3 ms·

5. The person considers it a civil disobedience to not pay for services which lobby against the rights of said person/s. To not pay for your "service" is a poli

by antocv 7y ago

5. The person considers it a civil disobedience to not pay for services which lobby against the rights of said person/s. To not pay for your "service" is a political act. I could afford every content I consume, yet I make sure my content cost is 0 dollars and 0 cents.

lucb1e 7y ago
I'm not sure if I'm feeding a troll by replying, but I genuinely don't understand your comment. I would ask a question but it's more that the whole thing seems incoherent. Could you try to explain it to me in different words?
- delecti 7y ago
  It made perfect sense to me. They're advocating "voting with your wallet". They don't want to financially support big companies that politically lobby against their interests. Paying for a Disney movie is (in at least some small way) a vote for the policies of the PR and corporate lobbying that Disney performs. If you support shorter copyright terms, it's understandable to not give money to someone who you reasonably expect to use that to extend copyright terms.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    Ah, I understand the first part now, thanks. Makes sense not to want to support Disney. Not sure what's with the "I make sure my content is gratis" part (someone always puts time in it, and how does it help not to pay/donate to the indie artists that make it available for free? That doesn't help the lobby), but I can see how they're trying to avoid them the same way as others avoid Shell or Nestlé. Not sure if GP pays for any service in the industry though, that's kind of necessary to create a positive change.
  - criddell 7y ago
    I don't care if a movie I stream is DRM encumbered because I'm just there to watch it as it streams. It doesn't seem a lot different to me than going to a movie theater or to watch a play where you aren't allowed to record the show.
    - delecti 7y ago
      DRM is far from the only thing media corporations do which you could reasonably oppose. I even gave a specific example. Nobody brought up DRM in this chain of comments until you. I'm not sure why you're defending it.
zanny 7y ago
Since this comment is obviously going to be controversial, might as well nip the scapegoat in the bud right away - No, you are not taking food out of the animators at Disney's mouth by not paying whatever obscene price they want for that Blu-Ray. Those workers got paid a salary to make the content and that has already been said and done. Across all industries the amount of royalties going to creators, especially when it takes hundreds of them to make a product (CGI movies, animations, etc) is within a margin of error of 0. Your money goes to investors and corporate coffers when you are buying popular mainstream media. If piracy in aggregate causes lower profits than anticipated that results in business as usual - reevaluate your product development and / or change strategy and / or complain on mainstream media that you need to use force of law to make people buy your stuff because that obviously makes sense. The creators behind whatever the thing is already got paid all they are going to get in the average case. A very small percentile of the revenue in the creative industry is actual content creators themselves trying to sell copyrighted works they made to make a living off of them. Most professional media is made by salaried or contract artists that are making the thing on behalf of some corporation whom has the intent to try to profit off selling the copies of the finished work.

by antocv 7y ago

lucb1e 7y ago

I'm not sure if I'm feeding a troll by replying, but I genuinely don't understand your comment. I would ask a question but it's more that the whole thing seems incoherent. Could you try to explain it to me in different words?

delecti 7y ago
It made perfect sense to me. They're advocating "voting with your wallet". They don't want to financially support big companies that politically lobby against their interests. Paying for a Disney movie is (in at least some small way) a vote for the policies of the PR and corporate lobbying that Disney performs. If you support shorter copyright terms, it's understandable to not give money to someone who you reasonably expect to use that to extend copyright terms.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Ah, I understand the first part now, thanks. Makes sense not to want to support Disney. Not sure what's with the "I make sure my content is gratis" part (someone always puts time in it, and how does it help not to pay/donate to the indie artists that make it available for free? That doesn't help the lobby), but I can see how they're trying to avoid them the same way as others avoid Shell or Nestlé. Not sure if GP pays for any service in the industry though, that's kind of necessary to create a positive change.
- criddell 7y ago
  I don't care if a movie I stream is DRM encumbered because I'm just there to watch it as it streams. It doesn't seem a lot different to me than going to a movie theater or to watch a play where you aren't allowed to record the show.
  - delecti 7y ago
    DRM is far from the only thing media corporations do which you could reasonably oppose. I even gave a specific example. Nobody brought up DRM in this chain of comments until you. I'm not sure why you're defending it.

zanny 7y ago

Since this comment is obviously going to be controversial, might as well nip the scapegoat in the bud right away - No, you are not taking food out of the animators at Disney's mouth by not paying whatever obscene price they want for that Blu-Ray. Those workers got paid a salary to make the content and that has already been said and done. Across all industries the amount of royalties going to creators, especially when it takes hundreds of them to make a product (CGI movies, animations, etc) is within a margin of error of 0. Your money goes to investors and corporate coffers when you are buying popular mainstream media. If piracy in aggregate causes lower profits than anticipated that results in business as usual - reevaluate your product development and / or change strategy and / or complain on mainstream media that you need to use force of law to make people buy your stuff because that obviously makes sense. The creators behind whatever the thing is already got paid all they are going to get in the average case. A very small percentile of the revenue in the creative industry is actual content creators themselves trying to sell copyrighted works they made to make a living off of them. Most professional media is made by salaried or contract artists that are making the thing on behalf of some corporation whom has the intent to try to profit off selling the copies of the finished work.