6 ms·

> If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it. Who do I pay? What if the value it has to me is less

by jarek 15y ago

> If you are consuming the content then it does have value to you, therefore you should be paying for it. Who do I pay? What if the value it has to me is less than what anyone would like me to pay for it?

res0nat0r 15y ago
The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content.
- jarek 15y ago
  > The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right" are we talking about here? Moral, whose? Legal, in which jurisdiction? Under your definition of right, do they have the right to deny me their content they won't sell to me, if my consumption causes them no loss? If a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no right to stand around and watch the TVs?
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?
    - jarek 15y ago
      > Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?
      - res0nat0r 15y ago
        This is another long winded argument basically saying the same as above. "Since I can easily steal it without paying for it, I am doing it". Damn the artist or whomever thinks they should be paid for their creative output. How silly of them.
        jarek 15y ago
        I am beginning to lose patience with this conversation. I do not accept your point of view and your classification of my actions. You have done nothing to attempt to convince me that you're right except for repeating that you're right and strawmaning. You have not responded to my specific questions that might have helped me understand your argument. Have a pleasant day.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Arguing about "rights" doesn't mean anything. It's just as easy to say "if content creators won't sell lossless music files, they don't have the right to create the content." Really, the market is just being efficient. Right now, people want X. They could buy X for the price of a plane ticket and a CD and spend 36 hours of their time to obtain it, or they could download a torrent and be done in minutes. People are going to do the second one, regardless of the fact that they have no "right" to. Why? Because it's easier, and humans are lazy. As soon as every piece of music ever made is available from one store as lossless files, then there will be no excuse for music piracy. But as long as the middlemen want to segment the market artificially, the market is going to fight back. It's the recording industry middlemen that are hurting the artists, not the pirates. The pirates are just correcting the market. (The same goes for movies. Get rid of bullshit DRM like HDCP and region coding, and suddenly your sales will go way up. People don't want to buy a special player / cable / monitor combo that supports strong cryptography. They want to watch a movie. So don't do that, or the pirates have you beat on features alone, even though you created the content. That sounds fucked up because it is! Movies are not designed to prop up failing consumer electronics companies' bottom line. They are designed to be watched.)

by jarek 15y ago

res0nat0r 15y ago

The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content.

jarek 15y ago
> The content creator? Can't pay them, don't want to pay them, don't like the price? Then you don't have the right to consume the content. What kind of "right" are we talking about here? Moral, whose? Legal, in which jurisdiction? Under your definition of right, do they have the right to deny me their content they won't sell to me, if my consumption causes them no loss? If a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no right to stand around and watch the TVs?
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. You value the content enough to consume it, so it is not 'free'. Why is it everyone thinks music is exempt from payment when value is derived from it? You don't expect to get a pair of jeans for free just because they are too expensive to afford do you? By this standard you will happily then give me your paycheck for this coming week correct? I believe the output of your work to have zero value, therefore your work entitles you to zero compensation. This is essentially your argument. Why would an artist want to produce music if they can't afford to pay their bills because you deem it your obligation to have their work for free?
  - jarek 15y ago
    > Your consumption does cause them a loss, this fallacy needs to quit being repeated. Repeating this doesn't make it true. A specific pair of jeans costs a specific amount to create from raw materials, and if not paid for causes a loss. The situation with a set of bits being copied is subject to interpretation and I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine or anyone else's. My paycheque is the result of an agreement between me and my employer, who does believe the output of my work to have some value. Whether the people who use Facebook apps I help build or the corporation that paid my employer for them agree is irrelevant. Artists and producers get paid by their label, in some degree, independent of efforts of the distributor, and certainly independent of the public's perception of the worth of their work. It might influence their next contract (just like everyone thinking my work is shit/great would influence my next job offer), but few contracts are written to be based 100% on distributor's performance. However, I will be sending you a bill for reading my posts in this thread. You value the content enough to read and reply to them, and so you are causing me a loss not paying for the content. Again: if a bar won't let me in because I'm underage, but they position their TVs to be perfectly viewable by someone standing on the street, do I have no "right" (under your definition) to stand around and watch the TVs? Why or why not? Is the bar functionally different from a music or film distributor?
    - res0nat0r 15y ago
      This is another long winded argument basically saying the same as above. "Since I can easily steal it without paying for it, I am doing it". Damn the artist or whomever thinks they should be paid for their creative output. How silly of them.
      - jarek 15y ago
        I am beginning to lose patience with this conversation. I do not accept your point of view and your classification of my actions. You have done nothing to attempt to convince me that you're right except for repeating that you're right and strawmaning. You have not responded to my specific questions that might have helped me understand your argument. Have a pleasant day.
jrockway 15y ago
Arguing about "rights" doesn't mean anything. It's just as easy to say "if content creators won't sell lossless music files, they don't have the right to create the content." Really, the market is just being efficient. Right now, people want X. They could buy X for the price of a plane ticket and a CD and spend 36 hours of their time to obtain it, or they could download a torrent and be done in minutes. People are going to do the second one, regardless of the fact that they have no "right" to. Why? Because it's easier, and humans are lazy. As soon as every piece of music ever made is available from one store as lossless files, then there will be no excuse for music piracy. But as long as the middlemen want to segment the market artificially, the market is going to fight back. It's the recording industry middlemen that are hurting the artists, not the pirates. The pirates are just correcting the market. (The same goes for movies. Get rid of bullshit DRM like HDCP and region coding, and suddenly your sales will go way up. People don't want to buy a special player / cable / monitor combo that supports strong cryptography. They want to watch a movie. So don't do that, or the pirates have you beat on features alone, even though you created the content. That sounds fucked up because it is! Movies are not designed to prop up failing consumer electronics companies' bottom line. They are designed to be watched.)