It IS justified lol.
Huh. Based on the community this was posted in, I can assume that the answer the video comes to is “yes” and not watch it. But according to Betteridge’s law of headlines the answer is “no.” I need to argue about this without watching it but I don’t know what stance to argue about.
Ah! I’ll use the Orbit plugin to get an AI to summarize the video for me. Hm. The AI-generated summary says the video describes an anecdote about music copyright violations, talks about some ethical considerations about both music and software piracy, and then:
The speaker concludes by acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the importance of considering the perspectives of all parties involved.
So I guess the answer was “Maybe?” How am I supposed to have a pointless Internet argument about “Maybe?”
Bah. Someone attack me for using AI, at least that’s a debate I can sink my teeth into.
Lazy prick! Should have just put the video on in the background while doing dishes, or do what I did and briefly skim the comments for someone to fight with! AI is dumb, it’s not even named effectively and you’re dumb for using it and a sheeple for calling it AI in the first place!
Fight me! ❤️Joke’s on you, I have a dishwasher machine! Robots do my dishes for me too! It is you who is the dumb one, having to labor manually as you do!
Ah, there we go. Thanks.
Is this the online equivalent of fisticuffs?
And now I’m here to fight with both of you, not about what you’re arguing about, but I’m going to police your tone and call you both stupid because you didn’t argue in the arbitrary fashion I’ve determined is “correct!”
This is the least helpful contribution I can make, while simultaneously attacking you both!
Is it to early to drop in and call everyone Nazis or nah?
Something something literally Hitler?
Fuck! How did I miss the most unhelpful option?
Educated guess: your brain isn’t wired to be useless in an conversation
You used the wrong word for “two early!” Worse than Nazi!
No worries fam, I got you.
Yes. Next stupid question.
yes but why is probably the bulk of it…
Can purchasing anything within the system of monstrous exploitation called global capitalism be justified?
No unless you lack self respect
Corporate is your enemy and paying them money is funding your own oppression
I rarely see this explanation so well and shortly given.
deleted by creator
No, but saying to participate and that purchasing software is inherently moral is also fallacious.
Developers, musicians, creatives, actors etc all need to be paid to live in society. However, the current system rewards the lucky few and large corporations as well as the non creative side of media and software creation.
sadfasfsadfd
No, but that’s the case with or without piracy. Artists and devs shouldn’t rely on goodwill. That’s just expanding the tips system which is already awful.
sadfasfsadfd
No, I’m not saying artist money is any more immoral than any other purchase. I’m also saying artists should not depend on donations only. I also did not say I exclusively pirate. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m saying the current system is broken. Replacing it with tips is not the solution. Transport and creative industries will see huge lay offs in the coming years. We need to decide as a society what we value. Is it creating art and pleasure or lines going up on company spreadsheets. Free spread of ideas and art is an ideology. The only reason not to allow it is to profit. Those profits don’t go to most artists.
sadfasfsadfd
- It’s morally good when people access information, culture, and entertainment.
- It’s morally good when the author of a work gets rewarded by their work.
Piracy is morally justified when 1 is a more pressing matter than 2. As such, it’s justified in situations like this:
- If, in the absence of piracy, the pirate would still not pay for the goods - because #2 is set up to zero (the author of the work is not rewarded anyway).
- If it’s impossible to obtain the goods without piracy. For example, abandonware.
- If the author of the work would get breadcrumbs of the money used to access legally the goods, and the pirate compensates the author directly (e.g. donation).
Nuance seems rare in these posts sometimes, I appreciate your post!
Is there a need for justification?
Corpos are not people, they deserve nothing, they are entitled to nothing.
I don’t care what the government has to say on this issue. Useless fucking whores.
We reject the premise of the question: the onus sits with copyright holders to justify copyright protection.
It’s always moral to steal from billionaires
I agree, but software piracy isn’t stealing from anyone.
Stealing definitively requires depriving someone of their own stuff. Piracy is more akin to a massive crowdsourced library. We’re all just helping to share the burden of hosting costs.
Most Billionaires don’t write much code.
if they put in DRM that makes the plugins 10x as big (looking at you, Acustica. I don’t even use their plugins because of that), or they make the legit version have some bullshit always-online “all-in-one” software (i.e Native Access) which in turn makes the software a bit of a faff to get working in Linux (to install legit libraries for legit kontakt, native access stores those libraries as .iso files and does some virtual drive fuckery a la DAMEONTools), then yes, if the pirated version is quicker to set up and run (and install libraries for), it is justified imo.
Also i hate theaters and streaming services. I’d rather watch whatever movie I think is cool in the comfort of my PC rather than having to drive to the theater (if it’s even on there in the first place), or paying for 9000 streaming services now and only watch like a couple of things. The wait for a good webrip (even more so for a BluRay) is worth it.
Yes
Why would anyone need to justify their piracy?
Privateering
I am not stealing. It’s there, I take it and it’s still there. Don’t know why these posts keep popping up in piracy communities. Same plague was there on reddit too. Like seriously it’s 2025.
Its almost like you think pirating something has no effect on anything.
Not really. I know it can change from people to people. But I personally would have bought it in the first place if I wanted to.
I want the stuff, the stuff is there. I take it. The stuff is still there, nothing was lost, nothing was stolen.
You’re not stealing stuff, you’re stealing revenue. The missing revenue is what they care about. But they have plenty of that already, so they can get bent
Stealing revenue it’s hypothetical, because it supposes that you were going to pay for the product if it wasn’t available pirated. And that is far from being certain.
That is very true, but that doesn’t stop them from going after piracy to protect the revenue
Not really, it’s just free publicity.
Unless their product is shit, of course, and no one would pay for it after trying or recommend it to others… in which case, fuck them, they deserve it for attempting to sell shit.
Me at the grocery store
Except the second half
Same. And for some reason I can’t seem to lose weight.
Oh I was joking about theft lol
Honestly, I don’t have any issue using a pirated software for my own personal use.
I put the line where you use the software to make money.
Even then, I have no problem with self-employed people using it to make money. But if a corporation you work for does it: snitch and get that BSA payday.
