I would still download a car if I could. 🚗
-
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.
Same. Its not a fancy car, but its had no problem in almost a decade and gets good mileage. Download it all you like
-
This is a horseshit analogy.
Stealing money from your account is theft, it's not still there afterwards.
The concept I think you might've been looking for is opportunity cost in that pirating deprives an artist of potential sales. Which is a fair point, but it is still not the same as stealing since it does not deprive the artists of their original copy.
It's also all done in the context of a system that is not run by artists and does not primarily benefit artists, but is instead run by and benefits middlemen.
but it is still not the same as stealing since it does not deprive the artists of their original copy.
The artist has ownership rights to all copies, not just the original; it's literally in the word "copyright".
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I wouldnt download a car, but that's only because im fanatically anti car.
Because cars are bad. There should not be cars.
-
This is an interesting argument. I don't think the two are completely analogous, and the whole thing falls apart once you go beyond consumer level usage due to piracy's inability to make new things like AI can. While piracy isn't going to get any game developers or musicians fired, AI image gen very likely will. The more it improves, the harder it will be for companies to continue justifying paying real artists.
That said, you do make a good point that many pro-piracy arguments can be used all the same to be pro-AI image gen. At least at the individual consumer level.
-
but it is still not the same as stealing since it does not deprive the artists of their original copy.
The artist has ownership rights to all copies, not just the original; it's literally in the word "copyright".
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, which is a distinctly different concept from stealing. It's copyright. Note how copyright violation isn't in the Bible. Note how the Bible itself would never have existed if copyright existed at the time given that it is a collection of passed down stories.
Copyright is a dumb as fuck concept. Its a scarcity based system, for stuff that is not scarce.
-
Disclosure: I have been sailing the seas for years, but...
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it.
They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator's/distributor's profit.
wrote last edited by [email protected]The people who make shit normally dont get paid anyway.
-
Yes, which is a distinctly different concept from stealing. It's copyright. Note how copyright violation isn't in the Bible. Note how the Bible itself would never have existed if copyright existed at the time given that it is a collection of passed down stories.
Copyright is a dumb as fuck concept. Its a scarcity based system, for stuff that is not scarce.
Its a scarcity based system
In what way?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
The amount of people that take these moral high roads is fucking ridiculous.
Well, the faceless mega-corp made it difficult to purchase or stream
I don’t like that I have to play the game on Steam
Akshually I’m just copying it, so it’s not theft
There are too many streaming services, so I shouldn’t have to pay for ANOTHER service
I’m not depriving the content creator or publisher from any money, since I wasn’t going to pay for it regardless
Just fucking own up to it. You are downloading content that you did not pay for. I don’t take some enlightened stance when I download a movie; I just do it. What I’m doing is not right, but I still do what I do. I don’t try to justify it with some bullshit political take.
We all have our line on what we deem acceptable or not. The only piracy that, in my opinion, could have a leg to stand on is when it is actual lost media. No physical copies available, no way to stream or pay for it. Anything else is just the lies we tell ourselves to justify our actions.
Just admit that you could pay for the content if you wanted to, you just choose not to, because you are a pirate. You are depriving someone somewhere from a sale or some other form of revenue.
Edit: I worded “Just own it” poorly. Clarified it to “Just own up to it”. That was the original intent, just an oversight on my part.
-
Its a scarcity based system
In what way?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Capitalism itself is a scarcity based system, and it falls apart somewhat when there's abundance.
In capitalism, stuff only has value if it's scarce. We all constantly need oxygen to live, but because it's abundant, it's value is zero. Capitalism does not start valuing oxygen until there are situations where it starts becoming rare.
This works for the most part in our world because physical goods by and large are scarce, but in the situations where they aren't, capitalism doesn't work. It's the classic planned obscelesence lightbulb story, if you can make a dirt cheap light bulb that lasts forever, you'll go out of business because you've created so much abundance that after a bit of production, you're actually not needed at all anymore and raw market based capitalism has no mechanism to reward you long term.
The same is even more true for information. Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level. To move a certain amount of physical matter a certain distance I need a certain amount of energy, and there are hard universal limits with energy density, but I can represent the number three using three galaxies, or three atoms. Information does not scale or behave the same, and is inherently abundant in the digital age.
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free, we created copyright, which uses laws and DRM to create artificial scarcity for information, because then an author can be rewarded within capitalism since it's scarce.
-
You have some very entitled opinions, if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media. You're free to not watch movies or listen to music but it's pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
Edit: I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget but apparently not.
Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you'd need some kind of income to support that hobby.
FOSS is the same but you need some income to survive.People do it for clout or for love. Sure, the Hollywood blockbusters would cease being made but that might be an overall social good IMO.
I agree with Brian Eno who describes how, if we had a universal basic income, we would see more artists creating content just for the hell of it. He also explains how there is no "genius", there is instead what he calls "scenius" where it is an entire artistic scene which breaks new ground but only one or two happen to go viral.
-
Because people don't want to pay for shit content. Let's take pirating out of the equation. If I read a book I borrowed and I really like it, I would buy. If the content was trash then I wouldn't. Same goes if I watch a movie, listen to an album, or eat a microwavable burrito at a friend's or family member's house.
This is what I do. I don't want to get burned by a shitty product.
-
Depriving owed earnings is also considered theft.
I mean, so is not doing anything... wait i better not give them any ideas.
Do I need to need to pay for the IP of your idea?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
It is coming for artists to not own their own work. Taylor Swift bought back her own work, Michael Jackson bought Paul McCartney's work from the record company (which annoyed Paul because he would have done it otherwise).
-
I wouldnt download a car, but that's only because im fanatically anti car.
Because cars are bad. There should not be cars.
Would you download a train?
-
The amount of people that take these moral high roads is fucking ridiculous.
Well, the faceless mega-corp made it difficult to purchase or stream
I don’t like that I have to play the game on Steam
Akshually I’m just copying it, so it’s not theft
There are too many streaming services, so I shouldn’t have to pay for ANOTHER service
I’m not depriving the content creator or publisher from any money, since I wasn’t going to pay for it regardless
Just fucking own up to it. You are downloading content that you did not pay for. I don’t take some enlightened stance when I download a movie; I just do it. What I’m doing is not right, but I still do what I do. I don’t try to justify it with some bullshit political take.
We all have our line on what we deem acceptable or not. The only piracy that, in my opinion, could have a leg to stand on is when it is actual lost media. No physical copies available, no way to stream or pay for it. Anything else is just the lies we tell ourselves to justify our actions.
Just admit that you could pay for the content if you wanted to, you just choose not to, because you are a pirate. You are depriving someone somewhere from a sale or some other form of revenue.
Edit: I worded “Just own it” poorly. Clarified it to “Just own up to it”. That was the original intent, just an oversight on my part.
When I return from the library instead of the bookstore it is with the deepest shame.
-
Capitalism itself is a scarcity based system, and it falls apart somewhat when there's abundance.
In capitalism, stuff only has value if it's scarce. We all constantly need oxygen to live, but because it's abundant, it's value is zero. Capitalism does not start valuing oxygen until there are situations where it starts becoming rare.
This works for the most part in our world because physical goods by and large are scarce, but in the situations where they aren't, capitalism doesn't work. It's the classic planned obscelesence lightbulb story, if you can make a dirt cheap light bulb that lasts forever, you'll go out of business because you've created so much abundance that after a bit of production, you're actually not needed at all anymore and raw market based capitalism has no mechanism to reward you long term.
The same is even more true for information. Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level. To move a certain amount of physical matter a certain distance I need a certain amount of energy, and there are hard universal limits with energy density, but I can represent the number three using three galaxies, or three atoms. Information does not scale or behave the same, and is inherently abundant in the digital age.
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free, we created copyright, which uses laws and DRM to create artificial scarcity for information, because then an author can be rewarded within capitalism since it's scarce.
Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level.
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.
I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free
Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.
-
You have some very entitled opinions, if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media. You're free to not watch movies or listen to music but it's pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
Edit: I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget but apparently not.
Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you'd need some kind of income to support that hobby.
FOSS is the same but you need some income to survive.wrote last edited by [email protected]You have some very entitled opinions
Nah, the entitled opinions are coming from the "pay me, but you can't own media" folks.
if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media
If everyone thought like me, people could buy digital media in convenient formats at reasonable prices, and buying media would probably still be a lot more popular. My Bandcamp library is in the tens of thousands and growing. I support digital purchasing more than most, when it's done well.
but it's pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
As the whole crux of the thread makes clear, no taking is involved. You might want to go re-read the OP again, speaking of asinine.
-
Would you download a train?
Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. Fuck yes.
-
Do I need to need to pay for the IP of your idea?
wrote last edited by [email protected]If you aim to make significant profit with it. Yes. Otherwise i had nothing to lose to begin with.
-
Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. Fuck yes.
But would you download a bus?
