this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
336 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

62574 readers
217 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):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space 38 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In case anyone was wondering what TorrentFreak thinks of this whole thing: https://torrentfreak.com/you-cant-defend-public-libraries-and-oppose-file-sharing-150510/

Public libraries started appearing in the mid-1800s. At the time, publishers went absolutely berserk: they had been lobbying for the lending of books to become illegal, as reading a book without paying anything first was “stealing”, they argued. As a consequence, they considered private libraries at the time to be hotbeds of crime and robbery. (Those libraries were so-called “subscription libraries”, so they were argued to be for-profit, too.)

British Parliament at the time, unlike today’s politicians, wisely disagreed with the publishing industry lobby – the copyright industry of the time. Instead, they saw the economic value in an educated and cultural populace, and passed a law allowing free public libraries in 1850, so that local libraries were built throughout Britain, where the public could take part of knowledge and culture for free.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The publishers are not against libraries per se

doubt

[–] wagesj45@kbin.social 30 points 2 years ago

If they could force you to pay a royalty every time you so much as thought of a book you once read, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 years ago

The public has been forgotten in our intellectual property system. The intent of copyright and patents in the US Constitution is to develop a robust public domain, but it's taken this long for Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse, 1928) to finally be free to use. (I say that as if nothing is going to stop it before January 1st, 2024).

Copyright is rent-seeking. It's worse than theft. Its closer to extortion. But because it is done by the owner class, it is condoned or celebrated by the state. A state that has forgotten its people.

[–] beto@lemmy.studio 10 points 2 years ago

Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period.

So sad that we solved the problem of knowledge scarcity, and because of greed we need to add it back artificially.