You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that people can buy things and share them with those who can't.

I've already given you an example of the game Mindustry, which people buy on Steam (16k reviews): https://store.steampowered.com/app/1127400/Mindustry, even though it's released under a free software license and you can get it for free on Itch: https://anuke.itch.io/mindustry and you can get its source code on GitHub: https://github.com/Anuken/Mindustry.

The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume.

Weird, huh? For some reason the internet and Bittorrent hasn't changed that.

They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.

A lot of people don't have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don't use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn't mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.

I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.

I'm pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don't define what is logical or what is moral.

Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?

People already share movies online and it's very easy. You don't have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it's not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.

If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.

Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can't make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn't own the files.

So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.

Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven't died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.

The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.

You can't steal something that's infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren't released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn't and I'm not going to support unethical practices with my money.

There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.

Remember Kim Dotcom? He had a file sharing website and the police raided his house with guns like he was a dangerous criminal. There is a video of it on YouTube.

Only if it's a file that's already publicly available. When you buy a movie, why shouldn't you be able to share it with others? I'm not saying that you should be able to hack a filmmaker's computer and publish movies they've never released, though.

The scenario you described can't happen to me anyway, because I only use Free Software. You can learn more about it here: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

They shouldn't collect data in the first place.

I think it's easier for a person to say "piracy is bad" than "sharing files is bad". Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It's a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn't let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.

“Piracy” is a propaganda term. We shouldn’t use it. There is nothing wrong with sharing files.

You are right about teenagers, but on the other hand not all people are the same. For some reason we've decided that they are competent to make those kinds of decisions and to do other things like driving a car. So even though they are not adults, we don't think of them as children either. There is probably no simple answer to this question, though.

Awesome photo!

Introduce him to game development with Godot engine. I don't know any specific tutorials, but you should be able to find something on YouTube.

You can also introduce him to the Free Software movement: https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM

Here is an article from the FSF explaining why we should avoid making such compromises: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html . They probably explain this a lot better than me, so if it doesn't convince you, then probably nothing will.

Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all.

You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn't make them ethical.

What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.

It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.

There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there’d be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.

But those people don't care about their freedom. That's the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can't let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.

Steam ain’t that. It’s video games. And nothing else.

Games are software. If you can't control what they do on your device, then you don't control the device.

Steam isn’t going to be what “traps” them or anything, especially when it’s sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all.

You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won't try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn't they? Their users don't even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can't see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.