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.

And I’m saying that it’s a strawman, because that’s not the principle copyright law operated on in the first place.

The electricity and silicon required to make this happen are not free, on a societal or physical level. There is a tangible cost to this transfer, even if you're ignoring the social construct of copyright.

Completely irrelevant.

If I already have a computer and an internet connection then I've already paid the costs, prior to initiating that particular request.

I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".

In the context of pricing resources, those are the same thing.

Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.

The model is the same one used by streaming services. It's one of reward and attribution rather artificial scarcity. Rather than having streaming and advertising middlemen you have a public system that lets everyone access what they want and rewards creators based on usages. Youtube without Google's exorbitant profits.

Copyright has no basis in human culture or history. Our literal entire history is based on a tradition of free remixing and story telling, not copyright.

Copyright has no basis in human culture or history.

It's exited before any of us currently alive, so that's a pretty absurd notion. Unless human culture and history ended ~300 years ago?

K, versus 2,750,000 years.

Here's 300 letter g's:

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggg

Here's 2.75 million letter h's

Oh wait, I can't paste that many because at 40 chars per line, it would be 68,000 lines long, or 1000x the Android clipboard's char limit.

You are literally describing a meaningless iota in the course of human history.

Its true. Ops argument is basically same as calling ai prompters real artists. Its better to support who you can in good faith to keep funding projects that you like. Sure theres a point in pirating call of yearly remake: basic bitch 6 or yet another disney owned copy paste as low effort slop gets funded no matter what with the people working on it being compensated and fired after end of a project anyway. But I try to compensate to smaller outfits whenever I can and at the very least advertise them.

Because AI isn't creating a copy of the original thing, it is attempted to replace the original thing for a profit.
It would be like if a publishing company took some book, removed random parts of it then replaced them to parts from other books, then sold that instead of paying authors to write books.

If you have a window, you can still pirate some foods.

The problem is that the producer's business model is based on making and selling copies. You're not taking an original work, no, but you're also not paying for the produced content.

Let's expand the pig analogy.

A farmer has a sow and any piglets that it has are for sale. You steal a piglet. You haven't stolen the original sow, but you have stolen the piglet you now have because you didn't pay for it.

Piglet is still there in the morning though.

Nah. That analogy does not work.

Piracy situation is more like you have made a cool statue and you charge people money for looking at your statue. Then someone comes, looks at your statue, and goes away without paying.

There's no thief, nothing was stolen at any point. The one how came looking without paying was probably never going to pay for an entrance, and the statue can me still be looked by anyone. Nothing is loss in the process, no harm is done. Some guy just looked at a statue without paying for it.

So a little more in depth:

So, a little more in depth:

Im poor as fuck. So the option isnt 'buy/pirate' its 'pirate or get nothing'. Fuck you if you think i should live without art.

The artists generally do not recieve profit when a copy is streamed/sold. It simply is not done; their unions are too weak. This is blatant corporate propaganda.

The entire mechanism to do that is fucked anyway, even if it were hooked up to something. I'm sorry, but i wouldnt deal with that shit show for free. Even new releases or classics have to be hunted down like cult films, and then even if i buy them, i lose them at some arbitrary later date. Music was the last thing i tried to pay on, and i just could not keep a cohesive collection together-at this point, if it's not on bandcamp, i assume the artist doesn't want money. And even bandcamp has disappeared tracks i paid for, reducing me to local backups. So fuck em.

I'm sorry. I really would love to support art and artists, but it simply isn't possible to do that systemically within capitalism. There is no clear systemic option. Just ways to lick corporate boot and waste your fucking time.

although

I bet i do actually pay artists-cast crew and musicians at least-more than you do. When i dine out, rare as that is, in los angeles, i tip ~30% in cash. So i am actually supporting the arts, while you, my boot licking friend, are not. Youre supporting the corporate ghouls who feast upon them.

Maybe lightly used.

Nah. Id pay artists if i could.

And in fact do tip them pretty well at the jobs they take to pay rent when im in LA.

What we need is for parasitic creativity destroying shit stain ip-troll ghouls to get the guillotine, so they arent parasiting on every fucking artist.

We need a society that values humanity and art.

Because as is, there kind of isnt a reliable systemic way to support them. Capitalism prevents it.

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.

I hate IP trolls as much as the next person, but that feels almost like a non-sequitur

Thats what studios are, though.

Thry don't make the art. People make the art.

The problem is that the producer’s business model is based on making and selling copies

This is all too vague to actually understand the effect of piracy. The economic impact depends how much piracy replaces actual purchases.

When I was a teenager, I would pirate a lot of music. At the time, I had very little money to spend. This copying did not replace any purchases. On the other hand, me not buying music right now is a lost purchase since I could spend money. That's why I spend some money every month actually buying music from bandcamp or whatever, which offsets the revenue that the musicians would otherwise lose.

Also, if the artist has other revenue streams, it doesn't matter as much. Musicians for example don't make a lot of money off of streaming nowadays, and a lot of their revenue comes from merch and concert tickets etc. So if you spend money there, copying doesn't really bankrupt the artist.

Of course each type of media has slightly different mechanics, but in general there are a lot of ways you can do piracy without really undermining the business model of the artists. And very rarely are the effects the same as for theft.

That analogy doesn't work at all because the Sow produces a finite (and rather small at that) number of piglets over a given timespan.

It's more akin to you getting a piglet/sow elsewhere. Now your piglet/sow need is satisfied and you won't buy anything from this farmer.

(Edit: And even then you took that piglet/sow away somewhere else, reducing supply there, which will make it more likely for this farmer to get a sale in the future.)

Your example is about physical goods.

Software is at its core just digital information a computer can use.

Knowledge/Information (that is not personal information) should be free.

You can make a argument that software developers still must sell copies of their code to make a living but if you look at the reality of software that appears to simply be some kind of bias. You can make software that is free and still make a living they are just not always related.

The software that runs the world’s infrastructure is increasingly FOSS, from critical cybersecurity to vending machines. Even big corporations are increasingly getting involved in using and making open source components for their proprietary fronts.

As a linux user everything i need can be done legally with free software, not only is it free is most of the times vastly superior then a paid product.

Ever needed software on windows to find the installer got bundled with spyware and then the final program turns out to be a trial before
Requiring a subscription? That is only because they need to make money.

On linux, you install it, it’s only the thing you actually need, and it works. No bloat, no
enshitification. Some person or group realized there was value to be created, created it and as a result the entire world won collectively.

I have a few products of my own that i hope to publish some day and i already vouched to never make them proprietary, My dad called me insane not to try to profit. I call it nothing but ethical to make the best value for humanity that i can. My very common office job provides enough liveable wage and work/life balance for my family and still find time to do such.