for long dead series, that the franchise is dead, yes its justifiable since nothing new is being produced. aka, SG series.
piracy is always justifiable.
In theory, copyright law exists to create an incentive for people to engage in creative works. Copyright allows the creator to monopolize the distribution of their own work, and that monopoly makes the enormous amount of effort put into the work financially viable, in theory. If the creator has published the work, and is no longer distributing it, there is no monopoly for their copyright to protect. However they are using their copyright, it is not in the intended fashion and so it is ethically justifyable to bypass it.
That being said, in the modern context; the issue creatives face with monetization is not distribution, but discovery. There is so much content that being seen is the primary gatekeeper to financial success, so much so, that most creatives will legally give up their monopoly on distributing their work in exchange for promotion (publishing). In such an environment, piracy is effectively aiding the creator by spreading their reach, even if they are not directly paid. Their cultural relevance is much more important than that one sale. Despite this, the ownership of the properties ip is what holds value, and so the owners must keep up at least a token amount of resistance to piracy, to maintain their legal legitimacy.
You can see this reflected in the modern environment; easy, widespread piracy that is only occasionally resisted in the cheapest and most non-committal manner possible. Pirate whatever you want, and understand that you will occasionally be told to stop. However; that that request always comes with a wink.
I bought so many CDs of artists I found and downloaded on Napster and Limewire
Ethics is cool and all but have you tried coming to your own conclusion?
Do you feel okay with doing whatever measures you must to secure it? Is taking something that someone else has 'legal' control over wrong to you? Think about it this way, are you justified at coming up to my windows and taking pictures of my art work in my house? I'm not selling it, so clearly it's fine since you're not depriving me off monetary value and, if I wanted to have some control over it, I should be selling prints of it at least, right?
Or, like, it's just a show. Keeping it and sharing it with others keeps it alive, instead of digitally rotting away. Don't spend that much time thinking about any of it.
Why don't you just say the show, though?
A better and more important real world case is revenge porn. The moral difference should be obvious to people with (y'know) morals, but it's slightly more complex to define from a stricter ethical or especially legal framework. What fundamentally justifies the piracy and unregulated distribution of a show that's been removed from public access vs material that the person may have originally consented to making and showing to others but objects or no longer consents to it being shown to a wider audience? It can't just be the sexual nature in and of itself because what's defined as intimate enough to restrict viewing is highly subject to cultural influence.
Once it was shown and accessible to the public there is a public interest in the copyrighted work as well. It's part of culture, of history, of the public and human system. The copyright and ownership is no longer a singular concept but stands in relation and potentially in conflict with the public interest.
Some jurisdictions explicitly allow archiving as exceptions to copyright. Museums and archive.org can conditionally evade copyright, for example.
On revenge porn, the persons autonomy, self determination, bodily safety and honor, and psyche is a high good and significance that must be protected. This right is much more significant than any "public interest", which is less prominent to other works anyway, because "revenge porn" has no artistic and constructive value as a creative or cultural work.
Well first of all, I did mention that this was something that happened 5-6 years ago. To be clear, I did watch the show on YouTube back then (I know I didn’t mention that, I probably should’ve), that wasn’t really the point of this post. You’re looking at it backwards: you’re assuming I’m asking because I want to know if I should watch the show. What actually happened is, I watched the show and it got me curious in a general sense what other people think (years later, I didn’t have Lemmy back then). I’m asking out of curiosity what other people think, not because I’m trying to make my own mind up. I was actually only using that show as an example for the question I was asking — any other show under the same ambiguity would’ve sufficed just as well to explain what I was asking, really. Second of all, the reason I don’t want to say the name of the show is because it’s a show that had a very niche audience, and I know other people IRL who use this platform and I don’t want to risk them finding out I have an account here for personal reasons. They know I was a huge fan of this show so they’ll click straight away if they came across this and I’d named the show.
Fair enough on the name of the show being personally identifiable but, five years ago or today, what does it matter? What does it matter to you? What sin are you looking to be absolved of? If it's so niche that a) the only place you could find it was YouTube and b) so few people know of it that it would identify you, go look up the creator and find a way to send them a fiver and pirate that. Who actually cares?
Because I’m interested, as in, in the topic of legal, moral and ethical implications, not just of this show, but ambiguous media in general. I’m not on about absolving anything. I simply find it an interesting topic is all. Is that not motivation enough to ask? In any case, what’s it to you why I care?
Piracy is quite frequently justifiable, even on common media.
In our modern landscape, the vast majority of creators don't see a dime when you view their material, so I have no reason to feel obligated to line the coffers of some conglomerate that's effectively stealing the artist's money.
I'll pay for niche streaming services (paying for dropout directly helps the cast and crew) and buy merch from artist sites or shows, but I'm not going to feel guilty that downloading an album off a torrent takes away the fractions of a cent that my streams would give when I can pay them directly for a shirt and physical copy of the album if I ever get to see them live.
If they don't want to make money on it anymore, that's their call. They don't get to forbid us from accessing our own culture, though. If they don't want to provide any way to access the content at all, the internet at large will provide.
If no one loses any income from you pirating something then I'd say it's impossible to be immoral. I'd imagine that anyone actually involved in original production would just be happy that there's still someone out there interested in their work.
If the only person who loses income is a corporation then it's still morally acceptable because corporations themselves are inherently amoral.
Pirate everything but balance the books by directing money to the original creators with things like merch or going to live shows or conventions etc
Interesting. What’s your belief on the subject for media that was crated by someone who no longer makes money off of it (e.g. they’re dead, or they sold the rights or ip) but is owned by someone else who had nothing to Do with the creation?
In my opinion, if they're not the creator, or critical to the creation, of a work, they have no claim over it.
Even if they paid for the legal rights to?
The spirit of patenting an idea is so the creator can retain financial benifits from their ingenuity. If they sell it off and the buyer just sits on it, it is ethical to pirate. The buyer needs to make something new with the idea before they have any real contribution to the original idea.
Did they pay you for anything? Then who cares, you're not included in the contract and not bound by it.
This reminds of what happened with one of the most infamous sci-fi design controversies: the Daleks:
The concept was conceived by a writer called Terry Nation, but he only created the outline (the story, etc.) but didn’t create the design. Instead, these characters were designed by Raymond Cusiak, and they became immensely popular, drawing in millions of viewers. However, because of some legal loophole, Cusiak did not receive royalties for his design, only Terry Nation received royalties despite the fact that the design of the Daleks (the lure for viewers) was created by someone else entirely. Not necessarily a legal issue, but certainly a moral/ethical one.
Well that has an easy solution.
EXTERMINATE
lol true
Justifiable? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not an armchair ethics professor like most of the nerds in this discussion.
I cut out all all the extra dance steps and forgo justification entirely. If I want it, I'll attempt to take it one way or another.
It's probably illegal but it's completely moral in my opinion. Like, wtf are you supposed to do if not pirate? They pulled the show. You cannot obtain it legally even if you wanted to
To add to this the price should be reasonable. If the price for some old ass shit is crazy expensive it's essentially NOT available legally and should be pirated.
For example Nintendo charging full price for some nostalgia game.
Nintendo is awful in general, but especially when it comes to their old libraries.
If no one can own anything, then piracy doesn't exist.
Download that show. It's a form of protest, as far as I'm concerned.
Make sure to bind your torrent client to your vpn. VPNs have a killswitch but the binding offers a bit for insurance.
What makes torrenting justified in my view:
It's always justifiable to pirate shows. Specially in a world where they make it so hard to own the media you are buying.
if buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing.
If buying were owning, piracy wouldn't be stealing either. It's copyright infringement.
If it cannot be purchased for reasonable price on a good medium and owned forever, then piracy is justified.
Piracy is justifiable in a vastly greater number of scenarios than just pulled media.
To keep it short: Yes, it is.
Short, sweet and to the point! Thanks for sharing your view (even if it’s not detailed lol)
Media piracy is always justifiable.
Unless you’re using it to train AI. Then you should either have to pay so much that your company goes bankrupt, or just be put to death, cause fuck you, Mark Zuckerberg.
Go for it. AI basically made piracy legal, or these companies would be facing massive lawsuits, right?
If buying isn’t owning then piracy isn’t stealing.
Piracy is always justifiable. Get it. Get the whole dang season.
The only time I would say it isn't justifiable, if it's a book/game/etc. made by an unrecognised creator who needs every purchase they can get. In every other case, go for it!
Piracy is always justifiable.
The main purpose of IP law is to reward creators and pirating old show where you can stimulate the creators revenue or influence stream then it's perfectly fine. In fact you might be doing good!
Legally, no. The law does not carve out any kind of exceptions here.
Ethically, it's not a lost sale if you never could've bought it in the first place. And I don't think it's fair to audiences to say they just don't get to enjoy the media at all if it's not officially available. If official means no longer exist, then piracy is preservation.
Morally, creators still do deserve compensation for their work, one way or another. So if you can't buy the work directly I think it's good to try and find other ways to support the creators if possible - such as buying merchandise or other projects they're involved with.
Its most likely illegal, but depends on where you live (some country might have more flexible copyright laws that have that situation as an exception).
But I would consider that ethical and moral. When HBO deleted a bunch of their cartoons for the tax ride off, one of the creators of the cartoons tweeted that they themselves had to pirate their own show just so their kid could still watch it.
Why would it not be justifiable? Seriously, start by asking about the harm, and to who, and then you will answer your own question easily enough.
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu