| ▲ | gherkinnn 6 hours ago |
| > If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/playstationed/#tyler-jame... |
|
| ▲ | 0x0000000 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Piracy isn't stealing regardless of whether or not buying is owning. |
|
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Correct: it's copyright infringement, not theft. |
| |
| ▲ | danpalmer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is on the side of the distributor, not the end recipient. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | For streaming yes, but downloads are still copyright infringement on the part of the downloader. An unauthorized copy is being made on the recipient's machine. It's true that copyright holders rarely pursue cases against individuals, and tend to focus on distributors though. | | |
| ▲ | VohuMana 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have there been any cases since the Meta ruling with the books they torrented? If I understood it right they argued and won that they didn’t seed any of the torrents so is fair use and the judge agreed. That case made it seem like as long as you don’t seed/distribute the copyrighted material then it is legal | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's quite clearly explained on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing > In the case of file sharing networks, companies claim that peer-to-peer file sharing enables the violation of their copyrights. File sharing allows any file to be reproduced and redistributed indefinitely. Therefore, the reasoning is that if a copyrighted work is on a file sharing network, whoever uploaded or downloaded the file is liable for violating the copyright because they are reproducing the work without the authorization of the copyright holder or the law. Both uploading and downloading is a violation. All the major cases are against distributors, because those are the big fish. But rights holders have gone after individuals: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lit... | | |
| ▲ | rolph 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | streaming is downloading, otherwise it wouldnt be visible on your hardware.
if you pay for a stream and the distributor downloads it to your buffer, the only thing preventing it from persisting is wrapping the data to contain it in a file structure. if we really want to split hairs, everytime the data is accessed a streams bits are copied into registers, but those bits have no identity beyond 1 or 0 if you dont distribute this to others or brag on a forum about all your streams, no one will even know. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The argument is that it doesn't create another copy, so it's more analogous to receiving a broadcast. Like, if a pirate radio station plays copyrighted music, then the mere act of receiving those signals isn't a copyright violation. But recording that broadcast would be. |
| |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s too bad the judge told rights holders to forget about it when Meta violates copyright. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | pseudohadamard 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > PlayStation Store users who bought movies "PlayStation Store users who bought a limited license to play a movie on approved devices and approved displays, revocable at any moment with no or minimal notice". There, FTFY. |
