Originally Posted by Guaporense
There is no reason to pirate movies that already are no Netflix.
I can think of several. Netflix is no universal solution.
Originally Posted by Guaporense
Anime torrent sites have a policy of only allowing torrents of anime titles that have not been licensed in the west and today thanks to streaming services most people don't download series anymore.
It's more that they have legal loopholes that give them an easy out when the angry emails arrive than they get localized.
Originally Posted by Guaporense
You are making a copy of something whose creator has not allowed you to do so: it's like this,
No, it's like this, bear with me and try this little thought experiment, will you? Watch this short video clip:
NOW, unless you've personalized your browser in just such a way as to prevent caching,
which all browsers are designed to do by default, you just downloaded that video. It is copied. Maybe not in the same format, and maybe not in it's entirety, but it's still a string of data saved on your computer for the purposes of reference and reduced load times should you revisit the page in the future.
Your computer does this all the time and you may even do it yourself unknowingly, if, say for example, you downloaded that avatar of yours, Guap, you now possess a copy, albeit a piece, of a licensed creative material
which you do not own. Vinland Saga is indeed a visual work, yes? Is this not a public demonstration of sorts? What's the distinction between presented something you do not own in pieces as opposed to something like manga scanned into a reading site?
Each page of the book is out of it's native format and separated into different webpages and those sites are routinely subject to your licensing exception. What difference does it make if they're not all there? What difference does it make if you're only using part of a creative work you do not own, or have permission for, to present as an avatar? Let alone download it (which I guarantee you've done intentionally or not).
Similarly, if the medium through which creative material is exchanged doesn't matter, then why are we not culpable for repeating songs in our own voices? We're still copying someone. What of poems? What of speeches? What of regular dialog? AT WHAT POINT can something even be considered creative material?
If I wear a t-shirt with a graphical design I didn't make and someone takes a photo of me, the graphic design on that t-shirt is being copied into another visual format. Is that infringing on copyright? Why not? What's the distinction?
Patents can be legally placed on low-complexity combinations of elements so even strings of code can be considered copyrighted, but those strings don't even need include anything intentionally creative, they need merely be arbitrarily complex enough to be handwaved into legal protection.
Consider: Can you copyright this?
How about this?
What about this?
At what point does it become a creative work, because we've established that it's still "stealing" even if the work in question appears only in part, correct? So, then what if those pixels are ACTUALLY just a close-up of this?:
If a collection of pixels or even a video clip can constitute part of a copyrighted work, then it means that the "stolen" material can be reduced to a point where it's marginally indistinguishable from another entirely different copyrighted work (a la "elbow or butt"), but the range of creative works is so vast and cross-derivative that this issue is always going to be prevalent.
Whether it's in whole or in parts, with permission or without, humanity is never going to stop copying each other and it will often find itself doing things similarly by sheer coincidence.
If there's a distinction to be made protecting creative properties, it certainly doesn't start with "no copying without permission".