3 ms·

As I've gotten older, I think my morals have gotten more defined. I no longer think that piracy is acceptable. Someone spends time and money to produce somethi

As I've gotten older, I think my morals have gotten more defined. I no longer think that piracy is acceptable. Someone spends time and money to produce something, and I think they get the right to sell it however they like. My choice, of course, is to pay for the content, or just not to consume it. I don't believe I have an inherent right to consume any content I want for free. The counter argument is usually that a copy of creative content doesn't take anything away from the author, but I don't really buy into that one.

jesuscript 4y ago
That’s interesting, because as I’ve gotten older, I don’t think piracy is good or bad (or in general, my taste for amorality is much more refined), just a strategic counter attack on an opposing force that is just as fluid in its tactics. We approached a middle ground of pricing and accessibility, but it only lasted so long. The other side over monetized, so the consumer has to counter attack and stop paying. It’s a wild bargaining scheme, we are in a digital bazaar. Never give up a tool in your tool shed.
- CubsFan1060 4y ago
  I don't think that someone else acting immorally gives me the license to also act against my morals, but that's just me. If I think that Amazon is being unfair about how they make Rings of Power available, that's totally fine, I just don't consume it.
virtual_void 4y ago
Regarding your last paragraph, could you expand a bit on why you believe that copying creative content does indeed remove something from the author? I guess the usual argument is that a copy of something cannot, by definition be theft. The author still has the object in question. Sometimes people counter by saying that a potential sale has been lost, but you can’t steal something that you didn’t have in the first place (the sale). The assumption that someone would have otherwise paid always seems to me a bit of a stretch. I guess you have thought about this more than i have so I’m curious as to what you’ve come up with.
- CubsFan1060 4y ago
  Sure! These are my opinions of course. If I spend a lot of time, effort, or money creating something, I may have plans to try to make money on it. If many people copy it for free, they may not be stealing as physical object from me, but they are removing my ability to generate revenue from them based off of my time, effort, or money. And of course, taking it to the extreme, people simply will stop creating works. Or, some folks may not be able to afford to create works. I'm well aware that most here won't agree with me, but I think it's on the creator to be able to determine what they want to do with their creations, and that it's not ok for me to arbitrarily tell them that their work is completely worthless, except I really really want to utilize it.
  - virtual_void 4y ago
    I think, from an emotional perspective re works i create, i feel the same. The bit i feel unsure about is if it really removes my ability to generate revenue. To make that claim I’d have to be sure the people that have copied would have otherwise paid. I’m not at all confident that i could assert that.
    - CubsFan1060 4y ago
      I agree, I'm not sure that you could prove it. I think there's also some intersection between cost and ease to pirate as well. Having not really pirated anything for many years, I was shocked when a friend showed me how easy it was with their Plex setup to just grab whatever TV show they wanted. The only anecdotal evidence that I have is that another friend who was with me saw the Plex setup, and within a week had cancelled several subscriptions and switched to Plex.
  - jokteur 4y ago
    > And of course, taking it to the extreme, people simply will stop creating works. Or, some folks may not be able to afford to create works. Being broke has never prevented artists from making great art. In fact, historically and today, the majority of artists have never been fairly compensated for their work, even with insane copyright laws. I do believe that artists should be correctly compensated for their work if they wish it, like any other work, but copyright laws (even if introduced as a way to protect artists) have been transformed into something that doesn't protect the artists, but the copyright holders (which are most of the time record labels and big companies). Here is the point of view from musical artists: You have two major scenarios: - you are a musician which does not produce original music. Then you make your money with gig playing mostly (weddings, venues, orchestras, ...). Copyright law is not siding with these musicians, and these musicians don't care about piracy. - you are a composer which produces original music. Here again, copyright law doesn't help, artists are trapped to distribute their music through either record labels or popular streaming services which don't care about their artists (spotify will pay artists 0.004$ per stream). Often, musicians will be doing both (composing and playing at gigs). But most of the money to be made is in gigs, and maybe a fan base that will buy your CDs and come to your concerts. Distributing your music on popular streaming services is just a way to grow your own fan base, not to make money. So piracy can even help here by making the music even more accessible. What I want to say is that from the point of view of musicians, copyright law doesn't help. Sometimes it even works against you: if you are a classical musician and putting some public domain music (that you played yourself) on youtube, you will be inevitably copystriked by some random record label that doesn't give a shit about you and there is nothing you can do. Copyright law also prevents musicians to rearrange popular music, to make transformative art unless you pay some fees. You can't play music from somebody even if the author has been dead for 50 years. And these fees won't probably go to the other musician you are arranging from, but to the copyright holder (which will be a record label or big company).
iamflimflam1 4y ago
Interesting, as I've grown older, I have had to actively try and keep my morals defined. Constantly seeing people behave badly and get rewarded for it has increasingly led to me to believe that obeying the rules is a fools game.
Nextgrid 4y ago
On the other hand, not consuming the content vs pirating it doesn't change the outcome for the creator - if anything, piracy is slightly better as it still keeps the content relevant in the collective mindshare so that others who don't pirate (either due to moral or technical reasons) might buy said content.
- fallat 4y ago
  This is incredibly true. Wow.
sowbug 4y ago
I'm curious whether you use an ad blocker. The same reasoning could apply: the website has posted a price (some of your time, attention, and compute resources), and the choice is whether to pay the price or not engage in the transaction.
- CubsFan1060 4y ago
  I do use an ad blocker, but more as an 'early warning system'. I generally use it less as a way to get around ads, and more as a way to understand how many there are, and avoid those sites.

jesuscript 4y ago

That’s interesting, because as I’ve gotten older, I don’t think piracy is good or bad (or in general, my taste for amorality is much more refined), just a strategic counter attack on an opposing force that is just as fluid in its tactics. We approached a middle ground of pricing and accessibility, but it only lasted so long. The other side over monetized, so the consumer has to counter attack and stop paying. It’s a wild bargaining scheme, we are in a digital bazaar. Never give up a tool in your tool shed.

CubsFan1060 4y ago
I don't think that someone else acting immorally gives me the license to also act against my morals, but that's just me. If I think that Amazon is being unfair about how they make Rings of Power available, that's totally fine, I just don't consume it.

virtual_void 4y ago

Regarding your last paragraph, could you expand a bit on why you believe that copying creative content does indeed remove something from the author? I guess the usual argument is that a copy of something cannot, by definition be theft. The author still has the object in question. Sometimes people counter by saying that a potential sale has been lost, but you can’t steal something that you didn’t have in the first place (the sale). The assumption that someone would have otherwise paid always seems to me a bit of a stretch. I guess you have thought about this more than i have so I’m curious as to what you’ve come up with.

CubsFan1060 4y ago
Sure! These are my opinions of course. If I spend a lot of time, effort, or money creating something, I may have plans to try to make money on it. If many people copy it for free, they may not be stealing as physical object from me, but they are removing my ability to generate revenue from them based off of my time, effort, or money. And of course, taking it to the extreme, people simply will stop creating works. Or, some folks may not be able to afford to create works. I'm well aware that most here won't agree with me, but I think it's on the creator to be able to determine what they want to do with their creations, and that it's not ok for me to arbitrarily tell them that their work is completely worthless, except I really really want to utilize it.
- virtual_void 4y ago
  I think, from an emotional perspective re works i create, i feel the same. The bit i feel unsure about is if it really removes my ability to generate revenue. To make that claim I’d have to be sure the people that have copied would have otherwise paid. I’m not at all confident that i could assert that.
  - CubsFan1060 4y ago
    I agree, I'm not sure that you could prove it. I think there's also some intersection between cost and ease to pirate as well. Having not really pirated anything for many years, I was shocked when a friend showed me how easy it was with their Plex setup to just grab whatever TV show they wanted. The only anecdotal evidence that I have is that another friend who was with me saw the Plex setup, and within a week had cancelled several subscriptions and switched to Plex.
- jokteur 4y ago
  > And of course, taking it to the extreme, people simply will stop creating works. Or, some folks may not be able to afford to create works. Being broke has never prevented artists from making great art. In fact, historically and today, the majority of artists have never been fairly compensated for their work, even with insane copyright laws. I do believe that artists should be correctly compensated for their work if they wish it, like any other work, but copyright laws (even if introduced as a way to protect artists) have been transformed into something that doesn't protect the artists, but the copyright holders (which are most of the time record labels and big companies). Here is the point of view from musical artists: You have two major scenarios: - you are a musician which does not produce original music. Then you make your money with gig playing mostly (weddings, venues, orchestras, ...). Copyright law is not siding with these musicians, and these musicians don't care about piracy. - you are a composer which produces original music. Here again, copyright law doesn't help, artists are trapped to distribute their music through either record labels or popular streaming services which don't care about their artists (spotify will pay artists 0.004$ per stream). Often, musicians will be doing both (composing and playing at gigs). But most of the money to be made is in gigs, and maybe a fan base that will buy your CDs and come to your concerts. Distributing your music on popular streaming services is just a way to grow your own fan base, not to make money. So piracy can even help here by making the music even more accessible. What I want to say is that from the point of view of musicians, copyright law doesn't help. Sometimes it even works against you: if you are a classical musician and putting some public domain music (that you played yourself) on youtube, you will be inevitably copystriked by some random record label that doesn't give a shit about you and there is nothing you can do. Copyright law also prevents musicians to rearrange popular music, to make transformative art unless you pay some fees. You can't play music from somebody even if the author has been dead for 50 years. And these fees won't probably go to the other musician you are arranging from, but to the copyright holder (which will be a record label or big company).

iamflimflam1 4y ago

Interesting, as I've grown older, I have had to actively try and keep my morals defined. Constantly seeing people behave badly and get rewarded for it has increasingly led to me to believe that obeying the rules is a fools game.

Nextgrid 4y ago

On the other hand, not consuming the content vs pirating it doesn't change the outcome for the creator - if anything, piracy is slightly better as it still keeps the content relevant in the collective mindshare so that others who don't pirate (either due to moral or technical reasons) might buy said content.

fallat 4y ago
This is incredibly true. Wow.

sowbug 4y ago

I'm curious whether you use an ad blocker. The same reasoning could apply: the website has posted a price (some of your time, attention, and compute resources), and the choice is whether to pay the price or not engage in the transaction.

CubsFan1060 4y ago
I do use an ad blocker, but more as an 'early warning system'. I generally use it less as a way to get around ads, and more as a way to understand how many there are, and avoid those sites.