Earlier, after review, we blocked and removed several communities that were providing assistance to access copyrighted/pirated material, which is currently not allowed per Rule #1 of our Code of Conduct. The communities that were removed due to this decision were:
We took this action to protect lemmy.world, lemmy.world’s users, and lemmy.world staff as the material posted in those communities could be problematic for us, because of potential legal issues around copyrighted material and services that provide access to or assistance in obtaining it.
This decision is about liability and does not mean we are otherwise hostile to any of these communities or their users. As the Lemmyverse grows and instances get big, precautions may happen. We will keep monitoring the situation closely, and if in the future we deem it safe, we would gladly reallow these communities.
The discussions that have happened in various threads on Lemmy make it very clear that removing the communites before we announced our intent to remove them is not the level of transparency the community expects, and that as stewards of this community we need to be extremely transparent before we do this again in the future as well as make sure that we get feedback around what the planned changes are, because lemmy.world is yours as much as it is ours.
Sale of revokable for any reason at all licenses to access digital content should be a crime, not piracy. This content can be infinitely reproduced with no harm to the owner, in fact in most cases the owner doesn’t even know that you specifically copied the content. I completely agree that everyone should support creators they like, but I completely disagree that it should be compulsory on often whatever terms the author comes up with to extort as much money as they can.
I don’t think theft becomes something lesser if the victim isn’t aware of it. If you pickpocket a $20 from my back pocket that I didn’t realize was there, it’s still theft.
And I think the argument about the content being digital and infinitely copyable is also a rationalization. If I’m trying to make a living as an independent software developer and I spend two years of my life making a game hoping it will become popular, you making a copy of it for free is still harming me, even if I’m not aware that you did it - it’s you getting the fruits of my work without compensating me. We have copyright laws to encourage people to make content, knowing that their work will be protected. Without that protection, there’s no reason to make that content.
Again, lots of rationalization for taking something you want without paying for it. It always comes down to “it’s a big company, it won’t hurt them” or “no one will even know I made a copy so it shouldn’t be a crime,” etc.
Not being aware was a simpler expression to convey “does not have any influence on that person”. And no, it does not harm you. Please explain what difference does it make to you if someone does not buy the game or does not buy the game and pirate it. And better yet, if you think that the comparison should be between a specific human being purchasing the game or pirating for it, please explain how can you prove someone did have the intent to buy the game? Even if so, the person responsible is not the one making a decision to pirate, but the one making it available for piracy. I still disagree with this view of reality, but for me personally assigning more responsibility to the websites offering content rather than the users is a more sensible middle ground. The main problem for me is the idea of a “lost sale”, whereas it is not possible to prove someone was going to buy the product. I’ve even seen some people suggest things like “if you are poor and can’t afford entertainment then you shouldn’t have entertainment”, which is completely absurd, because in this case specifically piracy even more clearly has no negative impact on anyone, and just a positive one for the person unable to afford a product.
It doesn’t make much difference a person refusing to buy your game isn’t going to buy your game.
I guess in some cases they might be simply butthurt losers about it (most people attacking piracy are) and in some cases they’d be seething about people being free to choose not to buy their stuff in the first place, though they’d never say that because they would sound crazy, greedy, and tyrannical, even to people against piracy.
They don’t really feel anything from it, if they do they’re just butthurt losers.
Is it possible to calculate which people who steal content would have purchased it if stealing it was not an option? No, of course not. Would you suggest that the number is zero? That no one who steals it would have purchased it? Especially considering the fact that prices in general would be lower for everyone if stealing it was impossible? I think it’s pretty safe to say that people stealing content robs creators of some profits. Which, by the way, is why it’s illegal.
And are you suggesting that the only form of entertainment poorer people have as options are movies and games that they have to steal? Because that’s crazy. My family was not well off when I was little and there were loads of things that we couldn’t afford that my friends could. It’s like you’re insinuating that I’m arguing that poor people shouldn’t be able to eat if I say that it’s not okay for people to steal filet mignon. There are movies on TV and YouTube. There are free and affordable games. Most older content is pretty cheap. We’re not taking away someone’s inalienable rights by saying that to see the latest Marvel blockbuster, they have to pay for it.
It’s remarkable to me that people justify this stuff by saying it’s right and good. I’m not an angel, but when I do something I shouldn’t, I don’t try to convince people that I’m entitled to it. I don’t make up words to make my actions sound okay.
I think this discussion is leading nowhere, but I again want to emphasize the fact that you cannot point to a person and say that their actions specifically led to any harm and thus you cannot (imo of course) morally hold them responsible. As for the second part that was not my point, you are of course right about what you said and I agree with the whole paragraph, I just wanted to show an extreme example of how there is no harm, because there is no way such a person would pay for the content anyways - so yeah, you can just let them not enjoy filet mignon, but why would you when they could eat it with no harm to anyone? And as for the last part I am not stating that piracy is always a clearly good thing, I am just stating that it is ethically neutral in most cases and rarely necessary to save content from being forgotten or for other research purposes, when eg. the scientific articles are locked behind absurd paywalls.