I would still download a car if I could. 🚗
-
The idea is that you support creators out of the appreciation and not because you're forced to.
This seems to work as a model for YouTubers and podcasters. They usually have most of their stuff available for free, and people pay them money, and more often than there is no reward for the money, other than satisfaction of supporting the creator.
This is obviously one example, and it only works for periodic installments, but it is a working alternative to the system, where people who don't want or can't pay don't do thatThis seems to work as a model for YouTubers and podcasters
No, it doesn't. They're still being paid by YouTube/Spotify a flat amount based on the number of views - which are being paid for by ads and premium subscriptions.
Which means: people pay (one way or another) first, consume the content later.
-
Are you suggesting that all art should be free?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Especially if the creator(s) is deceased.
Are you suggesting only the wealthy are deserving of art?
-
I'm pretty sure if someone stole everything you own you'd see it differently
insurance exists;
-
insurance exists;
Hahahahaha - keep telling yourself that. Until the insurance fails to pay out and you're homeless, with zero possessions and everybody doesn't care
-
Especially if the creator(s) is deceased.
Are you suggesting only the wealthy are deserving of art?
Only the wealthy can afford art? Music? Movies? Graphic Novels? Video Games?
Are you being obtuse?
-
Hahahahaha - keep telling yourself that. Until the insurance fails to pay out and you're homeless, with zero possessions and everybody doesn't care
sounds like the problem is with capitalism then.
-
Not really, because obviously nobody who sincerely believed it was of no value would spend their time downloading it. The contradiction is in simultaneously claiming that something is of no value and therefore shouldn’t be paid for, whilst still expending effort to illegally copy it, this proving that it did have value. The only way to square it would be to claim that you’re the one who created new value by the act of downloading it, which is blatantly dishonest.
wrote last edited by [email protected]it’s not blatant nonsense. jesus fucking christ you people lack a brain.
the art/media/fucking whatever intellectual “property” = no intrinsic value, worthless itself
the labor to create the art = valuable
the labor to distribute the art, be it through “legitimate” or pirated means = valuable
it’s that simple. there needn’t even be any long moral/ethical arguments. piracy is righteous because information deserves to be free. there is no way to enforce ownership of information without wanton violence from the state.
-
This seems to work as a model for YouTubers and podcasters
No, it doesn't. They're still being paid by YouTube/Spotify a flat amount based on the number of views - which are being paid for by ads and premium subscriptions.
Which means: people pay (one way or another) first, consume the content later.
a flat amount
Nope, the amount is anything but flat. For bigger youtubers the ad money start to be significant, and for bigger podcasters spotify pays something, but for the most, amount of money from ads is negligible.
-
Devil's Advocate: Many pirates would have not paid for access to that media so to say it takes away from the creators profit isn't exactly true since one act of piracy does not equal one lost sale.
Devil's Advocate Part II: There is s significant amount of research that supports the notion that pirates actually spend more money on media than the average person.
I personally am an example of part II. I pirate a lot of music but I refuse to use Spotify because of how little it pays artists and I have also spent significant amounts of money buying music from artists I enjoy via Bandcamp or buying from the artist directly because I know they get a bigger cut of the profits that way.
Before piracy there were demos and shareware, which let you see if your machine could handle the game or content and give you a vertical slice, and let you show it to friends for word of mouth advertising.
Then, Steam put a two hour refund window with no questions asked, which helped a lot of "this crashes on start, I can't open this at all on a RTX 4090/high end PC, 15 FPS in the fog, etc".
Developers learned from that and they began padding/gating content behind two hours of gameplay, so you wouldn't know until 3-4 hours in that the game was grindy dogshit (SCUM, Ark, Empyrion, and countless other Early Access and sometimes full release titles like NMS on launch day for example).
So the correct thing to do, and it's what I do: Pirate the game, make sure it runs/works and is fun and there's no "gotcha" traps or hidden DLCs or other predatory mechanics involved, and THEN pay for the full title on Steam+DLCs and just continue the save.
My Steam Account has actually already been flagged over a dozen times for this because my primary savegames are like Razor1911.sav, and so far it's still in good status because I am actually spending a couple thousand/year on content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The only damage that exists from piracy is to the copyright holders profits.....
Since the copyright holder is usually a corporation that is owned by shareholders, the majority of which are richer than all of us combined, ask me if I give a shit and I will show you my field of shits to give, and you will see that it is barren.
Eat the rich. Or Luigi them... I don't care.
-
It works for anything small scale enough for its creators to be able to do is as a side hustle that may or may not pay off. Try funding a triple-A game that way and see how far you get.
Ironically, it's actually doesn't work on a small scale. It works on a medium scale, big enough to have a stable audience, not big enough to get lucrative deals from brands.
It might not work to support a lifestyle of AAA company CEO, and it might not work at pushing out hundreds of unimaginative boring microtransaction machines, but I would say it's just a bonus -
I for one would definitely download a car, if I did not already own one I really like.
I'd happily let's others download mine, if it didn't affect me or my car in any way.
Yeah, why the fuck not?
Obviously, something made in a specialized vehicle manufacturing plant will be better/more durable/whatever, but given the option between downloading a car vs spending a year's salary to buy one.... I'd rather download one.
Unless my wages get better (which they are not) or cars get cheaper (which they won't), I'll continue to have this opinion.
There's a nontrivial number of cars that cost more than a house did in the 80's and 90's. So it's entirely possible for someone to spend the same dollar value on their home, when purchasing it in the 90's, as they do 25 years later, buying a house in the 2020's.
Stupid.
-
insurance exists;
Using insurance means your premiums will go up, meaning you are still going to pay for it. There is also some emotional damage depending on how the theft happens.
-
I don't get your argument. So because it's "new" according to your grand cosmic scale, it doesn't exist at all?
You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that, but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
,You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that,
Read the above comments then.
but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
Again, read my comments. I didn't say it wasn't real, I said it has no basis in human culture or history.
-
You people behave like you believe that artists got gathered up under threat of violence, put into these companies and are being forced to work there against their will...
If they dont, they kinda don't get to do their art. It's a whole thing.
Id say 'or they starve/die on yhe street' but that's what they get service jobs for.
-
insurance exists;
I have a lot of monetarily worthless stuff that means a lot to me. Souvenirs from trips, some heirlooms from my grandparents, stuff like that. Not gonna be worth anything in insurance but means a lot to me.. it's a dumb take that theft isn't a crime.
-
sounds like the problem is with capitalism then.
No, the problem is you trusting a capitalist system to make you whole again. Under any other economic system in the world if you steal someones personal property- it's a shitty thing to do.
-
Investors became investors by paying creators for their work in advance without knowing what they'd produce. It's incredibly short-sighted to say "hey, the creator already got their paycheck so my purchase makes no difference now".
Maybe it would help to think of it as paying the creator for their next game.
And they invested knowing that piracy was a thing and figured that into their calculations regard to the risk vs potential return. If they didn't get that right and end up with a loss, well, that's capitalism for you.
-
It works for anything small scale enough for its creators to be able to do is as a side hustle that may or may not pay off. Try funding a triple-A game that way and see how far you get.
Triple A games are often over funded and under deliver in experience in my recent experience. A little less funding might tighten up some of waste and deliver better games.
-
The problem with almost every pro-piracy argument like this is that they fundamentally require a significant percentage of the population to disagree with it. "People who can pay will pay and I'm not taking anything from them" only works for as long as both the general population and retailers regard piracy as wrong and keep funding all those games, movies etc for you.
Heck, all you pirates should be upvoting anti-piracy posts like this, we're the ones keeping your habit funded...
wrote last edited by [email protected]The problem with almost every pro-piracy argument like this is that they fundamentally require a significant percentage of the population to disagree with it.
This assumes that people who are ok with piracy are also against paying for content. That's a nice fantasy and it makes anti-piracy people feel good about themselves, but it doesn't reflect reality.
People who can pay will pay and I’m not taking anything from them” only works for as long as both the general population and retailers regard piracy as wrong and keep funding all those games, movies etc for you.
This assumes that 'pro piracy' people are against artists getting paid for their work. Seeing as how pirates tend to purchase more legal content than the 'general population' that is clearly not the case.
There could be a million different reasons why someone might 'pirate' a piece of media, and simply not wanting to pay for it is usually pretty low on the list. That attitude also relies on the assumption that every single piece of content that is copied is something the 'pirate' would have paid for in the first place.
As an artist, my job is to inspire people, to make them feel, to share my experience with them. I have absolutely zero problem with someone who can't afford to pay for my work pirating it. I also appreciate the ones who do pay, but I would still be making art even if no one paid, because while the money is nice it's not the point of it for me. Id much rather someone copy a work of mine and enjoy it than not enjoy it because they couldn't pay for the privilege.
I understand that some 'artists' are in it for the money and that's fine. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them that they deserve to get paid for every eyeball that falls upon their work, regardless of the circumstance.
Heck, all you pirates should be upvoting anti-piracy posts like this, we’re the ones keeping your habit funded…
Have an upvote from me for being the hero we don't deserve and protecting the mega-corps bottom lines. Truly you are a modern day Jesus.
