this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
424 points (94.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
391 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can pay for any streaming service that serves FLAC and rip that. Very easy to do for Tidal and Deezer for example.
And you don't need to pay. Just google Deezer premuim ARLs and plug that into Deemix and profit. Full FLAC quality
I don't like using other people's hacked account. Keeping music data after my licensed agreement (which is still going, actually) seems like a crime no one actually loses from. Using someone else's hacked account seems highly, highly unethical to me.
It's usually not a hacked account. Most of them are free trials from binned credit cards. There are groups out there that will share bins that work for certain services like Tidal/Deezer/Qobuz. Once you get the free trial, you use it for a month and then you start the next one
I've paid monthly for Deezer HiFi in the past like 3 years, I don't consider it unethical to store the FLACs on my PC so I can use my own local music player to listen to them as long as I keep paying for the service.
I do consider it unethical to scam Deezer into giving me new trials every month. I'm not one to tell you what to do or not do, but I don't personally want to do that.
Fair enough, but you are also commenting this on a community for piracy so....
Yeah but there's piracy that creates "lost opportunity cost" (which is just companies complaining) and piracy that actually uses servers/services without paying for them.
You can have your opinion and I can have mine. It just baffles me that you're talking about lost opportunity costs and "hurting corporations" on a community dedicated to Piracy
I explicitly said that I think this is not problematic. I don't see how that is weird in a piracy community
I think you can be an ethical pirate. As long as companies can not see your existence by any measurement (server cost, bandwidth allocation), whatever you do is ethical in my eyes.
If you didn't exist the company would be in the exact same state, so why should your existence on this planet mean they deserve anything more?
Does that not qualify me as a pirate? Lol
Under Article 8 for Deezer's T&C's - https://www.deezer.com/legal/cgu
"Any use for a non-private purpose will expose the Subscriber to civil and/or criminal proceedings. Any other use of the Recordings is strictly forbidden and more particularly any download or attempt to download, any transfer or attempt to transfer permanently or temporarily on the hard drive of a computer or any other device (notably music players), any burn or attempt to burn a CD or any other support are expressly forbidden."
You're talking about ethical and unethical piracy. As far as the company whose product you're subscribing to is concerned, you are breaking the terms and conditions that you agreed to. To me, that sounds pretty unethical, but to you, it only makes sense that you should be able to freely download and store the content that you paid for.
There's no reason ToC has any correlation with an ethical framework, just like laws against gay marriage don't make gay marriage unethical. They're merely corporate decisions made by men in suits. Being ethical and being against ToC or against the law are nowhere near the same thing.
My ethical framework is about driving the world towards overall happiness of all people.
If I, instead of loading the file in FLAC 200 times from Deezer's servers, locally save it and replay it in my music player, all the while paying for the service so I could actually stream it 200 times if I wanted to - I don't see who's being hurt by this.
Does that make sense?
Now if the ToC says "don't do this, instead use our bandwidth as we want you to use it, but don't save our file" then instead of blindly accepting that, I read between the lines of why they don't want that.
Which seems fairly obvious: they want you to keep paying for the service monthly to keep your access to the content. And thus I keep paying monthly, as I have for years now.
If I stop paying and don't delete the content? Yes, then it does become unethical. I'm not planning to do that. But I'd still argue it's not nearly as unethical as using their servers without paying for access - because you're not inducing any costs for the company.
If your ethical framework is about "respecting corporate ToCs" yet don't mind making people use fake credit cards then I don't really know what to say anymore.