Happily, file sharing enthusiasts are a critical piece of media preservation.
Piracy is a violent crime, file sharing is not comparable to it in any way.
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 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
> 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.