this post was submitted on 09 May 2024

424 points (98.2% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers

2870 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

424

Pdf partee (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 85 points 6 months ago (3 children)

“Piracy” is a propaganda term. We shouldn’t use it. There is nothing wrong with sharing files.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)

We've long since reclaimed the word, though. It's not called The Sharing Bay, after all.

That's my Care Bears only private tracker.

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think it's easier for a person to say "piracy is bad" than "sharing files is bad". Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It's a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn't let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.

[+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It's a simple trick, but it works.

Only on easily manipulated and shallow idiots. Especially when the term is used neutrally and positively too. I'll grant that there's a lot of those, but not enough that we should let them dictate what words we use.

If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn't let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them

Again, only total morons think that the two are connected or similar. We should never let morons dictate our words and actions.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

While I agree about reclaiming the word, what OP is talking about is not what a reclaimed word accomplishes. A reclaimed word is about empowerment within the group. OP is talking about selling the concept to the public at large. I think if people in the filesharing community want to use the reclaimed word “piracy” in private then they should go right ahead. But if someone has the goal of viewing this as a justified act, then calling it “piracy” in public spaces undermines that.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Especially since a great deal of that research was performed using public funds.

[–] Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Exactly, this research was funded by my tax money but I'm not allowed to read it unless I pay some third party profiteer? That makes no fucking sense

[+] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world -14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

So you don't mind when companies share files with your personal data?

[–] orangeboats@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But personal files are... personal?

Research journals are published. Public.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He's clearly talking about piracy in general. The point being that just because something is a file, it doesn't mean it isn't intellectual property.

I do agree that in some scenarios piracy is fighting bad actors, like in this case, but it isn't a generalized rule, piracy also has a bad side.

So this guy comes here and defends the general idea of piracy based on a single instance in which it is actually good, which is just a fallacy.

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They shouldn't collect data in the first place.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, they just saw a file in your phone and were like "it's a file, so this isn't stealing because we're duplicating the information".

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Only if it's a file that's already publicly available. When you buy a movie, why shouldn't you be able to share it with others? I'm not saying that you should be able to hack a filmmaker's computer and publish movies they've never released, though.

The scenario you described can't happen to me anyway, because I only use Free Software. You can learn more about it here: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what's the problem then? It's just a file that can be shared.

I'm not talking only about you. I'm talking about how senseless the "I can share files with anyone" is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn't logical, thus it is illegal.

Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on... because it's just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn't stealing! ... Who would make a movie under those conditions?

If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.

So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.

The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you're really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.

A lot of people don't have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don't use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn't mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.

I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.

I'm pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don't define what is logical or what is moral.

Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?

People already share movies online and it's very easy. You don't have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it's not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.

If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.

Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can't make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn't own the files.

So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.

Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven't died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.

The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.

You can't steal something that's infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren't released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn't and I'm not going to support unethical practices with my money.

There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You're delusional man. Creating information costs a lot of money. Do you think it takes the same amount of investment to create a 10gb file of random bytes as a 10gb file that contains a movie with actors?

Imagine if only a single person had to buy your movie in order for everyone to watch it. Wherevs the logic in that?

The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume. So yeha, paying customers are actually the only reason you get to pirate movies, because if everyone had your same mindset, the industry would be dead.

And I pirate movies too, I'm just not in denial with reality.

[–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that people can buy things and share them with those who can't.

I've already given you an example of the game Mindustry, which people buy on Steam (16k reviews): https://store.steampowered.com/app/1127400/Mindustry, even though it's released under a free software license and you can get it for free on Itch: https://anuke.itch.io/mindustry and you can get its source code on GitHub: https://github.com/Anuken/Mindustry.

The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume.

Weird, huh? For some reason the internet and Bittorrent hasn't changed that.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

yeha, piracy isn't about buying things. You keep bringing up that ultra specific scenario, again using a specific scenario to defend something more general. Do you think piracy is about buying things and then sharing with friends? No. It is about buying something once and distributing it massively to millions of people you don't even know, who can probably afford the content. For some peiple it is about just downloading content for free.

How much people have a home server that costs thousands of dollars with tens of terabytes to download all the movies they want and then sell a subscription to their NAS, or just share that for free to people who can totally afford paying for a streaming service.

How much people in developing countries pay for illegal streaming boxes that have a return of investment of around 4 years in order to avoid paying for streaming services?

How much people could totally afford one month of a streaming service to watch a series, but instead pirate it?

If you think piracy is about sharing movies with friends, you live in a fairytale.

I pirate movies, I know why I do it and it isn't ethical at all. I do it because I don't want to give my money to streaming services. But I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing. Am I helping someone who really can't afford the movie? Sure, but I'm mostlikely sharing it with someone like me.

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 52 points 6 months ago

I have a rare medical condition that makes my coughs sound like "scihub" and "libgen" around undergrads.

I would like to investigate it further to seek a cure, but sadly the medical journals I'd need access to are paywalled. Oh well.

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago

RIP Aaron Swartz

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Libgen got me through undergrad

[–] drasglaf@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Is that Marianne Faithfull?

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes, and Alain Delon on the left. Not sure she was completely faithful, but I think Jagger didn't care.

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Man Eric Clapton looks sad

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Man, I tried so hard to not ruin the joke, but I can't stand Mick Jagger getting confused with that right-wing nutjob, so fuck it:

That's Mick Jagger as JSTOR, not Eric "Asshat" Clapton

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Think they dropped the /s…who doesn’t recognize those lips?!

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I figured, but I love Jagger and I can't stand Clapton, so I legitimately felt compelled to "correct" the joke.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Think they dropped the /s…who doesn’t recognize those lips?!

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago

Suddenly it's not so cool when another man steals your wife

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 months ago

Q: Why is a raven like a writing desk ? A: Sci-Hub.(Munin for memory;)