4 ms·
Suppose I don't tell anyone I've downloaded. Then it wouldn't create a climate. Let's assume for now, for clarity, that I do nothing to contribute to a climate.
by xlnt 19y ago
Suppose I don't tell anyone I've downloaded. Then it wouldn't create a climate. Let's assume for now, for clarity, that I do nothing to contribute to a climate. I never post to torrent forums, never help people get torrents, I never seed, I never upload, I never encourage anyone else to download, etc... I have not said anything to defend taking actions like those to create a climate that legitimizes downloading.
A download only "robs content creators of the incentive to create" if it prevents a purchase (or chance of a purchase). I am not defending all downloading, but I am saying there is a possible way of downloading that doesn't do this. If the condition I specified holds (would not have been bought either way), then the content creator isn't hurt. He gets just the same benefits an incentives as he would have in a world without that kind of downloading.
He may be hurt for a different reason, but not for lack of a purchase because, by premise, that purchase wasn't going to happen in any case.
What conclusions should be drawn from this is not obvious. Agreeing it is true is an important starting point before drawing conclusions.
- tptacek 19y agoI concede that you can define an arbitrary set of circumstances where, in a vacuum, you download a file without perturbing the universe in any measurable way. This isn't a starting point for drawing conclusions until you answer the question of "how those circumstances could ever occur". Furthermore, it's not persuasive. You're avoiding the obvious fact that these innocuous downloads --- those that not only involve people who would not pay for content, but who are also so hygienic in their downloading practices that they do not contribute to the climate --- are a tiny minority of all downloads. Finally, if we've really arrived at the crux of your argument --- that you can personally define one form of illicit download that imposes no costs on society --- then you've already lost the "debate" (such as it is). We're talking about Torrentspy, a huge contributor to the climate you're meticulously and artificially trying to avoid helping.
- xlnt 19y agoI didn't say anything about Torrentspy. Do you have any suggestions for what I can do in future discussions so that people listen more to what I actually say? As for how common this type of downloading is, do you think if torrent sites didn't exist that even half of the downloads they facilitate would have been purchases instead? I don't think most downloaders have enough money to buy that much stuff.
- tptacek 19y agoRespectfully, you might start by remembering what you originally said, considering the plain meaning of your words, and the context in which you say them. In this case, you begun this thread by referring to the "vast amount of good" that "sites like" Torrentspy do. Your other argument seems to be that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the costs inflicted by torrent sites, because they are small --- "not even half of the downloads" directly rob producers of revenue. I don't care to chase that argument down. If you believe your argument is persuasive, I have good news for you: you needn't bother paying your taxes, either. The marginal cost to the government of losing Bruce Lewis' tax revenue is very nearly zero. In fact, if everyone like you stopped paying taxes, we'd be no worse off. Under your argument's rubric, I can see no reason for us to trouble ourselves with the task of collecting taxes from Scheme web developers at all.
- xlnt 19y agoThe downloads which hurt someone, and the ones which don't, can be separated.