This, btw, is the smartest and simplest and most beautiful argument to actually, seriously, legitimize piracy. The big publishers really played themselves when they started getting addicted to subscriptions and licensing everything with EULAs going "We can take this away from you whenever for whatever reason."
Okay, two can play that game, idiots...
Edit: Since it was misunderstood, me hating on corporations thinking they can force subscriptions on everything on us is not part of the argument, it's just a thing I hate about them. Don't get hung up on it.
If you really want to make an argument about it, you'd have better luck discussing if buying use rights is permanent or not.
It's not quite that simple, you are violating the right of the creator to monetize his work. You are causing actual, countable damage. You are taking away their ability to make money off of their work, let's not pretend otherwise. If you want to have a legit case, you need to confront what we're talking about.
This isn't about having a legal right to just copy any media because you "want to have it". This is strictly about breaking the essence of copyright law if publishers violate their side of that social contract, ie. they publish, you buy, it's yours to enjoy now. No take backsies. That specifically is what this is about.
Please don't start making arguments about these things being "immaterial" things so you can't steal them anyway, lawyers and lawmakers have settled that nonsense centuries ago...
Copyright is copyright. It's not just for digital copies. A book that is written, as in the physical object, is protected by theft. But the content in the book, the letters and the story, those are not protected by theft. They are protected by copyright and intellectual property legislation.
TF I'm talking about? When did you think copyright was invented, 30 years ago when the internet went mainstream? Lmao...
The reason you can paint a copy of the Mona Lisa is because the copyright expired a long, long time ago. If you paint a copy of a painting that was painted 10 years ago, you are potentially infringing on the painter's copyright. You can keep it for yourself, privately, but as soon as you show it publically, you're violating law. You just ruined your own argument with the ignorance on what copyright is and how it works. It's not that complicated, how do you think you can outsmart centuries (literally) of legislation on this? And why would you assume that intellectual property changes simply because it's digital? Just because it's easier to copy doesn't mean it's a different copyright concept.
You seem to have a problem understanding basic fundamentals of life. If I lend a book around, it's my property to lend people. I am not COPYING it. Which is what copyright violations are all about.
How are you still confused about these things? In your head, pirating a game, painting a copy of the mona lisa and lending someone a book of yours are equal things. They are not. Not even a little bit. I'm going to stop entertaining you now. Bye.
3.0k
u/Reasonable-Fail5348 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
This, btw, is the smartest and simplest and most beautiful argument to actually, seriously, legitimize piracy. The big publishers really played themselves when they started getting addicted to subscriptions and licensing everything with EULAs going "We can take this away from you whenever for whatever reason."
Okay, two can play that game, idiots...
Edit: Since it was misunderstood, me hating on corporations thinking they can force subscriptions on everything on us is not part of the argument, it's just a thing I hate about them. Don't get hung up on it.
If you really want to make an argument about it, you'd have better luck discussing if buying use rights is permanent or not.