If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing
Mounting examples of DRM‑encumbered media and software being remotely revoked or crippled after purchase are driving anger over what “ownership” means in the digital age. Commenters debate whether copying copyrighted works without paying is immoral or merely a civil violation, contrasting it with companies that sell licenses as “purchases” and later delete or downgrade content, or lock hardware to proprietary ecosystems. Proposals range from stronger consumer‑protection laws and mandatory open formats to radically limiting or abolishing intellectual property, with frequent appeals to the “social contract” and the historical role of copyright in incentivizing art and innovation.
Scope of “ownership” for digital goods
- Many argue current “purchases” are really time‑ and condition‑limited licenses, not ownership.
- Key complaint: platforms can revoke access, downgrade features, or disappear, even when users clicked “buy”.
- Others note this is already in ToS: you buy access under terms, not a perpetual copy, and that’s legally meaningful even if users dislike it.
- Some suggest mandatory clear labeling (“rent” vs “buy”) and standardized disclosures of revocation conditions.
Is piracy “stealing” or just copyright infringement?
- One camp insists piracy is morally wrong and a breach of the social contract: you get something for nothing, often via someone else’s deceit.
- They argue wrongdoing doesn’t require material deprivation, and compare piracy to benefiting from “ill‑gotten gains”.
- Opponents stress that copying doesn’t deprive anyone of their copy, so it’s not theft in the ordinary sense; at most, it’s infringement or “trespass” against an artificial right.
- Several point out that law and morality diverge: copyright is historically recent, routinely overextended (DRM, DMCA, TRIPS), and widely ignored in practice.
Social contract and ethics disputes
- Long subthread debates “social contract” theory: some say by living in society you implicitly accept copyright rules; others reject that as non‑consensual and contested.
- Some argue that if a law is widely broken (e.g., casual media piracy), that signals it isn’t really part of the lived social contract.
- Edge cases (poor students pirating textbooks; disabled users bypassing DRM for accessibility) are used to challenge blanket “piracy is immoral” claims.
Impact on artists, markets, and DRM
- Disagreement over piracy’s economic impact:
- Some claim it clearly harms creators and undermines incentives.
- Others cite examples where piracy correlated with more concert tickets, game sales, or exposure, and argue monopolistic intermediaries capture most surplus anyway.
- Many see DRM and revocable licenses as primarily profit tools (blocking resale, enforcing walled gardens), not serious anti‑piracy measures.
- Some warn that piracy and ad‑blocking can indirectly entrench monopolies (e.g., big firms best able to absorb “losses” and push DRM/streaming).
Proposed remedies and alternatives
- Legal ideas:
- Treat retroactive feature removal or content deletion as theft/fraud.
- Extend warranties and require long‑term patchability.
- Make reverse‑engineering and security research explicitly legal.
- Limit “property” in law to scarce goods; abolish or sharply curtail IP (controversial and widely challenged).
- Policy ideas: mandate free/open formats; require governments to use or fund libre software; restrict non‑free firmware imports.
- Practical user responses: self‑hosting media (NAS/Plex/Jellyfin), preferring DRM‑free stores, backing FOSS and indie creators, and in some comments, unapologetic piracy framed as resistance to “enshittified” platforms.