this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
80 points (97.6% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54758 readers
400 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
I know what sub I'm in, and while I don't pirate anything, I'm not going to argue the ethics at all.
But according to the article, they were literally advertising to customers that they were sling and selling them devices preloaded to look like they were sling. Again, I'm not here to argue the merits of piracy generally. I follow the sub without being a pirate because many of the legal/technical issues around piracy affect anyone who wants to own their media and browse the internet with some level of privacy. But distributors of any of that content aren't credible if they're lying to the end users. Lying to tell people you're actually the real service isn't cool.
They said "Authorized Retailer," not that they were the actual company. They were truly selling the service, regardless of legalese around being authoritized, I'd think it perfectly okay for them to say you can pay X to get Y and as long as you receive Y (in this case ability to watch cable).