this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
385 points (98.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54500 readers
747 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] trebuchet@lemmy.ml -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.

[–] sour@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

because company and individual are same

[–] trebuchet@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?

Is there a principled basis for this argument?

It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn't a legal regime like you're advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?

[–] sour@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

does only selling to individual prevent company from pirating