I pay for a bunch of crap because I split it with my ex, but now I’m waiting for them all to throw a bitch fit over multiple households so I can just go back to the implied activity.
I like paying for things, and have been more accepting than most about price hikes cause I get that servers cost money. Lately though I’ve been tired of reading about the “pay more as we strip content” strategy everyone is utilizing. The real kicker though is watching people who outright paid for content having it stripped from them.
If purchasing isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft. Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership, but it’s still implied that by “purchasing” a title you’ll retain access to it. Like on Steam, if something gets pulled but you own it, they still have it tucked away somewhere so you can still download it in the future - They don’t just tell you to eat a dick.
Copyright infringement (piracy) has never been theft. The statement about purchasing and ownership gives ground to see creating more of something to be the same as taking something.
Plus you don’t own games on steam, you’ve purchased a license. If you owned them you could resell them.
I think you misread my comment somehow. I never said you did, just that they’re good about maintaining access to content that gets pulled from the market for one reason or another.
I mean I’m pretty sure that if the owner of some IP actually asked them to remove it from peoples’ libraries due to them stopping sales on Steam, they would legally have to do it.
Probably, but while I can’t say it hasn’t happened it’s certainly not common. I don’t have a count but I know I have a handful of stuff that were pulled years ago. Alot of it is tedious rights crap with music and the like which makes them ineligible for sale.
I imagine in the case of steam, there’s not much reason to give a crap. They’re not paying to store the files. Plus, while we all have known the days of “purchased” content being stripped were coming, who wants to be the company to really pop that lid?
Now that a few companies have broached the policy maybe we’ll see more of it in the gaming space, but idk letting steam hold onto a copy of game files is also less of an “investment” than storing something locally and streaming it.
Perhaps the comment entirely about how we don’t truly own anything digital that EXPLICITLY states “I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership” isn’t the best place to be a stout contrarian for no reason other than to puff your chest with an “um, ackchyually?”
I used common language commonly used to describe the state of having paid for a product because “but you’ve paid for a digital license to access said content which offers no sense of ownership which can be revoked at any time for any reason” is tedious and pointless.
The intent, purpose, and meaning of my content is clear. You’ve added nothing to the conversation, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
“Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership”
How did you read this sentence then not get the implication he meant ‘own a license than can be revoked’ when he then used the word own? This is lemmy, everyone knows that implication for digital “ownership”
While I don’t particularly see harm coming to a multibillion dollar corporation if someone torrents a 20 year old movie, piracy is still theft in the sense that something with value was had for zero dollars. The “copying vs taking” argument is irrelevant. Whether or not you’re being charged for direct ownership of a tangible item, or being charged for a 1 time viewing of an item, circumventing that agreement is still theft.
I don’t disagree, but I definitely do not agree fully with your sentiment. “theft” implies a loss to the owner. (and sorry to folks in the other side, “piracy” also implies theft/loss)
So if folks can sit on top of a skyscraper and look into a ball park to watch the game, it’s not theft, but they are enjoying something of value without paying for it, and society generally accepts this behavior in that case. But not if you splice your neighbor’s cable to watch for free. (is that even still possible?)
Maybe call it, “involuntary gratis”? It implies some harm, but not on the same degree as theft.
I’ve been upset for about 10 years or so. I used to use the Love Film service where I got two Blu-ray at a time posted to me. The company was bought my Amazon. Ok, don’t like Amazon but that’s fine, I like the service still. They then incorporate it into their Prime package. I didn’t want anything else, just discs by post. To retain the disc service it cost more than just prime as prime was a requirement. They sneaked Prime onto my account without me realising and the price went up. They were phasing people from discs to online by making it the cheaper option. They then phased the disc service out altogether.
They literally bought Love Film to shut it down.
I’m was happy renting blurays. I switched to buying Blu-ray for a while but I have no where to keep a collection. So I have up and switched to Kodi.
Quite sad really. I still have what were then two good quality Blu-ray players now collecting dust. I sometimes look at them and think one day…
That sucks. I don’t have an extensive collection but I occasionally try to pick up physical media where I can. Where I get my haircut has a small record store with a dollar CD rack I forage when I’m there lol. Their regular cds are only $4-5 but I’ll impulse buy some bs for a buck 😂
I pay for a bunch of crap because I split it with my ex, but now I’m waiting for them all to throw a bitch fit over multiple households so I can just go back to the implied activity.
I like paying for things, and have been more accepting than most about price hikes cause I get that servers cost money. Lately though I’ve been tired of reading about the “pay more as we strip content” strategy everyone is utilizing. The real kicker though is watching people who outright paid for content having it stripped from them.
If purchasing isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft. Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership, but it’s still implied that by “purchasing” a title you’ll retain access to it. Like on Steam, if something gets pulled but you own it, they still have it tucked away somewhere so you can still download it in the future - They don’t just tell you to eat a dick.
Copyright infringement (piracy) has never been theft. The statement about purchasing and ownership gives ground to see creating more of something to be the same as taking something.
Plus you don’t own games on steam, you’ve purchased a license. If you owned them you could resell them.
I think you misread my comment somehow. I never said you did, just that they’re good about maintaining access to content that gets pulled from the market for one reason or another.
I mean I’m pretty sure that if the owner of some IP actually asked them to remove it from peoples’ libraries due to them stopping sales on Steam, they would legally have to do it.
Probably, but while I can’t say it hasn’t happened it’s certainly not common. I don’t have a count but I know I have a handful of stuff that were pulled years ago. Alot of it is tedious rights crap with music and the like which makes them ineligible for sale.
I imagine in the case of steam, there’s not much reason to give a crap. They’re not paying to store the files. Plus, while we all have known the days of “purchased” content being stripped were coming, who wants to be the company to really pop that lid?
Now that a few companies have broached the policy maybe we’ll see more of it in the gaming space, but idk letting steam hold onto a copy of game files is also less of an “investment” than storing something locally and streaming it.
Yes you did. You said if you buy something on steam you own it.
Perhaps the comment entirely about how we don’t truly own anything digital that EXPLICITLY states “I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership” isn’t the best place to be a stout contrarian for no reason other than to puff your chest with an “um, ackchyually?”
I used common language commonly used to describe the state of having paid for a product because “but you’ve paid for a digital license to access said content which offers no sense of ownership which can be revoked at any time for any reason” is tedious and pointless.
The intent, purpose, and meaning of my content is clear. You’ve added nothing to the conversation, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
It’s clear words are just vibes to you
“Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership”
How did you read this sentence then not get the implication he meant ‘own a license than can be revoked’ when he then used the word own? This is lemmy, everyone knows that implication for digital “ownership”
I can own a DVD that’s digital ownership.
While I don’t particularly see harm coming to a multibillion dollar corporation if someone torrents a 20 year old movie, piracy is still theft in the sense that something with value was had for zero dollars. The “copying vs taking” argument is irrelevant. Whether or not you’re being charged for direct ownership of a tangible item, or being charged for a 1 time viewing of an item, circumventing that agreement is still theft.
I don’t disagree, but I definitely do not agree fully with your sentiment. “theft” implies a loss to the owner. (and sorry to folks in the other side, “piracy” also implies theft/loss)
So if folks can sit on top of a skyscraper and look into a ball park to watch the game, it’s not theft, but they are enjoying something of value without paying for it, and society generally accepts this behavior in that case. But not if you splice your neighbor’s cable to watch for free. (is that even still possible?)
Maybe call it, “involuntary gratis”? It implies some harm, but not on the same degree as theft.
So if I enjoy a sunset it’s theft because nobody got paid?
If I enter a theater through the backdoor without paying, is that theft?
No, it’s trespassing and you could be arrested for it not stealing.
Ok, so what’s difference?
They’re literally different legal concepts just like speeding isn’t murder.
I’ve been upset for about 10 years or so. I used to use the Love Film service where I got two Blu-ray at a time posted to me. The company was bought my Amazon. Ok, don’t like Amazon but that’s fine, I like the service still. They then incorporate it into their Prime package. I didn’t want anything else, just discs by post. To retain the disc service it cost more than just prime as prime was a requirement. They sneaked Prime onto my account without me realising and the price went up. They were phasing people from discs to online by making it the cheaper option. They then phased the disc service out altogether.
They literally bought Love Film to shut it down.
I’m was happy renting blurays. I switched to buying Blu-ray for a while but I have no where to keep a collection. So I have up and switched to Kodi.
Quite sad really. I still have what were then two good quality Blu-ray players now collecting dust. I sometimes look at them and think one day…
That sucks. I don’t have an extensive collection but I occasionally try to pick up physical media where I can. Where I get my haircut has a small record store with a dollar CD rack I forage when I’m there lol. Their regular cds are only $4-5 but I’ll impulse buy some bs for a buck 😂