this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
484 points (98.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

70298 readers
593 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

We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 21 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Option C is to just go without, but apparently I'm the only fool doing that

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Books are better than TV anyway. Once you own a book, no corpo fuckwad can take it away from you.

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unless it’s an ebook on an ereader.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 1 points 23 hours ago

Even then, DRM-free formats like EPUB and PDF still exist, and places like Kobo still sell them.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

True that, physical books are one of the last forms of physical media still not laden with DRM (along with the rare collector vinyls, cassettes, and videotapes). Even then - I also boycott most writers anyway, but that's for other ethical reasons.

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

The DRM is the cover, according to some jackets I’ve read. Basically, it says something like, “if you received this without the cover, contact the publisher.”

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In a sense I do think this kind of approach matters more than people give it credit for. Most people tend to see piracy as a way to consume media without supporting the rightsholders of that media, but even pirated consumption is still support.

A person who is, say, pirating Harry Potter books and other media is still giving Rowling and her franchise and ideas space in their head, maybe contributing to further conversations about her, and overall inadvertently promoting her whether they like it or not - as opposed to having used that time and energy to consume media from someone more worth the time and effort, like say, Ursula Le Guin.

For example I was watching a video from a YouTuber who does controller reviews. In that video he briefly mentioned two controllers that were of such poor quality that they were literally unusable. He went on to say that he would not be making videos about them, because he found that even when he goes out of his way to give a controller the worst review possible, tons of people still buy them.


Personally, I think that information freedom matters enough that anything published under licenses that are more restrictive than copyleft, permissive ones, or straight public domain is unethical. If private property is theft, and it is, that absolutely extends into knowledge and culture as well. If I were a purist about that, I would go out of my way to use things like the fully free Linux distros, and only consume media under those aforementioned licenses. Truth be told I don't though, I do pirate corporate media sometimes. But I do try to give space where it counts too - trying to use some time and energy to seek out any kind of media that's more open.

Tl;dr: play Battle for Wesnoth.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 5 points 2 days ago

That is indeed my philosophy - "even pirated consumption is still support" in the form of giving a platform, publicity, or space in your brain. Even further so considering the many, many problematic artists out there, and the many other artists that have collaborated with them, making entire genres nearly unconscionable as a result.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean nobody is going to give you a medal for doing it so why deprive yourself?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The feeling of smug superiority is its own reward.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

More like the feeling of not contributing to the problem, if anything I'm worse-placed for not knowing "general culture" references

[–] obelisk_complex@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What problem does sharing media contribute to, exactly? How many artists are starving because a fan downloaded their discography, vs the sheer amount of money owed to artists in unpaid royalties and "creative accounting"?

And this is happening to stars; it's got to be worse for smaller artists.

Artists make money from their fans. Fans discover artists through media sharing. If nobody shared media, I wouldn't have discovered my favourite bands and spent hundreds of dollars on tickets over the course of my life, or my favourite authors whose books I have bought as gifts many times over, or when I was younger my favourite kinds of games, that I would go on to spend tens of thousands of dollars on over the course of my life (and not just on Steam!).

From where I'm sitting, it sure does seem like it contributes - but not to problems.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Media conglomerates insist that if people can't afford their prices, then they should go without their product. I'm doing exactly that to show a point - namely, that they're not as necessary for a good living as they think they are.

[–] obelisk_complex@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That sounds like a very different point than "media sharing is a problem". And for what it's worth I don't think you're wrong - there are plenty of talented independent artists who share their work for nothing and accept donations. No need to buy entertainment from giant corporations.

But it's important to remember that it's a social thing to be able to talk about the latest whatever. Not keeping up does cost a certain something; whether that something is valuable to you personally is another question again.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And that is valid.

I have never subscribed any of these streaming services. The pressure from friends was intense but at the end of the day I simply felt no need and even less appeal to it.

Nowadays, I hear those same friends how expensive it has become to keep all of these services to follow their interests and how the catalogue has been degrading.

I sincerely do not care.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 5 points 2 days ago

I have the blessing and the curse of never having had the chance of having a social life. No peer pressure in exchange for no support network. Not quite the fair deal, but I must do with what I have.

[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Yes, you are. /s