this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
1111 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54539 readers
222 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):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who cares? The point is, it's not theft. The person who had the art still has the art, so it's not theft.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.