350
Pluralistic: “If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”
(pluralistic.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
350 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37708 readers
156 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I get that the economy we're in means a bunch of people, like yourself, feel justified in entertaining themselves using whatever means they can afford. I'd be lying if I said I never pirated music when I was a broke highschooler.
But the reality is, if the funding isn't there, it doesn't happen. I don't think DRM is the ethical way to squeeze money out of your audience, nor do I think not compensating people who worked hard to create something you enjoy is the ethical way to consume media.
If you liked it, and you can afford it, pay them a fair price for your experience. Artists are already starving without society having a "copying isn't stealing" mentality. It doesn't matter if it's Netflix, or a busker; you're not paying them for a physical thing that they hand you, you're paying them for the effort they went to craft an experience for you.
Don't get me wrong: I pay for my indie games and don't have the time for the so-called "triple-AAA" crap.
But the money I'd pay to Netflix or Spotify won't actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff. That's just not how this works.
Most imortantly: I don't want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually don't know their financial situtation.
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you're not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist's content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
But they're always going to take more than they should, that's just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it's not generating enough income, the content simply won't happen.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
Totally agree. I felt I was very clear that I myself pirated when I couldn't afford to pay, which is consistent with the belief that you should pay what you can afford.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don't get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I'd spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Those people don't get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I'm watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let's not forget that most of the money I'd pay will go to shareholders.
I don't really care for this liberal narrative.
So, people who make that "garbage" don't deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
I don't think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
Yes, more than should, sure, we're saying the same thing.
And then I said:
To which you responded:
Which is a textbook straw man. And then there's this gem:
So yeah, I think we're done here. Bye.
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about "competition" and "inefficiencies" a "liberal narrative"? That's what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they don't understand?
It's impossible to not be condescending in that situation, I've already done it enough, and I'd rather not continue. Cheers.
Skill issue, asshole.
You make a decent point, but the disconnect between people paying for content and the money going to the people who contributed effort to it is getting wider and wider.
Popular shows that people subscribed for get axed after 1 season or moved to another service. All the work people did for Warner Brothers' Batgirl gets thrown in the trash so that WB can get a tax write-off, before any movie watcher can even give a cent to them in support.
The point is big studios make so much year after year that pirating their stuff doesn't make a dent in whether the people they hire get paid accordingly.
If labels didn't take huge chunks of their income... with very little return on their part. Guess what...
This actually isn't a problem with the consumers, it's a problem with the "production" side of this equation.
A busker doesn't hold my files I create via video recording on my phone of the "event" hostage... under threat of lawsuit/men with guns beating down my door and taking all my electronics.
No I'm not. I'm paying to own the disc/content. I couldn't give a damn what "experience" they think they're creating. But it's in their best interest that the "experience" is worthwhile so I purchase the next one.
That is my point, yes.
It is both. Contrary to the simpliatic worldview of Lemmy/reddit circle jerks, more than one problem can exist.
Again, I don't think DRM is ethical. I also don't think being able to afford to compensate someone, and not compensating them is ethical.
You can go buy blank disks for a fraction of the price of ones with content on them.
You will never own their content, they own the copyright, you do not. Even when you purchase a physical blu-ray disk, you would not be allowed to open a theater and start showing it to people. That is because: You. Do. Not. Own. Their. Content. Ever. You're only paying for the experience of witnessing it. Just like going to see a play 200+ years ago, just like going to a movie theater today. You're allowed to be confused about that, but it doesn't change reality.
So you literally do "give a damn" about the experience. Which is it?