this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
938 points (99.1% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

70185 readers
200 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 days ago

Considering the speed at which society and entertainment is changing and being produced, at some point it ceases to be "unlawful" to become legitimate preservation.

I've noticed an uptick on reruns of old series and films, especially late seventies, eighties and nineties. On films, I'm seeing even earlier production, going back to the sixties, and even of minor cinema like italian, spanish and french.

I have no illusions that these older productions are probably cheaper to license than current day productions, but recent production gets aired once, maybe twice, and is just gone.

Some will argue this is due solely to most not having rewatching value, others that it is predicated on the shorter attention span audiences have nowadays. Other arguments exist.

Regardless of those, not seeing current series being re-run, for me, is a sign that there is no interest keeping those works around.

It would be extremely satisfying if somewhere in the future some of those productions had to be rescued from private copies, as it has happened before with others.

[–] inari@piefed.zip 181 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Piracy isn't stealing anyway

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 128 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They call it stealing because the real legal term is unlawful copying or reproducing without copyright permits, and that sounds closer to a misdemeanor.

If we claim someone has stolen thousands of songs causing millions of dolars in damages it does look like a felony, and that is the way they've chosen to scare us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatyrSack@quokk.au 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I feel the same way about people applying terms like "theft" to events of intellectual property misuse like copying another artist's art style, reusing another comedian's jokes, etc. Those things are problems of their own, but should not be called "theft".

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 81 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s never been stealing, it’s infringement of copyright, which aught to carry much less of a penalty since the original owner was not deprived of their property.

But we live in hell, so capitalism literally bankrupts families when they film their kid dancing to music that was playing on a public broadcast on FM radio.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 17 points 1 week ago

The record industry has always claimed that every pirated album is a lost sale, but that is t really true. Studies that have been commissioned by the record biz itself have shown that the biggest music PURCHASERS, are also big Pirates as well. These are people who spend every last cent on music, and still need more.

I generally use pirating to audition artists and albums I'm curious about. If I like them, I'll buy their CDs, because I want the actual item, and I want to support the artist. But I can't afford to buy random music just to see if I like it enough to financially support it.

Pirating is just the modern version of the radio.

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I cannot stand piracy, but my computer recently escaped its containment and started downloading all these movies and TV shows that I like to watch. Does anyone know how to stop this behavior? So far I've tried nothing

[–] eggdaddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Keep doing nothing, eventually it will work itself out after it's gotten all the items it wants. You're good.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 43 points 1 week ago

How to recruit new pirates to the cause. Thank you goofge.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Piracy isn't stealing.

The "If buying isn't owning" part makes a catchy slogan but it really isn't necessary.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

They don't claim that after the fact, it's their terms of service to begin with. Just another reason to never buy anything on these services. Even paying for streaming is less of a scam since at least you aren't being misled.

(I can feel my huge steam library giving my hypocritical ass mad side-eye right now)

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mr_right@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 1 week ago (6 children)

it's there, its free, just take it and enjoy it

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Piracy has never been stealing.

When you steal something, the real issue is that the other person is deprived of some tangible item they used to have.

When you "pirate", you're merely violating a copyright. The government granted someone a monopoly on the expression of an idea, and you're not respecting the government's decision on that item's exclusivity.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And like. I'd be fine with that if the primary function in practice was to ensure the original creator gets financially compensated for their work and then they can pay for copyright controlled distribution services if that helps therm make sure they get paid but that is not why or how current law is used and I'm kinda losing that it even can be.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago

Right. Copyright is supposed to be for the good of the population. In order to encourage people to create things, they're given a short monopoly on it after which it enters the public domain. The original copyright term was 14 years, I think.

The new setup is absurd. The public doesn't benefit for more than a century, at which point the copyrighted item is probably of next to no value.

And, like you said, the artist rarely benefits. Writers are probably the ones who come the closest to benefitting. They only have to pay their agent a cut, their publisher, then, finally Amazon. With advances, etc. you have to wonder how much they get paid for each additional book sold. Musicians basically don't make anything anymore, with the bullshit that Spotify (partially owned by the record companies) does. And then movies, TV, and other video stuff, the amount that creators get is massively watered down, and that's after the "Hollywood accounting" makes profits from even successful things disappear.

I really don't respect copyright anymore because it doesn't benefit me (a member of the public) nor does it benefit the artist. It's just a tool to hand money to certain entertainment conglomerates.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Sure but game companies need to get paid or they won't make games. Right? Luckily there are many others who pay for games so you can pirate, but without them paying, there wouldn't be a product you can pirate.

I just picked a game company as an example but of course you understand this.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Of course you understand that people made creative things before copyright existed. You understand that that happened when the copyright term was 14 years. You understand that it happened before Warner Bros. Discovery existed.

You understand that it is possible for a company to make games without requiring a 120 year copyright term, right?

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Yes people make creative things, but they don't make games that requires a game studio and give them away for free. I feel that you should understand this. Perhaps you don't.

I pirated as a kid too because I didn't have money and I loved games. But I knew that others paid for their games and that's why they could make them.

Now as an adult, I'm paying for my games. Because I have the money and it's worth it. If you don't, that's fine too. I dont judge. But just quit the stupid copyright argument. :)

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes people make creative things, but they don’t make games that requires a game studio and give them away for free

They used to, they called it shareware. It could happen again.

Look, if my personally ignoring copyrights for certain things causes certain media companies to go bankrupt and causes a whole re-think of how the creative economy should work, I think that's a good thing. I don't think my choices are that powerful, but we can always hope.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago

I get it, I also think capitalism is a very low consciousness system where you destroy everything in the end. I often feel this place is ridiculous because of that. Some kind of school for the most retarded. However, I got put here so... Maybe I'm not so smart.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The "copyright argument" they made was that pirating isn't stealing, it's violating copyright, and (implied) that these are two different things. I'm pretty sure this argument hasn't been knocked down yet, so a bit premature of you to call it stupid.

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly. It's like jury nullification, but for copy rights. The government serves us not visa versa.

[–] bzipitidoo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Tried to read an e-book from the local library. No problem downloading it, but the file was encrypted, and only an Adobe app that does not run on Linux could decrypt it. I used Wine in Linux to run the Windows version of this app, and it worked right up to the point of actually decrypting the file. Couldn't read the e-book I'd checked out. So I pirated the book.

I went to some trouble to download and install Wine and the Adobe software, and I resent that. Tried to do things the legal way. Could've saved myself much bother by pirating first and skipping the public library. I also deleted the Adobe garbage.

[–] Squidiey@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

I never bought and never will eBooks

Only physical copies and piracy (so I can actually own my stuff)

[–] nures_731@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago

There is actually an adobe deacsm extension you can install in calibre on linux, in order to rip books in linux

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know it doesn't fit the Piracy narrative, but there's actually more to this story. I've never actually heard this story, but at some point, Google gave everyone that same movie (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring) for free. Anybody who saw the deal could claim it. I still have it. I'd gift it to this guy if I could, because I've since bought the extended edition trilogy in 4K. The Fellowship copy is locked to 1080p, and it's the theatrical version. I have no reason to ever watch it. But I still have it.

So I don't know what happened with them losing the rights, but they did kinda try to make it right by offering a giveaway. It would have been awfully nice of them to email everyone who lost their original copy and tell them they could claim it, though. That rarely happens with giveaways. They had a few of them back then. I also got Happy Feet and Big, maybe one or two others.

Make no mistake though. While I do have quite a nice collection of 4K movies in Apple TV (call them rentals if you want, but I won't pay more than $5 for them, so rental is fair since I paid rental price), I have easily 10-15 times as many on my Plex server (not all 4K though, but still).

[–] Hundun@beehaw.org 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Piracy isn't stealing, period.

It was totally ok to pirate movies before this practice ever took place. Information had always wanted to be free.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 22 points 1 week ago

Don't do business with google for starters. You just know you're gonna get screwed one way or another.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Honest question, if the movie reappears in the catalog on Google does the "ownership" return to the customer? My money is on no they would have to repurchase

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kamee@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Fun fact: in my country (Slovakia) it’s totally legal to download things. It’s the uploading it back that’s seen as illegal, so as long as you have a paid private torrent site where you can hit’n’run you are not breaking any laws.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If there is DRM, you’re only renting it. You may be renting it until further notice for a one-off payment, but your lease could be unilaterally revoked at any time. The supplier framing your lease as a purchase is at the very least being misleading.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Piracy isn't stealing, period.

It was totally ok to pirate movies before this practice ever took place. Information had always wanted to be free.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›