprives an artist of potential sales. Which is a fair point, but it is still not the same as stealing since it does not deprive the artists of their original copy.
It's also all done in the context of a system that is not run by artists and does not primarily benefit artists, but is instead run by and benefits middlemen.
like this
xep likes this.
but it is still not the same as stealing since it does not deprive the artists of their original copy.
The artist has ownership rights to all copies, not just the original; it's literally in the word "copyright".
Yes, which is a distinctly different concept from stealing. It's copyright. Note how copyright violation isn't in the Bible. Note how the Bible itself would never have existed if copyright existed at the time given that it is a collection of passed down stories.
Copyright is a dumb as fuck concept. Its a scarcity based system, for stuff that is not scarce.
Capitalism itself is a scarcity based system, and it falls apart somewhat when there's abundance.
In capitalism, stuff only has value if it's scarce. We all constantly need oxygen to live, but because it's abundant, it's value is zero. Capitalism does not start valuing oxygen until there are situations where it starts becoming rare.
This works for the most part in our world because physical goods by and large are scarce, but in the situations where they aren't, capitalism doesn't work. It's the classic planned obscelesence lightbulb story, if you can make a dirt cheap light bulb that lasts forever, you'll go out of business because you've created so much abundance that after a bit of production, you're actually not needed at all anymore and raw market based capitalism has no mechanism to reward you long term.
The same is even more true for information. Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level. To move a certain amount of physical matter a certain distance I need a certain amount of energy, and there are hard universal limits with energy density, but I can represent the number three using three galaxies, or three atoms. Information does not scale or behave the same, and is inherently abundant in the digital age.
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free, we created copyright, which uses laws and DRM to create artificial scarcity for information, because then an author can be rewarded within capitalism since it's scarce.
Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level.
The electricity and silicon required to make this happen are not free, on a societal or physical level. There is a tangible cost to this transfer, even if you're ignoring the social construct of copyright.
I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free
Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.
The electricity and silicon required to make this happen are not free, on a societal or physical level. There is a tangible cost to this transfer, even if you're ignoring the social construct of copyright.
Completely irrelevant.
If I already have a computer and an internet connection then I've already paid the costs, prior to initiating that particular request.
I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".
In the context of pricing resources, those are the same thing.
Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.
The model is the same one used by streaming services. It's one of reward and attribution rather artificial scarcity. Rather than having streaming and advertising middlemen you have a public system that lets everyone access what they want and rewards creators based on usages. Youtube without Google's exorbitant profits.
Copyright has no basis in human culture or history. Our literal entire history is based on a tradition of free remixing and story telling, not copyright.
Copyright has no basis in human culture or history.
It's exited before any of us currently alive, so that's a pretty absurd notion. Unless human culture and history ended ~300 years ago?
K, versus 2,750,000 years.
Here's 300 letter g's:
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
ggggggggggggggggggggHere's 2.75 million letter h's
<br />Oh wait, I can't paste that many because at 40 chars per line, it would be 68,000 lines long, or 1000x the Android clipboard's char limit.
You are literally describing a meaningless iota in the course of human history.
I don't get your argument. So because it's "new" according to your grand cosmic scale, it doesn't exist at all?
You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that, but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
,You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that,
Read the above comments then.
but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
Again, read my comments. I didn't say it wasn't real, I said it has no basis in human culture or history.
I said it has no basis in human culture or history.
Not only is this incorrect, it would be meaningless even if it was accurate. What point are you even trying to make with this claim?
It is 100% correct. There was no concept of owning a story or a song just because you told it first, throughout literally all of history until the copyright laws of the 20th century.
And my point is that the literal entirety of human culture is based on a tradition of storytelling, something copyright expressly forbids.
Copyright is not a system that aligns with our natural inclinations or the way we evolved. It's a crude, child like attempt to cram information into a capitalist mold that doesn't work.
There was no concept of owning a story or a song just because you told it first, throughout literally all of history until the copyright laws of the 20th century.
Brother, copyright has been around since at least the 1700s, you're literally just making things up right now. Read a book.
Oh, wow. I'm so impressed.
It's existed since the time of the transatlantic slave trade.
Surely that makes it something human and good!
Totally compares to the previous 2.75 Million years of story telling culture and tradition. Totally not just an exploitative artifact of the corporate age. /S
And go ahead and cite your favourite book on copyright. Maybe I'll read it.
Your argument so far has been "it's new (even though it's not) and I don't like it". If you wanna get extra pedantic, the idea of copyright has been floated since the 1500s, and the concept of owning art predates even that. It wasn't until the late 1700s that our current "modern" copyright system began taking form.
Regardless, none of that changes the fact that it's still a real part of our lives now. We don't live 2.75 million years in the past, we live now. Presumably, you wipe after defecating, don't you? Didn't you know that toilet paper is a modern invention that we didn't have a million years ago and only went to market 3 years before slavery was abolished in the US? It's bad and we shouldn't use it, right???
I still don't get what any of this has to do with anything we're talking about, though. I feel like maybe you've talked yourself into a corner by making up nonsense and then trying to defend it. This is dumb, just like every argument defending piracy; it uses sovereign citizen logic where you make up arbitrary rules and definitions that nobody else in society agrees with to justify bad behavior.
If you wanna pirate stuff, then pirate it. But just own it; don't make up silly defenses for why it's okay, because they don't hold up under scrutiny.
I've only been pointing out that copyright is dumb, not that piracy is wholly justified.
We got into this corner because you ignored the actual points I made about why copyright is dumb (read: a scarcity based system is not suitable for digital information since it is inherently unscarce)
and focused on the age of copyright instead.
Your other points amounted to little more than "I own my computer, therefore I'm entitled to your computer", and "free and not-free are the same thing", which are both equally absurd and not really worth dissecting further.
I thought perhaps you had an actual opinion on the matter that you've actually like... thought about, and not a reactionary one that seems like it was made up on the spot.
which are both equally absurd and not really worth dissecting further.
Try having a conversation without resorting to thought terminating cliches.
And if that's what you took out of it you missed the point. And given the number of dismissive thought terminating cliches you keep using it does not seem like you actually care to learn or are having a good faith discussion.
If you are, you've missed the point, which is that information, at a fundamental, physics level, does not behave the same way as energy and matter. Computers make it essentially free to replicate information infinitely. That is not true for any physical good. The differences therein mean that information should be abundant, except that copyright and DRM create artificial scarcity where there is no need for it.
information should be abundant
Perhaps so, but isn't that up to whoever creates the information? If you invent a story, why would you not be entitled to own it?
For much of human history, artistry of all sorts has been a profession, as much as a hobby. The idea of attribution and ownership over one's art has been a core part of why that has worked and allowed creators to thrive. I would argue that the alternative of having no such system at all would ultimately lead to less art and information being created and shared at all, if the creation process is unsustainable at an individual creator's level.
Perhaps so, but isn't that up to whoever creates the information?
No, what I'm saying is that at a fundamental physics level, information is inherently abundant in a way that nothing else made of matter or energy is. There is effectively zero cost to replicating it an infinite amount of times. That is fundamentally not true for anything made of energy or matter.
If you invent a story, why would you not be entitled to own it?
Why would you "own" it? If you tell a story what prevents me from also telling that story? The threat of you punching me if I tell my own copy when you're not around? That's not owning something that's unilaterally declaring that you own all copies of something and forever own all copies of it going forward. If I invent a white t shirt, should I be able to claim ownership of every white t-shirt that anyone makes forever? That's nonsense.
For much of human history, artistry of all sorts has been a profession, as much as a hobby. The idea of attribution and ownership over one's art has been a core part of why that has worked and allowed creators to thrive.
Completely and utterly wrong.
Because no, the idea of ownership of a song has virtually never been important to art. Professional artists, in the time periods where they have existed, have largely been able to because they would be constantly performing art in the era prior to recordings, and they would constantly be performing other people's songs that they did not write themselves or they would add their own twists to it.
A song like House of the Rising Sun can be traced all the way back to 16th century English hymns before eventually winding it's way through countless Appalachian and travelling singers, before being picked up by 50s era folk musicians, before being picked up by a British rock band called the Animals. This is how music has worked through literally all of human history until the abomination that is copyright.
Hell it wasn't until the classical music era, and the rise of sheet music that you actually started seeing real authorship granted to individual people, and even in that era you didn't own a song, if someone like Mozart could listen and transcribe it then they could also perform it themselves.
I would argue that the alternative of having no such system at all would ultimately lead to less art and information being created and shared at all, if the creation process is unsustainable at an individual creator's level.
Yeah, well it's a good thing there are lots of alternatives to copyright that aren't 'no system at all'.
Nah. That analogy does not work.
Piracy situation is more like you have made a cool statue and you charge people money for looking at your statue. Then someone comes, looks at your statue, and goes away without paying.
There's no thief, nothing was stolen at any point. The one how came looking without paying was probably never going to pay for an entrance, and the statue can me still be looked by anyone. Nothing is loss in the process, no harm is done. Some guy just looked at a statue without paying for it.
I wouldnt download a car, but that's only because im fanatically anti car.
Because cars are bad. There should not be cars.
like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
The amount of people that take these moral high roads is fucking ridiculous.
Well, the faceless mega-corp made it difficult to purchase or stream
I don’t like that I have to play the game on Steam
Akshually I’m just copying it, so it’s not theft
There are too many streaming services, so I shouldn’t have to pay for ANOTHER service
I’m not depriving the content creator or publisher from any money, since I wasn’t going to pay for it regardless
Just fucking own up to it. You are downloading content that you did not pay for. I don’t take some enlightened stance when I download a movie; I just do it. What I’m doing is not right, but I still do what I do. I don’t try to justify it with some bullshit political take.
We all have our line on what we deem acceptable or not. The only piracy that, in my opinion, could have a leg to stand on is when it is actual lost media. No physical copies available, no way to stream or pay for it. Anything else is just the lies we tell ourselves to justify our actions.
Just admit that you could pay for the content if you wanted to, you just choose not to, because you are a pirate. You are depriving someone somewhere from a sale or some other form of revenue.
Edit: I worded “Just own it” poorly. Clarified it to “Just own up to it”. That was the original intent, just an oversight on my part.
like this
Chozo likes this.
This is a specious analogy. e-books from libraries are already heavily controlled and are usually quite expensive to provide. Physical copies have their own inbuilt limits to distribution.
You're treating copyright like it's some sort of hardline moral stance against consuming any media you haven't directly paid for, when actually it's more like a very long list of compromises to balance the conflicting requirements of creators' needs to be compensated for their work versus society's need to benefit from that work. This is why lending libraries, fair use etc are legal and piracy isn't.
Just admit that you could pay for the content if you wanted to, you just choose not to, because you are a pirate. You are depriving someone somewhere from a sale or some other form of revenue.
I usually can't, actually. Not immediately anyway. But that doesn't stop me from paying for it when I can. Done it with plenty of games. And if I didn't have that option, which I primarily use for games I'm not entirely sure I'll stick with, well... I just wouldn't buy it. Full stop. Wouldn't be a consideration at all. There is no lost sale here, only the potential to fall in love with it enough to buy it when I eventually can.
Not saying this is some moral high ground. It's not. But plenty of folks just can't afford to gamble on whether or not they like something and end up paying it forward when they can.
Why is no one mentioning here that the business model shouldn't exist? If a copy can be made basically for free, there is no reason not to make it basically free. We should be providing everyone with the means to live regardless of their ability to sell stuff. If everyone was free to do whatever they please because their existence was provided for, people would still make media, because people love making things like that.
Of course that might mean that in the short term, while we don't do this, pirating might mean that some things stop existing. I'd be completely fine if all Hollywood movies and other shit disappeared overnight. Maybe then people would finally come to the understanding that our current model of doing things sucks.
Especially if the creator(s) is deceased.
Are you suggesting only the wealthy are deserving of art?
Only the wealthy can afford art? Music? Movies? Graphic Novels? Video Games?
Are you being obtuse?
Eventually, yes. If everyone's needs are provided for, there is no requirement anymore to extract value from art, one can just make it and share it freely.
Copyright should be abolished.
How's the weather up there on that extremely high horse?
Just because you personally steal stuff you can afford to pay for doesn't mean that is what everyone else does. It's good that you own up to that, but don't project your failings onto others. If it's against your morals to 'pirate', quit doing it.
If you are unwilling to listen to or comprehend others peoples reasons, that's fine- just don't act like that makes us the same as you, because it doesn't.
I am not a Christian so I'm not beholden to their rules. Someone like you could claim I am a sinner and I should just own it. No, I don't have the same beliefs that you do so I am under no obligation to behave how you think I should.
Ok there buddy. There is no ‘high horse’ here. Piracy is piracy. People need to quit with their bullshit justifications. Just own up to it. I do. The fuck are you on about Christianity? There is literally no connection to religion/beliefs here.
People can’t afford to pay for it? Cool. It’s still piracy. One is still depriving the creator/studio/publisher/whatever of a sale.
But I can’t afford it! Therefore I deserve to have it for free!
Ridiculous.
There is no ‘high horse’ here.
🤣 Says the person actively judging others for their perceived moral failings, from their high horse.
People need to quit with their bullshit justifications.
You may not agree with it or understand it, and that's fine. I'm saying don't act like we all think that it's wrong like you do and are going against our own belief systems. You are the one doing that, not me.
The fuck are you on about Christianity? There is literally no connection to religion/beliefs here.
Oh but there absolutely is, and you put literally zero effort into putting any thought into whether it did or not, your knee jerked and you went right back to defaulting your YOUR belief system and insisting everyone else follow it. Sounds exactly like some groups I could think of, I'll let you puzzle that one out for yourself.
People can’t afford to pay for it? Cool. It’s still piracy.
You cant' afford to eat? Cool, it's still stealing when you nick a loaf or bread.
One is still depriving the creator/studio/publisher/whatever of a sale.
OH NO! You mean to tell me that I've deprived a billionaire of a couple of pennies?! I deserve to rot in hell.
Ridiculous
I agree. It's ridiculous that you are only able to look at it from one very specific, capitalist boot licking pov and not even consider other peoples point of view. Must feel good to be so righteous and holy.
Oh my lord you are so dense. I don’t give a fuck why people do the things that they do. But these justifications are garbage. Again, just say “I don’t feel like paying for it”. That is it.
Steal bread because one can’t afford it? That really sucks. It is still stealing. Does it make people right or wrong? Well, in this case I think most people would understand.
And no, stealing bread for sustenance is in no way shape or form remotely comparable to downloading a movie or song. Are we all entitled to the all of the things in life that help us get through the monotony of existence? How about independent documentaries, where every dollar counts to the creators? Are you entitled to those?
At the end of the day, someone/studio spent hours/days/years working on the art that you feel like you deserve to have because you cannot afford it or whatever bullshit reason you want to conjure. It’s still piracy, and is still wrong.
If someone were to download my music, that I’ve spent multiple hours and days creating and editing, without paying, I’d be justifiably upset. If I release my music on a site like Bandcamp, it is because I’d like to enjoy some sort of benefit for my hard work. I don’t care what someone’s excuse is for pirating my work. It is not theirs, they do not get to decide that I don’t deserve to be paid. If I wanted the world to hear it for free, I’d release it on a platform where it is free. That is my, as the creator of the art, prerogative. It just so happens that I put it on platforms where people can hear it, with ads or subscription, which I deem to be fair. But outright downloading it deprives me of streams and ad revenue. I don’t fucking care what the excuse is. My art is not free. I understand why some artists get upset.
Does this make me a hypocrite? I suppose it does. I am doing wrong as well. I just don’t try to hide behind some sort of bullshit excuse. Just own up to it.
Perceived moral failings
Fuck off. I’m not judging anyone. Just merely stating facts. Piracy is piracy, no matter what way someone wants to spin it. Is it wrong? Yes. Am I wrong when I do it? Absolutely. I choose not to justify it.
Does it make people right or wrong? Well, in this case I think most people would understand.
Most people sure. You though? You don't give a fuck why people do the things that they do, remember?
And no, stealing bread for sustenance is in no way shape or form remotely comparable to downloading a movie or song.
You are right, because in the case of stealing, the person has deprived the owner of that bread. If the hungry person was able to copy the bread and leave the original bread untouched for the owner to eat, it would literally harm no one. Even if that person owned the 'intellectual property' of that bread.
If someone were to download my music blah blah blah
You don't give a single fuck what someones reason is for doing what they do, yet you expect people to give fucks about what you value. It works both ways.
It’s still piracy,
No it isn't. Piracy is robbery or other serious acts of violence committed at sea. "Piracy" is a name some 'clever' lawyer or corporate exec coined to convince people that breaking copyright laws was equivalent to violent crime.
and is still wrong.
Who died and made you arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong'? Was it your 'lord'?
Does this make me a hypocrite? I suppose it does.
Of course it does, I thought that was understood. What it doesn't make is other people hypocrites for breaking your own personal moral code.
I just don’t try to hide behind some sort of bullshit excuse.
Who is trying to hide? I have not made a single excuse, and I wont because I don't believe it's wrong like you do.
Just own up to it.
Own up to what? To crossing Jessica's line in the sand? Sure, I'll own up to that. Fuck your line. I piss on your line.
I’m not judging anyone.
You clearly are lmfao. "What you are doing is wrong and nothing could possibly justify it, own up to it! QQ No judgment though" Fuck off with that.
Just merely stating facts.
Your own personal OPINION about the morality of copyright infringement is subjective. That isn't obvious?
Am I wrong when I do it? Absolutely. I choose not to justify it.
Sure, you happily break your own moral code and then judge others for doing something that is not against their moral code. Somehow you think the world revolves around you and that you are the arbiter of 'right and wrong'.
I don't subscribe to your ignorant beliefs about copyright- so I'm not under the same obligation to obey them as you are.
I don’t know how to say it any more clear. When someone says to you “leave me the fuck alone”, shut your fucking mouth and leave them alone. This is harassment at this point. I don’t give a fuck about your opinions, and your attacks on me are unwanted.
Leave me the fuck alone!
They're are a million wrong ways to come at the wrong conclusion. So why then would we be surprised when many of the people who come to the right conclusion still do it for a variety of reasons? Perhaps the initial premise of why copyright should exist is conceptually riddled with holes.
Owning an idea is inherently capitalist, but the average person who encounters a problem won't spontaneously become anti-capitalist. They just know something seems wrong about this, but don't understand why. So they make up a story to address their cognitive dissonance, like nihilism.
Agree!
If you want to pirate content, go ahead pirate it. But don't act like you're doing something morally right or some other mental gymnastics to tell yourself you're allowed to pirate content. The truth is, you're doing something illegal. If you're okay with that, then by all means go ahead, but don't tell yourself or others that it is somehow not illegal, because it is.
The problem with almost every pro-piracy argument like this is that they fundamentally require a significant percentage of the population to disagree with it. "People who can pay will pay and I'm not taking anything from them" only works for as long as both the general population and retailers regard piracy as wrong and keep funding all those games, movies etc for you.
Heck, all you pirates should be upvoting anti-piracy posts like this, we're the ones keeping your habit funded...
This seems to work as a model for YouTubers and podcasters. They usually have most of their stuff available for free, and people pay them money, and more often than there is no reward for the money, other than satisfaction of supporting the creator.
This is obviously one example, and it only works for periodic installments, but it is a working alternative to the system, where people who don't want or can't pay don't do that
like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
This seems to work as a model for YouTubers and podcasters
No, it doesn't. They're still being paid by YouTube/Spotify a flat amount based on the number of views - which are being paid for by ads and premium subscriptions.
Which means: people pay (one way or another) first, consume the content later.
a flat amount
Nope, the amount is anything but flat. For bigger youtubers the ad money start to be significant, and for bigger podcasters spotify pays something, but for the most, amount of money from ads is negligible.
Nah. Id pay artists if i could.
And in fact do tip them pretty well at the jobs they take to pay rent when im in LA.
What we need is for parasitic creativity destroying shit stain ip-troll ghouls to get the guillotine, so they arent parasiting on every fucking artist.
We need a society that values humanity and art.
Because as is, there kind of isnt a reliable systemic way to support them. Capitalism prevents it.
If they dont, they kinda don't get to do their art. It's a whole thing.
Id say 'or they starve/die on yhe street' but that's what they get service jobs for.
You forget the alternative mindset:
An active desire to see traditional ways of funding to disappear, and the media along with it.
Nobody is forcing you to consume any of the media you feel you need to pirate.
Just live beyond consumption. You can do that, you know?
Lmao imagine siding with corporations stealing creators in the first place.
Guess what, your money goes directly to investors who did fuck all. It doesn't pay the people who actually created art
The problem with almost every pro-piracy argument like this is that they fundamentally require a significant percentage of the population to disagree with it.
This assumes that people who are ok with piracy are also against paying for content. That's a nice fantasy and it makes anti-piracy people feel good about themselves, but it doesn't reflect reality.
People who can pay will pay and I’m not taking anything from them” only works for as long as both the general population and retailers regard piracy as wrong and keep funding all those games, movies etc for you.
This assumes that 'pro piracy' people are against artists getting paid for their work. Seeing as how pirates tend to purchase more legal content than the 'general population' that is clearly not the case.
There could be a million different reasons why someone might 'pirate' a piece of media, and simply not wanting to pay for it is usually pretty low on the list. That attitude also relies on the assumption that every single piece of content that is copied is something the 'pirate' would have paid for in the first place.
As an artist, my job is to inspire people, to make them feel, to share my experience with them. I have absolutely zero problem with someone who can't afford to pay for my work pirating it. I also appreciate the ones who do pay, but I would still be making art even if no one paid, because while the money is nice it's not the point of it for me. Id much rather someone copy a work of mine and enjoy it than not enjoy it because they couldn't pay for the privilege.
I understand that some 'artists' are in it for the money and that's fine. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them that they deserve to get paid for every eyeball that falls upon their work, regardless of the circumstance.
Heck, all you pirates should be upvoting anti-piracy posts like this, we’re the ones keeping your habit funded…
Have an upvote from me for being the hero we don't deserve and protecting the mega-corps bottom lines. Truly you are a modern day Jesus.
Study Again Shows ‘Pirates’ Tend to Be The Biggest Buyers of Legal Content
A new report out of the UK once again deflates the common narrative that pirates are exclusively looking to obtain free stuff.Karl Bode (VICE)
like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
The problem is that the producer's business model is based on making and selling copies. You're not taking an original work, no, but you're also not paying for the produced content.
Let's expand the pig analogy.
A farmer has a sow and any piglets that it has are for sale. You steal a piglet. You haven't stolen the original sow, but you have stolen the piglet you now have because you didn't pay for it.
The problem is that the producer’s business model is based on making and selling copies
This is all too vague to actually understand the effect of piracy. The economic impact depends how much piracy replaces actual purchases.
When I was a teenager, I would pirate a lot of music. At the time, I had very little money to spend. This copying did not replace any purchases. On the other hand, me not buying music right now is a lost purchase since I could spend money. That's why I spend some money every month actually buying music from bandcamp or whatever, which offsets the revenue that the musicians would otherwise lose.
Also, if the artist has other revenue streams, it doesn't matter as much. Musicians for example don't make a lot of money off of streaming nowadays, and a lot of their revenue comes from merch and concert tickets etc. So if you spend money there, copying doesn't really bankrupt the artist.
Of course each type of media has slightly different mechanics, but in general there are a lot of ways you can do piracy without really undermining the business model of the artists. And very rarely are the effects the same as for theft.
That analogy doesn't work at all because the Sow produces a finite (and rather small at that) number of piglets over a given timespan.
It's more akin to you getting a piglet/sow elsewhere. Now your piglet/sow need is satisfied and you won't buy anything from this farmer.
(Edit: And even then you took that piglet/sow away somewhere else, reducing supply there, which will make it more likely for this farmer to get a sale in the future.)
Your example is about physical goods.
Software is at its core just digital information a computer can use.
Knowledge/Information (that is not personal information) should be free.
You can make a argument that software developers still must sell copies of their code to make a living but if you look at the reality of software that appears to simply be some kind of bias. You can make software that is free and still make a living they are just not always related.
The software that runs the world’s infrastructure is increasingly FOSS, from critical cybersecurity to vending machines. Even big corporations are increasingly getting involved in using and making open source components for their proprietary fronts.
As a linux user everything i need can be done legally with free software, not only is it free is most of the times vastly superior then a paid product.
Ever needed software on windows to find the installer got bundled with spyware and then the final program turns out to be a trial before
Requiring a subscription? That is only because they need to make money.
On linux, you install it, it’s only the thing you actually need, and it works. No bloat, no
enshitification. Some person or group realized there was value to be created, created it and as a result the entire world won collectively.
I have a few products of my own that i hope to publish some day and i already vouched to never make them proprietary, My dad called me insane not to try to profit. I call it nothing but ethical to make the best value for humanity that i can. My very common office job provides enough liveable wage and work/life balance for my family and still find time to do such.
The only damage that exists from piracy is to the copyright holders profits.....
Since the copyright holder is usually a corporation that is owned by shareholders, the majority of which are richer than all of us combined, ask me if I give a shit and I will show you my field of shits to give, and you will see that it is barren.
Eat the rich. Or Luigi them... I don't care.
There's always the exceptions, but they're rare, and getting more rare.
The vast majority of works are owned by a few major corporations, even smaller, more indie games often get published through a major studio, which then retains a good amount of the profit. Almost all media, TV and movies, is owned by one of a handful of companies. Music is largely the same.
It goes the same way for so many other things too. It's not just games and media.
There are always going to be exceptions but on the whole, it's vastly more likely/common that the people profiting from something is a large, faceless organization, which only answers to their shareholders.
YoU WoUlDn'T dOwNlOaD A Car!?!?!
You're damn right I would; get me a 3D printer big enough...
Real pirates steal stuff. So-called digital "piracy" isn't piracy at all. This is just propaganda for the business model that the establishment is trying to hold onto.
It doesn't hurt IP holders to "pirate" their data. It is no difference to them whether you were to pirate it or to have never been born at all in the first place. Their profit is the exact same either way. Their business model is imaginary and they want to force it on everyone else.
These days (at least in my country) I can't own movies, games and watch or play them at my will
Companies like Netflix, Amazon are lending movies but not making them free for you. And then they wonder why piracy is rising
Tbh for a student like me, piracy is the only option. If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing
Filesharing isn't piracy. It's filesharing.
Piracy is when you attack a ship and steal its cargo.
But, of course, it was difficult for the RIAA to have a war on sharing, so they had to use a different term with sinister connotations and implant it into the public consciousness.
And it worked! You never hear anybody talk about "filesharing" anymore.
Nothing is stollen because they would have no idea someone had a copy unless they check.
The President of the United States posted this message. He wants the Vietnamese to drive SUVs
"It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam"
Source: truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTru…
I’m so confused? Why would Vietnam agree to a one sided “free” trade agreement.
Assuming trump has wildly oversimplified the details to sound better than they are.
A.I. is a Religious Cult with Karen Hao
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
The Prime Reasons to Avoid Amazon
Amazon’s now-legendary “Prime Day” is July 8-11. Much like Black Friday or Cyber Monday, this means sales on lots of items on Amazon’s vast marketplace, and as such many people flock to the giant’s website to get sweet deals on everything from computers to small kitchen appliances and more. While many of us are feeling the financial crunch more than ever, I urge you, dear reader, to resist the allure. I don’t typically have strong opinions about where people chose to shop or how they decide to spend their heard-earned money, but in this post I hope to lay out a convincing case for why Amazon is full-stop evil, no caveats, and is undeserving of your money on a moral and ethical level no matter what your values are. Amazon needs to be stopped, and legislation will not do so. Only its loyal consumers – who keep the beast alive – can do that by taking their money elsewhere. No matter your political or personal beliefs, I'm certain Amazon violates them in one way or another, and you should vote with your dollar by buying from other places whenever possible. Here’s why.
The Prime Reasons to Avoid Amazon
Amazon’s now-legendary “Prime Day” is July 8-11. Much like Black Friday or Cyber Monday, this means sales on lots of items on Amazon’s va...The New Oil
like this
Rickicki, AnxiousDuck e Scrollone like this.
The only reason you need - it's a monopoly. Fuck its all.
And I also hate with passion that 5 years ago you'd need AWS in your CV.
~~Owned by Amazon, FYI.~~
Turns out I'm full of shit.
Not owned by Amazon, but there's a big but.
Their source of income is from Amazon affiliates link. Whenever you follow the price of a product, if you click on the links on their websites or in their emails, they will earn a commission from Amazon.
Amazon recently started vetting their affiliates more. I'm 100% sure that camelcamelcamel now shows data in a way that doesn't hurt Amazon (e.g. they won't show sudden drops in prices, i.e. pricing mistakes) or even themselves (commissions are a percentage of the price paid by the user).
Russian volunteer legion captures Nigerian fighting for Russia on Zaporizhzhia front
Russian volunteer legion captures Nigerian fighting for Russia on Zaporizhzhia front
Fighters of the Freedom of Russia Legion, a unit operating under the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine (DIU), captured a citizen of Nigeria who was fighting on the Russian side during assault operations in the Zaporizhzhia direction. — Ukrinform.Ukrinform
For those who don’t know much about the war that headline may be confusing.
The “Russian Volunteer legion” are fighting on the sides of the ukranians.
Reform MP James McMurdock resigns whip pending ‘business propriety’ investigation
Reform MP James McMurdock resigns whip pending ‘business propriety’ investigation
Allegations relating to conduct during pandemic due to be published by national newspaper, Lee Anderson saysRowena Mason (The Guardian)
Reform UK puts teenagers in charge of vital public services
Reform UK puts teenagers in charge of vital public services
Concerns raised about council appointments, including 19-year-old overseeing children and family servicesBen Quinn (The Guardian)
‘You can’t pause the internet’: social media creators hit by burnout
‘You can’t pause the internet’: social media creators hit by burnout
Their jobs are seen as glamorous but the new reality for many is workplace stress and ‘complete fatigue’Dan Milmo (The Guardian)
Don’t call it ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’ Call it a concentration camp.
The case for calling Florida’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz' a concentration camp
Amid ICE raids, President Donald Trump toured a new immigration detention facility with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.Andrea Pitzer (MSNBC)
Kilgore Trout doesn't like this.
How to Be Anonymous on Social Media
Using a pseudonym on social media can be an incredibly valuable way to reclaim your privacy online. In an age where digital footprints last forever, the ability to separate your online identity from your real-world persona is more important than ever.Maybe you're concerned about protecting yourself from online mobs that might target your job, your family, or your personal reputation. Maybe you don't want everything you say online to be permanently linked to your real name. Perhaps you have multiple interests or roles in life (professional, personal, creative) and want to maintain separate identities for each.
Maybe you simply value your privacy. Having a pseudonymous account can be liberating. It allows you the freedom to explore new ideas, revise your beliefs, and reinvent yourself without every past opinion you’ve ever expressed being etched in stone and forever tied to you.
But setting up a pseudonymous account on social media isn’t always straightforward. Your approach will depend heavily on the platform you're using. It will also depend on your threat model, which you can think of as whom you’re trying to hide your identity from, how private you need to be, and what’s at stake.
How to Be Anonymous on Social Media
How to protect your identity depending on whom you're hiding fromNaomi Brockwell (Ludlow Institute)
New Israeli directive expedites ethnic cleansing of Masafer Yatta
By Yuval Abraham and Basel Adra
from +972 Magazine Sunday Recap newsletter
[published in Israel]
6/29/2025
Other articles
* Skating through rubble: The volunteers reclaiming joy for Gaza’s children
* 12 days that brought the war home to Israelis
* What the UAE hopes to gain from Israel’s growing isolation
* Israel’s euphoric ‘victory’ over Iran is quickly giving way to disillusionment
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it’: the terrifying truth about why Tesla’s cars keep crashing
The car came to rest more than 70 metres away, on the opposite side of the road, leaving a trail of wreckage. According to witnesses, the Model S burst into flames while still airborne. Several passersby tried to open the doors and rescue the driver, but they couldn’t unlock the car. When they heard explosions and saw flames through the windows, they retreated. Even the firefighters, who arrived 20 minutes later, could do nothing but watch the Tesla burn.
At that moment, Rita Meier was unaware of the crash. She tried calling her husband, but he didn’t pick up. When he still hadn’t returned her call hours later – highly unusual for this devoted father – she attempted to track his car using Tesla’s app. It no longer worked. By the time police officers rang her doorbell late that night, Meier was already bracing for the worst.
‘The vehicle suddenly accelerated with our baby in it’: the terrifying truth about why Tesla’s cars keep crashing
Elon Musk is obsessive about the design of his supercars, right down to the disappearing door handles.Guardian staff reporter (The Guardian)
like this
Kilgore Trout, Rickicki, Scrollone, Rozaŭtuno e adhocfungus like this.
don't like this
Kilgore Trout e Scrollone don't like this.
The “Magabundance” Agenda Is Creating Strange Bedfellows
Supply-side progressivism is forging unexpected alliances between populist Democrats, business-friendly centrists, and MAGA Republicans around militarized growth. The result is a post-neoliberal politics that accommodates authoritarian populism.
The Ugliness of the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill, in Charts - The New York Times
Opinion | The Ugliness of the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill, in Charts
Steven Rattner reveals the ugly reality lurking within the “big, beautiful bill.”Steven Rattner (The New York Times)
Musk doubles down on creating new party after poll says nearly half of Americans would support it: ‘Encouraging’
According to a new poll, 57% of male Republicans say they are likely to support Elon Musk's "America Party"
Almost half of voters said they are likely to support a new political party proposed by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, according to fresh polling.
A Quantus Insights survey released Wednesday found that 40% of voters said they would be likely to back Musk's "America Party," which aims to serve voters disillusioned with both Republicans and Democrats. Musk shared the poll's results on X, calling the results "Encouraging."
Musk first pitched a new political party in early June after he clashed with Donald Trump over the GOP's multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending bill.
Musk Doubles Down on Creating New Party After Poll Says Nearly Half of Americans Would Support It: 'Encouraging'
About 40% of voters said they are likely to support a new political party proposed by Elon Musk, according to fresh polling from Quantus Insights.Morgan Music (Latin Times)
[ TestFlight Update ] Mlem TestFlight Patch Notes 2025-07-05
Features
- Added initial support for logging into PieFed instances. Please note that many features (e.g., image uploads, inbox, and moderation) are not yet supported.
Bug Fixes
- Fixed images in post bodies always being blurred
US consultancy firm [Boston Consulting Group] involved in GHF aid scheme modelled plans to 'relocate' Palestinians
US consultancy firm involved in GHF aid scheme modelled plans to 'relocate' Palestinians
A consulting firm involved in the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation entered into a multimillion-dollar contract to develop the initiative and modelled a plan to "relocate" Palestinians from Gaza as part of its work, a Financial Times inves…MEE staff (Middle East Eye)
The spy, private equity baron and ghost of a Trump donor: The revolving door behind a Gaza mercenary firm
The spy, private equity baron and ghost of a Trump donor: The revolving door behind a Gaza mercenary firm
The US mercenary firm overseeing a controversial Gaza aid programme is the creation of a bespectacled Chicago private equity baron and a CIA spy with old ties to a Donald Trump ally who participated in one of the Middle East's nastiest diplomatic rif…Sean Mathews (Middle East Eye)
The Rise of AI Is Making Life Even Harder for Real People in Gaza
The Rise of AI Is Making Life Even Harder for Real People in Gaza
Gizmodo spoke with desperate Palestinians who were accused of being AI creations.Matt Novak (Gizmodo)
Israel kills at least 42 Palestinians in Gaza overnight
Israel kills at least 42 Palestinians in Gaza overnight
Israel has killed at least 42 Palestinians in Gaza overnight into SaturdayLucy Jackson (The National)
Toyota ammira la filosofia "fail fast" di BYD
Toyota ammira la filosofia "fail fast" di BYD
Toyota e BYD si sfidano nell'automotive: tradizione giapponese contro innovazione cinese, tra velocità di sviluppo e tecnologie avanzateGiorgio Colari (Autoblog)
Garlasco - Episodio 4: Gli ultimi sviluppi - Sempio
Le incongruenze abbondano sul caso riaperto per l'estate senza yacht che affondano o sommergibili che implodono
La vacanza del fratello non si capisce se è stata fatta coi genitori o con gli amici
L'albergo del trentino che dice che il fratello non l'han mai visto (ovvio se era con gli amici)
L'alibi di Sempio è saltato perché si sono messi d'accordo male
Una gemella era in doccia o in piscina?
I genitori che vivono ancora in quella casa???
La gemella che dice di sapere e voler essere pagata milioni per dire tutto
Il tipo che vede la gemella in bici ma poi ritratta per la sua incolumità
L'amico del fratello che si uccide nel 2016 dicendo su fb che quella ragazza sapeva qualcosa di troppo
Cosa manca?
Episodio 4: Gli ultimi sviluppi
Puntata podcast · GARLASCO - Dentro il caso · 27/05/2025 · 24 minApple Podcasts
RNC Sues Arizona To Block Voting Access for Overseas U.S. Citizens
RNC Sues Arizona To Block Voting Access for Overseas U.S. Citizens - Democracy Docket
Republicans filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block a state law that allows certain U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in Arizona elections.Democracy Docket
The Reality My Medicaid Patients Face | With work requirements in place, many will be removed from Medicaid even though they should qualify.
The Reality My Medicaid Patients Face
With work requirements in place, many will be removed from Medicaid even though they should qualify.Lindsay Ryan (The Atlantic)
Tone-deaf Xbox executive urges laid off employees to talk to Copilot for emotional support
Matt Turnbull, an Executive Producer at Xbox Game Studios Publishing, recently made a LinkedIn post, emphasizing that he'd be "remiss in not trying to offer the best advice" he could to laid-off workers in these trying times. This "best" advice is to turn to AI assistants like Copilot and ChatGPT for emotional support and to reduce cognitive load.
Tone-deaf Xbox executive urges laid off employees to talk to Copilot for emotional support
Following 9,000 layoffs, a seemingly tone-deaf Xbox executive has recommended those impacted to turn to AI tools like Copilot for emotional clarity.Usama Jawad (Neowin)
Which button does which function?
It's not possible to see the image, when I click on the fediverse button (link to lemmy.thewooskeys.com/post/575…) I get a xitter-style forced signup screen
Which button does which function?
Of the 3 buttons in the red-outlined-box on this Brother printer control panel, which does what function? Grrr!
AI Job Fears Hit Peak Hype While Reality Lags Behind
AI Job Fears Hit Peak Hype While Reality Lags Behind
The headlines scream about AI wiping out white-collar jobs. CEOs warn of massive workforce reductions. But dig into the actual numbers, and a different picture emerges.GazeOn Team (GazeOn)
Rimu
in reply to klu9 • • •klu9
in reply to Rimu • • •