4 ms·

Small creators aren't destroyed by piracy, because people who have money generally want to support artists that they like when they feel like that support will

Small creators aren't destroyed by piracy, because people who have money generally want to support artists that they like when they feel like that support will actually make a difference to that artist's livelihood, and will allow the artist to keep creating. A perfect example of this is Stardew Valley. I know people who pirate the vast majority of the things they consume, but have purchased multiple copies of that game so they could give it to friends.

dbbk 5y ago
Why are small creators inherently more entitled to 'support' than larger creators though? Why do we just decide that at a certain threshold, it's fine to take things for free?
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Small creators don't lobby the government in order to extend copyright duration for the nth time.
  - chii 5y ago
    disney was once a small creator. The thing with double standards is that there's just so many to choose from!
    - mariusor 5y ago
      Maybe we're thinking about different things when we're saying "small creator" but Disney had contracts with Hollywood studios[1] almost from the start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E2%80%931928:_Founding_and_silent_film_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E...
- scghost 5y ago
  The value of the money made is relative to how much money the person has. A person going from $0 -> $5 gets more value than a person going from $1,000,000 -> $1,000,005.
  - t0suj4 5y ago
    By that logic small scam game devs would be on par with other small creators. I don't think it's because of relative value of money.
  - Flankk 5y ago
    That's the same logic a thief uses when they shoplift from Walmart. As an indie myself, the biggest threat to my livelihood is actually piracy.
    - cute_boi 5y ago
      But i guess we agree on one thing: Shoplifting a poor's shop is far more egregious than wall mart? Relative value of money does make sense. Its not just here but in crime too. Can you punish people who steals 1$ and 1 million dollar in same way? Bad behavior, stealing is not a binary to my eyes.
      - Flankk 5y ago
        Your error is in comparing a single theft between small and large business. In reality, big business will face much more theft due to their high volume. The difference is marginal when you account for relative value. Your second example does not follow.
- LocalH 5y ago
  Once a creator reaches a (likely fuzzy, undefined, needs more study) threshold, they gain the ability to negatively influence the laws in their favor, against the laws' original intent. Regulatory capture and all. Look at all the lobbying that happened by the Walt Disney Corporation, among others, to extend the copyright term to the insanity we see today. Some people/corporations also want perpetual copyright that never expires, and they tend to be the larger ones (although not all, so that is sort of almost orthogonal).
- t0suj4 5y ago
  If people are thinking that small creators bring universally better value than big creators then they're in the right to give them money. I, for example, dislike Take Two's way of intimidating modders so I'm trying to avoid giving them money.
- 6510 5y ago
  This is a great question. The answer imho is that large creators can use crowd sourcing and leverage their reputation. All they have to do is ask the public for money to make the next [say] Mad Max, Riddick, Startrek, Batman, etc etc If the public doesn't want a new Startrek movie funding will be insufficient. It might have to happen on a smaller budget, not at all or simply have to wait until funds are sufficient. New things (not sequels) can be done/advertised on the reputation of the studio, director, actors etc etc I pay for production, I pay in advance for a cinema ticket, I get a digital download some months later. Whatever copying happens after that is pure promotion.
akudha 5y ago
I watched a YouTube video on the creation of Stardew valley. He did everything himself, including music and graphics. He also didn’t compromise on anything. Took him years to finish. I don’t play games, I still spent 5$ (I think) on the game, just because he is an impressive individual and I wanted to do my part so he stays that way. Companies underestimate how much love fans have for creators, when they’re sincere and their work is very good. The only way companies know to make money is treat their users like shit, use lawyers all the time etc etc
- sli 5y ago
  > I don’t play games, ... Stardew Valley is a load of fun and very much built with non-gamers in mind. It's pretty accessible (though you may want to keep the wiki handy). It's also really relaxing. You should try it out, you might really enjoy it.
1_player 5y ago
It's a little different with video games, since platforms like Steam have changed the face of video game piracy. Gabe Newell himself said that piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem. Steam removed any barrier to publishers to put their game on the platforms and players to buy the games, and game piracy is pretty much dead in the water and Valve is worth billions of dollars. Whereas the music industry and even worse, the movie industry, still have their heads up their arses and are losing hundreds of billions of dollars if they just provided a single platform where everything is available to stream, everywhere in the world, with no restriction but a single monthly fee. DRM is a problem, but the need to subscribe to a dozen different services to have access to most, but not all, media, is the biggest issue. I haven't downloaded a video game since the early 2010s, I have given Valve thousands of dollars since, and I will keep paying for my torrenting VPN for music and movies for the foreseeable future. Long live The Pirate Bay.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  There are a lot of independent labels and artists that you can support on Bandcamp (which takes at most 10%). Give it a look before you pirate music next time.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    I do buy on Bandcamp, and I've got YouTube Music for streaming. Streaming and buying music is _mostly_ OK nowadays, I've included it for sake of argument, the real problem lies with the movie industry.

dbbk 5y ago

Why are small creators inherently more entitled to 'support' than larger creators though? Why do we just decide that at a certain threshold, it's fine to take things for free?

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Small creators don't lobby the government in order to extend copyright duration for the nth time.
- chii 5y ago
  disney was once a small creator. The thing with double standards is that there's just so many to choose from!
  - mariusor 5y ago
    Maybe we're thinking about different things when we're saying "small creator" but Disney had contracts with Hollywood studios[1] almost from the start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E2%80%931928:_Founding_and_silent_film_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company#1923%E...
scghost 5y ago
The value of the money made is relative to how much money the person has. A person going from $0 -> $5 gets more value than a person going from $1,000,000 -> $1,000,005.
- t0suj4 5y ago
  By that logic small scam game devs would be on par with other small creators. I don't think it's because of relative value of money.
- Flankk 5y ago
  That's the same logic a thief uses when they shoplift from Walmart. As an indie myself, the biggest threat to my livelihood is actually piracy.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    But i guess we agree on one thing: Shoplifting a poor's shop is far more egregious than wall mart? Relative value of money does make sense. Its not just here but in crime too. Can you punish people who steals 1$ and 1 million dollar in same way? Bad behavior, stealing is not a binary to my eyes.
    - Flankk 5y ago
      Your error is in comparing a single theft between small and large business. In reality, big business will face much more theft due to their high volume. The difference is marginal when you account for relative value. Your second example does not follow.
LocalH 5y ago
Once a creator reaches a (likely fuzzy, undefined, needs more study) threshold, they gain the ability to negatively influence the laws in their favor, against the laws' original intent. Regulatory capture and all. Look at all the lobbying that happened by the Walt Disney Corporation, among others, to extend the copyright term to the insanity we see today. Some people/corporations also want perpetual copyright that never expires, and they tend to be the larger ones (although not all, so that is sort of almost orthogonal).
t0suj4 5y ago
If people are thinking that small creators bring universally better value than big creators then they're in the right to give them money. I, for example, dislike Take Two's way of intimidating modders so I'm trying to avoid giving them money.
6510 5y ago
This is a great question. The answer imho is that large creators can use crowd sourcing and leverage their reputation. All they have to do is ask the public for money to make the next [say] Mad Max, Riddick, Startrek, Batman, etc etc If the public doesn't want a new Startrek movie funding will be insufficient. It might have to happen on a smaller budget, not at all or simply have to wait until funds are sufficient. New things (not sequels) can be done/advertised on the reputation of the studio, director, actors etc etc I pay for production, I pay in advance for a cinema ticket, I get a digital download some months later. Whatever copying happens after that is pure promotion.

akudha 5y ago

I watched a YouTube video on the creation of Stardew valley. He did everything himself, including music and graphics. He also didn’t compromise on anything. Took him years to finish. I don’t play games, I still spent 5$ (I think) on the game, just because he is an impressive individual and I wanted to do my part so he stays that way. Companies underestimate how much love fans have for creators, when they’re sincere and their work is very good. The only way companies know to make money is treat their users like shit, use lawyers all the time etc etc

sli 5y ago
> I don’t play games, ... Stardew Valley is a load of fun and very much built with non-gamers in mind. It's pretty accessible (though you may want to keep the wiki handy). It's also really relaxing. You should try it out, you might really enjoy it.

1_player 5y ago

It's a little different with video games, since platforms like Steam have changed the face of video game piracy. Gabe Newell himself said that piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem. Steam removed any barrier to publishers to put their game on the platforms and players to buy the games, and game piracy is pretty much dead in the water and Valve is worth billions of dollars. Whereas the music industry and even worse, the movie industry, still have their heads up their arses and are losing hundreds of billions of dollars if they just provided a single platform where everything is available to stream, everywhere in the world, with no restriction but a single monthly fee. DRM is a problem, but the need to subscribe to a dozen different services to have access to most, but not all, media, is the biggest issue. I haven't downloaded a video game since the early 2010s, I have given Valve thousands of dollars since, and I will keep paying for my torrenting VPN for music and movies for the foreseeable future. Long live The Pirate Bay.

CuriouslyC 5y ago
There are a lot of independent labels and artists that you can support on Bandcamp (which takes at most 10%). Give it a look before you pirate music next time.
- 1_player 5y ago
  I do buy on Bandcamp, and I've got YouTube Music for streaming. Streaming and buying music is _mostly_ OK nowadays, I've included it for sake of argument, the real problem lies with the movie industry.