Devil’s advocate: “If you copy it, the [original] owner doesn’t lose anything…”

They loose the right to distribute it or not distribute it to who they choose. As the owner, it’s technically their right to deny access to the work, and you are taking that right away from them.

I’m not a shill, and I am never going to be a customer of big media. If I can’t get it without charge, I’d rather go without. But, I am taking that right away from the owner. I sleep ok.

Piracy has always been stealingᵢ. Violently. Using ships, or boatsᵢᵢ.

What you're calling “piracy” — falling into the “intellectual property” mafia's trap by borrowing their malicious misnomer — is just plain old sharing.

Copying what we like (sometimes changing and adding our own ideas to it) and sharing it with other people, so they can like, share, and change it too.

It's how human culture works and has always worked!

Copyright (another intentional misnomer, since all it does is restrict the right to copy — and share, and modify — cultural works) is, at least in its current form, not only detrimental to culture (and its spread and preservation) but an attack on human nature itself.

Sharing, in these dark times when destroying cultural works seems to have somehow become more profitable than commercialising themᵢᵥ, has become not only an essential part of human nature, but a moral imperative for anyone who cares about art, culture, and social progress.

As for the hypothetical profits we are supposedly “stealing”, paraphrasing Neil Gaiman, sharing not only doesn't cause a loss on profits, it increases themᵥ. It's free advertising.

It's not about profits. It's not about authors' rights. It's never been. It is, and has always been, about control. About deciding who and when can have access to culture, and who can't. When we can be human, and when we are not allowed to.

I — Well, sometimes mostly murdering, I suppose, if there was not enough to steal; and of course there was the whole letters of marque thing, which made it political and complicated. But mostly stealing, OK?

II — It being on navigable water is what distinguishes it from pillaging, if I'm not mistaken.

III — In the borrowed words of Sir Terry Pratchettᵥᵢ, “The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”; sharing stories, and any other form of culture, is what distinguishes us from other species. It's what makes us human.

IV — And even before. “IP” wranglers have a long history of not being reliable custodians of the cultural works they claim responsibility for, and sharing has many times been the only way to preserve said works after their (often malicious) mismanagement.

V — There's studies, too, if Gaiman's account is too anecdotal for your liking.

VI — GNU

Using the term "piracy", instead of "filesharing", was always pro-corporate framing. In his 2010 essay "Ending the War on Sharing", Richard Stallman wrote:

When record companies make a fuss about the danger of "piracy", they're not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term "piracy" is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.

non-commercial file sharing is not piracy, the industry just re-defined it because they don't want anyone to share stuff.

At this point digitally downloading things needs to just stop being called piracy and start being called digital archival. WiFi went down, luckily I have my digital archive.

All the people who made the content already got paid for their hours in large media. If you're pirating from a studio that is 1 to 10 people you probably know that and probably know it's lame. The money we're paying to view/listen is literally just the corporation trying to "make money back", even though the CEO and execs are probably a few tonnes richer than the rest of us, and the regular working class is getting paid hourly.

We've really got to be moving away from restricting knowledge, honestly even the idea of a $/hr type thing. Imaging being charged 15c every time you heard 40 seconds of a song or TV show. I like the idea of artists being paid royalties but our current system is such a scam with us, the core creator, getting hardly anything after the corporations get their cut. FFS, audiobook producers get more share of royalties than musicians do (most audiobooks are ~40% royalty share and musicians are lucky to get 25%.

It's hard as an artist. I want to be able to make money off my music, and be able to live from just that. The very real reality is that piracy (digital archival) would have almost ZERO affect on me due to the scale of it. People would be more likely to hear about me through its word of mouth than they are currently trying to buy my music with my advertising (none). I'm also not making music for money, but so that it can be listened to. Making money from it is more of a benefit than the goal, despite how nice it would be to do nothing but make music.

So, really, if I am hardly affected by people archiving my work, why in the fuck would HBO be? And if it were true, why would they remove hundreds of movies and shows from their service, lost forever. How are the royalties from those being lost when I archive it?

No, there is none.

There is only one reason to not digitally archive something. One alone.

Metrics.

If you like something and you want it to survive, fucking pay to watch it. I love It's Always Sunny. I have all of it archived, and mostly watch it there. But I will put money into Hulu once in a while just to stream Sunny, for the new season, for whatever. Because those guys have more hours of my life than any other show, and I want them to be able to continue making it, and they can only do that if FX sees that enough people watch them to justify continuing. I don't agree with everything Hulu does, like their showing ads for networks even on the "Ad free" tier (the network contracted for it, which leads me to wonder when other networks won't leverage for the same deal), and something else that I had on my mind but just escaped me due to the late hour. Those guys all already got paid, the crew and teams, everything is taken care of. But for another season to happen enough people have to have seen it on a platform that matters to them, so the only thing that really matters is the metrics.

Of course, if you're HBO even that doesn't matter and it can be all thrown out anyway... so...

to digital archival I go

So, please read this as serious and no ulterior-motivation.

I'm hoping to release a game in a few years, and naturally I would like to sell it.

I am also supportive of this community and understand somewhat about the release date underground release.

I'd rather either get the revenue from my work directly, or give it away in exchange for donations, trade, or even nothing at all.

All this especially in light of how often independent creators get their shit stolen by megacorps.

Is there something I should be keeping an eye out for, or preparing for so everything goes smoothly at least with regards to this community?

Who cares. Piracy is its own thing. People will still do it and creators will still hate it whether it's classified as "stealing" or not.

Copying was never piracy

I wasn't gonna buy it anyways. Unless I'm a big fan. Then I'll buy it. But it needs to be a decent price and the merch has to be worth it.

Now you know corporations and government departments will lie to children to benefit the ownership class and harm the labor class.

Let your kids know who authorities really work for, to question everything.

Heck, let the grown-ups know too. Many didn't get the memo.

Depends on how you define stealing.

If you say it's taking something away from the original owner then you're right, but if you say it's not paying your share of the costs of a good you're using then you're wrong. E.g. if you go to a concert and don't pay the entrance fee then the concert will probably still happen, but you're not reimbursing the artists and crew for their costs and effort.

Depends on who you define as "the original owner"

Image from https://invidious.flokinet.to/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 by Nina Paley