It’s not really beside the point, from most reasonable perspectives. A multi-billion-dollar company enriching itself on the backs of starving authors so that it can go on enriching itself on the backs of its users is significantly different from a small number of comparatively destitute individuals stealing some temporary enjoyment for themselves. They are both wrong, but the discussion is utterly useless if you don’t talk about the harm involved and who benefits.
Stealing is wrong whether it’s for personal or business use. Which one is more wrong is besides the point.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 2 months ago
I don’t really see that difference there. Of course the difference in scale is massive when you compare a multi-billion company doing it to an individual, but what about the harm when everyone does it as individuals versus one big company doing it? I don’t think the difference matters anymore at that point.
Doing something morally wrong can’t be justified just because only a small number of people are doing it. You wouldn’t use that defense for any other immoral behavior either. Me dumping my car’s old motor oil into the woods is still bad even if I’m the only one in my country who does it - and if I then go ahead criticizing a drilling company for causing an oil spill, I’d be just as much of a hypocrite.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I fundamentally disagree with both your premise and your example’s conclusion. I’m not saying that it can be justified, though; just that it must be contextualized differently. To wit: it would be right for you to criticize them even if you are being hypocritical. You have far fewer resources to dispose of that oil. Your business model is not predicated upon handling oil well. You are not enriching yourself at the cost of others. And yes, there may be others doing it as well, but the combined impact of every individual doing it is almost certainly a tiny fraction of the company doing it.
Diurnambule@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Capitalism is on hell of a mind breaker. Most artist will allow IP to be lifted for random people which can’t buy their stuff. Does Meta have monetary issues ? Or may be IP law were never to protect artist but to exploit and get more money.
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 2 months ago
You can keep the insults to yourself.
It’s virtually never the case that people genuinely can’t afford it or that it’s simply not available for purchase anywhere. In the vast majority of cases, people pirate because they don’t want to pay. It’s a financial decision that leaves them no ground to stand on and criticize others for doing the same.
Stiggyman@ani.social 2 months ago
You would be surprised how many pirate due to lack of product.
Example I pirate anime as it airs. I do this for 3 reasons 1: as it airs lets me be in the discussion. 2: crunchyroll does not respect me as a customer enough for me to pay them to ruin the industry. And 3: a sense of ownership once I buy the BluRay of that season 6 to fucking 12 months after it’s done airing…
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 2 months ago
There are edge cases where you could argue piracy is morally justifiable. Those aren’t what I’m talking about here, though. I’m talking about movies, TV series, games, and software that people pirate not because they couldn’t get it elsewhere or couldn’t afford it - but simply because they want it for free. That’s the vast majority of online piracy.
Diurnambule@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Insult ? Where ? Trying to victimize yourself ? Are you a maga ?
The rest of the arguments are bullshit too, their are many study showing that piracy is a service issue. Netflix nearly killed piracy when it got out. Then it enshitificated and piracy grow again.