this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
391 points (98.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
70277 readers
1250 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:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Option C is to just go without, but apparently I'm the only fool doing that
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.
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.
I mean nobody is going to give you a medal for doing it so why deprive yourself?
The feeling of smug superiority is its own reward.
More like the feeling of not contributing to the problem, if anything I'm worse-placed for not knowing "general culture" references
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.
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.
That sounds like a very different point than "media sharing is not 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.
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.
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.
Yes, you are. /s