I disagree, you can see so much on the old layout specifically because it’s a wall of text. The new layout is unnecessarily bloated and takes up your whole screen on every device you view it from, so you can barely see more than one or two posts at a time. It removes the ability for the user to freely scroll and look at things that interest them, and forces the user’s attention onto exactly what the algorithm wants them to. The new layout removes a ton of agency from the user.

It’s copyright infringement to do so. No need getting the Beehaw admins in trouble; Google paywall bypassing tools and read away.

I mean sure, but how often is the virtual keyboard pulled up in any “creative” app? It always auto-hides if you’re doing anything other than interacting with a text field.

What does this have to do with “creators”, though?

Nearly all pirated content was most likely originally purchased once, and ripped. There’s no evidence that much of it is from shoplifted DVDs.

There’s no evidence that “much” of it is from purchased DVDs, either.

Right, but in this instance you’re not damaging the government through these actions. You’re damaging private entities. Civil vs criminal.

EDIT: Although, piracy often crosses both civil and criminal statutes in many cases, because copyright law is weird like that.

Like which one exactly?

“people who were not going to pay” is not one singular group, but you use this as if everybody who isn’t going to pay is part of the same demographic. Some people won’t pay because they don’t want it in the first place. Some people won’t pay because while they want it, they can’t afford it. And some won’t pay but will take it anyway because they feel entitled to it.

Painting all these groups with the same brush is disingenuous at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

How much should they be paid for it?

However much they’re asking. They put a price tag on it for exactly this question.

In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?

Not really. Civil disobedience is about refusing to follow a law, not choosing to break a law. There’s a difference between the two concepts; one involves going about your day as normal and ignoring laws, and the other is going out of your way to break a law. Piracy is no more a form of civil disobedience than looting a grocery store is.

Does you license plate say “PRIVATE”? Because this is some real sovereign citizen logic, using definitions of terms that the rest of the world doesn’t agree with.

Ever read the message at the beginning of a rip? You know, the one with the FBI logo on it. Remind me what it says?

according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point.

The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.

These are not the same statement. You’re getting the before and after mixed up, likely on purpose.

Again, I have to ask: How do you think those digital goods are made in the first place? Somebody labored to create it. They deserve to be paid for it.

Not sure why this is such a hot take.

The fact is that the person in question is still taking something without paying for it. A sense of entitlement (I want it badly enough that I should have it for free) doesn’t change anything in this equation.

Bruh, no one in here is arguing about legality

What are you talking about? That’s literally the entire point of the article and this comment section.

So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point.

No, I never said anything of the sort. Piracy is stealing because you are taking something without paying the cost for it.

Don’t act surprised if you’re downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.

I don’t care about downvotes from pirates with a Robin Hood complex. I’m on Kbin and most of them don’t sync to my instance, anyway.

You’re trying to blur the line between what is and what should be. We don’t live in an ideal world.

We’re literally talking about piracy, so yes lmao

Lost sales are considered damages, so yes something is lost.

EDIT: This is worse than arguing with SovCits.

“Trivial” is not “zero”.

I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. The point is that in both examples, somebody is exploiting somebody else’s labor without paying.

so nothing is lost when digital media is used by someone without paying.

Using, no. Acquiring, yes.