Piracy isn’t wrong.

Piracy isn’t wrong.

Intellectual property is.

All of human creation is based on previous creation. Drawing arbitrary lines around how ideas can be used serves no-one except for media conglomerates. The only times at which IP law ever seemed reasonable was during the time where it was only enforceable against other corporate bodies. The advent of the internet and the shift of focus towards enforcement against individual private citizens has highlighted enormous contradictions in its application.

> b-but without IP law there would be no incentive to create
IP law does not protect or nurture any human incentive to create. The human drive to create is innate and unkillable, as evidenced by the huge amount of IP-law-breaking creations. IP law serves only to incentivize corporate investment in shitting out the same garbage over and over based on knowledge of a guaranteed return on investment due to name recognition.

> b-but piracy hurts sales
literally every time this has been studied it has been found to be false. Piracy does not hurt sales, people who pirate something are in no way "potential customers." They represent an almost completely distinct group.

> b-but preservation isn’t our job, it’s the company’s
preservation is literally exclusively the domain of us, the public. Companies not only do not have any incentive to preserve non-profitable works and are in fact incentivized against it, whereas the entire foundation of culture is based upon preservation and sharing of our creation. It’s the entire point behind the Public Domain, which has consistently been eroded by corporate interests in service of profit-seeking.

It is literally (in the actual, literal meaning of the word "literally") your moral, ethical duty to pirate.

47 thoughts on “Piracy isn’t wrong.”

  1. Do pirates actually believe they’re not hurting sales by what they’re doing? Like, this isn’t a meme? Just admit you people want stuff for free.

  2. Intellectual property is theft. What I do with my hard drive is my business. You can’t claim some sort of in-absentia control over the arrangement of the filings on those platters. You can’t own data.

  3. >IP law does not protect or nurture any human incentive to create
    spoken like an ignorant commie
    why would i bother creating Sonic if i can’t profit from it?
    >b-b-buh you should make vidya as a hobby, not to earn shekkels!
    hobbyist devs make the bulk of the broken unfunny shovelware on steam, anything with even a slightly little bit of quality in it was made by someone trying to make a buck

    sure, IP laws are fucking broken giving massive corporations like Disney the right to ban hammer kindergartens who pain Mikey on their walls, and they keep loggying to extend the time in which their IP hit popular domain

    but if people can’t profit from their creations, nor ensure that at least one generation of their descendants can reap the fruits of their parent’s labor, then all those with the mind and the will to create will go away to do so in a place that allows them to profit from it

    >The human drive to create is innate and unkillable
    perhaps, but putting food on the table is more important, and if people can’t do so by their "unkillable drive to create", they will dedicate their time to mopping floors, peeling potatoes, scrubbing toilets or anything that gives them bread at the end of the day, instead of dedicating their time to perfecting their "unkillable drive to create"

    but don’t believe me
    ask anyone who has lived under soviet boots if they or anyone else they knew had ever felt compelled to do even slightly more than the bare minimum necessary,

    • >why would i bother creating Sonic if i can’t profit from it?
      this already happens every day
      but here’s a fun thought experiment: even using a single piece of IP, there’s been enormous changes in the laws "protecting" it between its inception versus the laws today.

      is your argument "IP laws as they currently exist are the only way to ensure that a ‘Sonic’ can be made?"
      if so, this is objectively and immediately false. Sonic was not created under todays IP laws.

      is your argument instead "IP laws as they existed at the time of Sonic’s creation are the only way to ensure that a ‘Sonic’ can be made?"
      if so, because of changes in IP law, we are already living in a world where you have no incentive to create Sonic.

      • >laws change
        point taken, but the OP was not calling for a reform of IP law to wrestle control away from megacorporations, he was arguing in favor of abolishing IP laws altogether
        that’s like cutting off a whole hand because the tip of a finger got infected

        • I think that while OP’s proposed change is way more drastic, the idea that without IP law people wouldn’t create is already disproven by the wealth of culture and creation available to us from a time before IP law of any kind.

          And the way I see it with regards to your analogy of the finger, IP law is less an infection and more of a cancer. The solution is, in fact, to cut it off. It has been spreading and expanding like a tumor since its inception.

      • >generate wealth
        we are not talking about an expendable consumer product like an apple or a shoe, we are talking about entertainment media that can be plagiarized by talentless hacks
        if i invent Tetris and want to sell it, i will sell it in a place where the law will guaranty me that no low effort rip off will get away with stealing my idea
        Take Walt Disney (the man, not his company) as an example of the worst and best of IP law
        his first character was stolen by garden gnomelywood and he was left dirt poor because of it, so he made his second character (Mickey) somewhere away from garden gnomelywood where he could keep the rights and build an empire upon that character, and with that empire he propelled the art of animation further forward than anyone else had before, all because he was allowed to profit from his creation without low effort copycats stealing his potential customers

        Government over reach if shit, but without a government, you have corporate overreach

  4. If there was no intellectual property then big corporations would still use it in their favor.

    Someone small (Ex. an Indie Developer) would make an original concept/IP that’s legitimately fun and exciting, and then some mega corporation with billions of dollars would pump out some soulless game based on it and throw millions into advertising it. Then the vast number of retarded normies would believe that the mega corporation made the original concept and the small developer is the one ripping off the idea. They’d do that constantly and essentially own all intellectual property through popularity.

    Would it prevent you from playing those original works or from them being made? No, but it’d be incredibly infuriating when popularity is what pushes things onto people through search engines or social media. It’d be incredibly difficult to find or even talk about the original works compared to the megacorporation rip offs that would get shoved in your face constantly.

  5. You can’t force people to pay for something they don’t want to. And copying files isn’t hurting the other end in any way. So anti-piracy laws are just arbitrarily bending logic in order to get away with a potential increase in revenue.

    It’s already been proven that people are going to buy your game if they think it’s worth it. Companies just want to squeeze their customer’s last pennies. A practice that in my opinion sounds more like what an actual pirate would do.


Add to the conversation