Sadly pirates are a critical piece of media preservation.
Piracy is a violent crime, file sharing is not comparable to it in any way.
AFAICT the actual scene prefers terns like "release group", because it's indeed what they do: release bits from the confines of DRM or dead trees.
> Piracy is a violent crime, file sharing is not comparable to it in any way.
Sorry, the meaning of "pirate" you dislike is already firmly established, and you're frankly not going to be able to change that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pirate
> 2: to take or appropriate by piracy: such as
> a: to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright
Who's this "we"?
> It's quite simply offensive to compare the copying of bits to high seas piracy which includes murder and rape.
You are talking that way, way too seriously and interpreting it in weird way in order to take maximum offense.
And my point is it isn't a comparison: "pirate" has an established meaning that is literally just your "file sharing enthusiasts." Also, actual high-seas piracy has diminished to the point where "pirates" is mainly understood as file-sharing pirates or as goofy cartoon characters (e.g. "talk like a pirate day" and "Pirates of the Caribbean"). You have do to a lot of deliberate work to strain to take offense at the association.
> Of course the copyright monopolists had to spin up such propaganda: copyright infringement just has no weight to it.
It should be noted your alternative "file sharing enthusiasts" is at least as propagandistic, just from the opposite party.
Not that I think copyright piracy is that big if a deal, it's just that computer geeks' overwrought stridency on the issue is obnoxious and obscures more than it informs.
People such as myself and the person you replied to.
> You are talking that way, way too seriously
I am. It is a serious matter.
> interpreting it in weird way in order to take maximum offense
Yes, I take maximum offense when some monopolist tries to compare me to rapers and pillagers because I copied bits.
> You have do to a lot of deliberate work to strain to take offense at the association.
Not at all. Actual piracy is still happening even today in the 21st century. Everyone knows exactly what a pirate is and it's exactly what comes to mind when someone mentions them. It's not some forgotten history only geeks know about. People will even mentally picture those very same "file sharing enthusiasts" you mention as roguish types when in fact perfectly normal people forwarding pictures, videos and documents on WhatsApp are a perfect fit for the definition. People literally infringe copyright every day at massive scales without even realizing it. They infringe copyright when they save a picture from a web site.
> It should be noted your alternative "file sharing enthusiasts" is at least as propagandistic, just from the opposite party.
Except I didn't use those terms. I used the proper one: copyright infringement. Sounds like a whole lot of nothing when put that way, doesn't it?
> it's just that computer geeks' overwrought stridency on the issue is obnoxious and obscures more than it informs.
So the copyright industry insists on using propaganda words like "piracy" purely to add weight to copyright infringement and make it seem more real than it really is but I'm the one obscuring the issue? Right.
> piracy noun [ U ] UK /ˈpaɪərəsi/ US
> IT, LAW
> the act of illegally copying computer programs, recordings, films, etc. to sell them at much cheaper prices
What's interesting is that this definition includes selling.
So by this definition at least, regular file sharing of copyrighted media, even illegal or infringing distribution, would not qualify as piracy, since no sale is involved.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piracy
So they're raking in cash from rent seeking really. It would be healthier for music if what you said was true though.
I actually have quite a large, somewhat curated digital music library and, with a few hundred dollars and a few days of effort, I could probably patch any particular holes I have among songs/albums I especially enjoy, but mostly I use streaming including a lot of curated playlists.
The music wasn't lost. It just became harder to pirate.
Not looking to out any underground trackers, but am curious as someone who wasn't ever on what.cd and hasn't ever replaced long "hiatus" then gone waffles.
Does any active and/or extensive site survive?
To be fair i'm out of the piracy game when it comes to music though since spotify is more convenient to use
Even if you keep some music, you lose useful history, playlists, etc. on a whim.
Even with the new YouTube music, songs I own, and added to a playlist last week are suddenly grayed out without explanation or ability to see details. Only right click option is to remove.
been getting my Prog-Rock-Fusion fix from there, they have a lot of stuff
If the corporation who owns the original IP, abandoned it for 10+ years with no way of legitimately buying it from them, then it means they don't want our money and they don't care about it, so it's fair game.
I'm doing my part.
Also "sadly" because it's not exactly a dependable process -- we're depending on people to spontaneously choose to preserve / share media widely enough there will be decent copies when/if they go out of "legitimate" circulation.
It'd be better if archiving & preserving copies were a mandatory step to being awarded copyright protection. (Which would not displace filesharing, of course...)
When one group is taking ships and killing every living thing on it then illegally selling the cargo and personal effects of the occupants, and another group is taking ships and dropping the occupants off at a POW camp then sending it to the admiralty to be legally sold, the latter is not doing the same kind of robbery. Arguably they aren't doing any kind of robbery at all.