3 ms·

I down-voted them for stating the obvious and adding nothing of value to the discussion. Either way, it doesn't take an 'entitlement mentality' to prefer payin

by Retra 8y ago

I down-voted them for stating the obvious and adding nothing of value to the discussion. Either way, it doesn't take an 'entitlement mentality' to prefer paying less for something. That's just good sense. And lots of people do pay for entertainment with the expectation that they can share it with people. Humanity has spent its entire history freely sharing things that grab our social fancy and percolate through our cultural attentions. Just because a business wants to make money doesn't mean they have a right to deny the basic workings of the human brain. >If you don’t like the terms on which they’re selling the fruits of their labor, don’t buy it. I'm pretty sure finding someone else who has access to it involves not buying it. Next thing you'll be telling me I have a moral obligation to not watch my sister's Breaking Bad DVD's with her. Or worse: a legal obligation.

zaphirplane 8y ago
I don’t think people are not replying to your comment because it makes a convincing argument. I suppose if you refuse to lend your car out for a $ it’s ok for someone to take it. Oh it’s a digital copy, so it’s ok for people to copy your work and give it away.
- Retra 8y ago
  You're over-simplifying the problem, which is that digital distribution naturally promotes decentralization of distribution. Media and information products suffer due to that, but most media and information-content producers are already piggybacking on human social behaviors to produce value in the first place. If you produce digital music, for instance, it has almost no value if nobody shares it. The decentralization of distribution is exactly the mechanisms one uses to make money off of these things. Your hope is that things go "viral" and that they are shared so prolifically that you'll be able to extract value out of your importance to the network overall, not due to some analogous 'artificial' manufacturing bottleneck like you would with concrete goods. The argument that it is ok to consume media for free hinges on the fact that it is both efficient and natural human behavior, and that it doesn't undermine the whole-network of value. If the latest Avenger movie makes $1Bn in one week, then it's pretty clear that plenty of value is being extracted from the network, regardless of how many people have not paid to see it. People have no moral obligation to allow a content producer to monopolize all distribution, especially when the rational basis for such level of profit is simply not there. And you can't have it both ways anyway: you can't expect to have "viral" information that people also have to pay to exchange. (Or rather, you can't expect them to be Ok with that.) The appropriate analogy for that situation would be more like Toyota trying to make it illegal to sell cars that they manufacture without their consent. It would destroy the second-hand market and be highly inefficient for people. If my sister streams her DVDs over the internet to me, all we're doing there is avoiding the coordination costs and being economically efficient. In either case, I pay for my internet access, so I would, in fact, be paying for media that I torrent or share online.

by Retra 8y ago

zaphirplane 8y ago

I don’t think people are not replying to your comment because it makes a convincing argument. I suppose if you refuse to lend your car out for a $ it’s ok for someone to take it. Oh it’s a digital copy, so it’s ok for people to copy your work and give it away.

Retra 8y ago
You're over-simplifying the problem, which is that digital distribution naturally promotes decentralization of distribution. Media and information products suffer due to that, but most media and information-content producers are already piggybacking on human social behaviors to produce value in the first place. If you produce digital music, for instance, it has almost no value if nobody shares it. The decentralization of distribution is exactly the mechanisms one uses to make money off of these things. Your hope is that things go "viral" and that they are shared so prolifically that you'll be able to extract value out of your importance to the network overall, not due to some analogous 'artificial' manufacturing bottleneck like you would with concrete goods. The argument that it is ok to consume media for free hinges on the fact that it is both efficient and natural human behavior, and that it doesn't undermine the whole-network of value. If the latest Avenger movie makes $1Bn in one week, then it's pretty clear that plenty of value is being extracted from the network, regardless of how many people have not paid to see it. People have no moral obligation to allow a content producer to monopolize all distribution, especially when the rational basis for such level of profit is simply not there. And you can't have it both ways anyway: you can't expect to have "viral" information that people also have to pay to exchange. (Or rather, you can't expect them to be Ok with that.) The appropriate analogy for that situation would be more like Toyota trying to make it illegal to sell cars that they manufacture without their consent. It would destroy the second-hand market and be highly inefficient for people. If my sister streams her DVDs over the internet to me, all we're doing there is avoiding the coordination costs and being economically efficient. In either case, I pay for my internet access, so I would, in fact, be paying for media that I torrent or share online.