• Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      9 months ago

      It is stealing income. You’re taking advantage of the result of someone’s effort and time without compensating them for it. No one is ok with that in any other context but y’all bend over backwards to justify it unilaterally here as opposed to denouncing this behavior (the Crunchroll behavior, to be clear) as its own issue that is also wrong.

      • Zirconium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The workers already got paid. It’s executives that are being “stolen from.” ( I’m too broke to buy it anyways)

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            If you weren’t gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn’t lose anything, how can it be stealing?

            And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.

            Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we’ve had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we’re having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we’ll probably keep having this conversation forever

            • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I’m ingesting their art daily for free. No, I’m not. That’s the purpose of art galleries.

              I think you’ll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.

              • nyctre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m talking about stores that sell paintings, not museums. Unless you pay to go to those where you live. I’ve never paid to enter a store before

                • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it’s gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn’t put food on the table.

                  Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.

                • nyctre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  See above reply. Not talking about museums or whatever. Talking about the stores where artists sell their paintings

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If they’re selling a physical product, then you viewing the painting temporarily while you’re in the store is not the same as being able to view it whenever you want or to physically have it in your home. You cannot buy “used” intangible goods. You can buy “used” paintings and those paintings can be materially changed by being “used”.

                • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of “I can’t refute your point, so I’m just going to downvote you!” Do they think creators should just give away their creations and hope money falls on them from out of the sky?

                  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of “I can’t refute your point, so I’m just going to downvote you!”

                    Yes, if we all ignore the multiple times the point in question has been refuted.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              It’s stealing because you watched it. If you didn’t watch it and didn’t buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you’re consuming and ingesting the product they’re selling without paying for it.

              Additionally, if you’re making the argument that you can’t count “potential” sales of something as theft then you can’t also make the argument that “potential” exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it’s theft.

              And you’ve just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you’re stealing if you’re ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.

              • nyctre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Ok, what if the creator says it’s ok to pirate their stuff. Is that still stealing?

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  No, of course not. They’re explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can’t be piracy if they’re not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they’re selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.

          • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s just factually untrue. The ‘creators’ are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It’s just middle men executives that earn that.

            I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I’m able to pirate an anime and really like it I’m more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.

            Here’s an article proving that the actual creators don’t make much money at all and it’s not because of piracy.

            https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/2/20677237/anime-industry-japan-artists-pay-labor-abuse-neon-genesis-evangelion-netflix

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              It’s not factually untrue. You can’t make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.

              Everything else you’ve said is pointless because you’re only arguing about a subset of content. I’m arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don’t pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren’t going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It’s literally as simple as that.

              You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.

              • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We’re literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It’s madness.

                The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.

              • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they’re popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.

                Of course they deserve to be paid but I’m arguing that pirating doesn’t cut into their pay because they’ve already been paid before the anime even comes out.

                If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don’t specifically order one particular series.

                  These are distributors and they don’t have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That’s not an argument against my point.

                  If buying digital products isn’t owning then pirating isn’t theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who ‘bought’ their digital products.

                  Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I’m making. I think it’s false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term “Buy” for something you don’t actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don’t make it right.

                  I’m not arguing about Funimation’s actions. I’ve already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn’t make piracy not theft.

              • Zirconium@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                The same disturbers that regularly drop content that people pay for and the same disturbers that claim you own something?

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Not at all what I’m arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don’t own something that they position as “buying” is stealing too. I’m not arguing that and have not said what you’re claiming anywhere. You’re arguing a straw man.

                  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

                  • Zirconium@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Bro you’ve left 140 comments on this thread alone? Do you need help or is piracy such an issue that the world collectively needs to get together to fix this.

      • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s not stealing lol. If I pirate something or if I don’t, the creator sees no difference.

        Stealing income would be reducing the income for the author (piracy doesn’t alter it) and you getting it instead (you don’t).

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s both dishonest and factually untrue. If you’re ingesting the creation without paying for it, then you’ve stolen it from the artists because they didn’t create it for free (unless they explicitly have). The creator sees a difference because you wouldn’t have been able to ingest their creation without paying them for it.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Theft requires you to deprive the original owner of their property.

            Creating a digital copy does not prevent the creator from accessing or selling their property. Potential income is not property; it was never in their possession to begin with.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              You’re arguing a legal definition. I am not.

              I am arguing that people deserve to be paid for their work. If you’re not willing to pay them, you are not entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. Full stop.

              • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It’s not just the legal definition. It’s the dictionary definition, as well.

                Piracy is illegal, unethical, a small loss in net profit, and a whole bunch of other things. It’s just not theft. If it really needs to be given a label that isn’t “piracy”, the closest one you’re going to find is “appropriation”:

                noun. the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It is theft, by your own definition. By the dictionary definition that you just posted, you’re stealing (“the action or crime of stealing”) income from the creator, unless they’re explicitly giving that creation away for free.

          • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            9 months ago

            Don’t worry, you’re correct and these people are just uncomfortable to define this as theft (if you didn’t pay something to someone prior.). If you didn’t pay, it’s theft, and it doesn’t matter what background revenue sharing agreements exist.

            • pivot_root@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              Google’s example sentence is quite topical. Still: Until potential income is defined as property, its loss isn’t theft. Besides that, if someone wasn’t going to pay for a digital copy in the first place, it’s not exactly a loss of potential income.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              I know. It’s painfully obvious that the people arguing against this are just dishonest. I’ve already stated several times that I have no issues with piracy. All I’m saying is that, if people are going to pirate, they should be clear that it is theft, they’re depriving the creator of income, they’re ok with that, and they’ll continue to do it. That’s it.

              • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Ok, so when I decide not to pirate and not to buy I’m also stealing? Or do you think if I didn’t pirate something I would definitely buy it?

                I have pirated and later bought things I’ve enjoyed that I wouldn’t have bought otherwise, so I’d argue that’s better for the creators. But I guess I’m being dishonest 🤷🏻

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Did you watch it still?

                  If you didn’t pirate and didn’t buy it and also didn’t watch it, then no it’s not stealing.

                  If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.

                  It’s not that hard of a concept. You’re not entitled to the fruits of someone’s labor for free unless they’re explicitly granting you that entitlement.

                  So yeah… it’s being dishonest to pretend like piracy isn’t stealing.

                  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If you did watch it, then it’s stealing.

                    This is the hottest of takes and by the same logic I will claim your eyeballs are now violating me by the act of reading this.

                    The issue that you seem to miss is that for someone to steal something, someone has to lose something.

                    Here is an example:

                    Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and took the dog. Sue does not have a dog anymore. <— This is stealing/theft ect.

                    Sue has a dog, Jim walked up and used a device to make a perfect copy of the dog and then gave the copy away. Sue still has a dog. <— This is software piracy.