Lady Laura 
*taps the sign*
Matt Hall☠️
"... more like guidelines than actual rules..."
Peritia SystemThe only truth
PatternChaser@cmconseils A genius observation, and valid too. I don't even own the Windows software on my PC... 😡
Rodrigo Dias@cmconseils Exactly. Ownership matters in the digital age too.
Mr. Lance E Sloan (IRL) 👤@cmconseils
That's what's been said since the early 1980s. Maybe earlier.
That's what's been said since the early 1980s. Maybe earlier.
Colorblind Cowboy@cmconseils I did have this conversation with someone where I asked them, “what if you actually can buy it?”
Because for music, movies, and books you often can buy a hard copy.
sylvie@cmconseils legally, there is no such thing as piracy, or stealing
https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/
you can call it an unauthorized copy or something like that
(personally, i avoid mentioning piracy for different reasons)
MPAA Banned From Using Piracy and Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial * TorrentFreak
Leading up to the trial, Hotfile has scored several significant wins against the MPAA. The Florida federal court ruled on several motions this week, and many went in favor of the file-hosting service. Most prominently, Judge Kathleen Williams decided that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use “pejorative” terms including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the upcoming proceedings.
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦@cmconseils i love that it’s Mickey Mouse’s hands what we’re seeing. well done.
derptron@cmconseils Pirating is definitely stealing but making unauthorized copies of things was never pirating.
VulcanTouristWrong argument tack: the definitions of stealing, theft, "pirating" all rely on the presumption that the original possessor is being denied something, e.g. continued use of the "stolen" item. Just as with "cheating", another human must be disadvantaged.
Neither duplicating a digital stream of bits nor copying a file in any way objectively denies the original possessor use of anything.
What they CLAIM is "lost sales", "lost income", but that too is a lie: they have no objective proof that those engaged in piracy would have ever chosen to pay them if the piracy weren't possible. Those "lost sales" ARE SPECULATIVE, not actual. Many people who "pirate" would simply be forced to do without in the absence of that opportunity. Losing a nonexistent sale is loss of nothing.
How has this mischaracterization been tolerated? Why have judges bought into these fallacious arguments and "reasoning"?
It's GREED, and everyone knows it and tolerates it, like we tolerate "drunken" behavior that is voluntary and not the result of alcohol.
It's tolerance of the greedy and the selfish that has led us to this moment in history.
