this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
4704 points (97.6% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54758 readers
527 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RecursiveDescent@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I mean if I am not paying either way me ingesting that content or not makes 0 difference to the producer. It is the same logic as throwing excess food to the trash so homeless can't eat it.

[–] SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

The producer and publisher paid a cost for you to have heard and develop an interest in their products. So yes, it makes a difference to them if that investment turns into you using the content but not paying for it. You're suddenly a target audience without returns.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It does, though, by the argument they’re making. If you could only ingest it by paying for it, you’d have to have paid for it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to.

The very fact that you’re watching it without paying kind of proves that point.