4 ms·

I know people debate whether it's really "stealing" but my opinion is that if you won't pay then just don't watch. I don't care if I'm downvoted for this but pe

I know people debate whether it's really "stealing" but my opinion is that if you won't pay then just don't watch. I don't care if I'm downvoted for this but people do not have a right to listen to music or watch movies. People seem to be united in their condemnation of wage theft where businesses don't pay their workers properly. And most people think restaurants should pay their waiters properly instead of relying on tips. I just think it's really analogous that if an artist makes some content then you should pay them for it. (And don't complain to me about the corrupt film or music industry. It's a simple moral choice by the individual)

NalNezumi 3y ago
Problem is that some illegal downloading (even today) is not just to circumvent paying but to some, the only way to access it. For example, early 2000 you couldn't (even if you wanted to pay) get access to Japanese Anime. And even if you did pay to get access (satellite TV) they didn't have subtitles so you couldn't really watch it. So fan-made subtitle and fan-supported illegal sites was your only option outside Japan. (except for a handful of shows) It would've all been solved if the close-minded Japanese publisher cared to put some effort to make it available globally but they didn't. And hence there wasn't really ANY money lost in the process, because they didn't even sell it to the people outside Japan downloading it. One can even argue (but publisher will fanatically oppose you) that illegal downloading did lead to profit; anime was a subculture outside Japan that is now a global money making industry. It didn't just randomly out of nowhere spur because "industry finally acted" but because it already had a strong following that amplified it as soon as it got available on major platforms. Putting all illegal download under one umbrella and judging it in a moral white/black, is a narrow view.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  You could have chosen to not watch the anime. No one forced you to pirate it. Sometimes the only way for an individual to access some content is for them to steal that content. And that person can choose to steal or not watch the content. How is that not a simple black and white moral choice. You have no right to see something just because you really really want to.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ilyt 3y ago
    He was arguing loss of profit, not moral issues. How's that white horse treating you?
    - badcppdev 3y ago
      White horse is holding up well. Some interesting points but I'm still happy with my "Don't pay don't watch" stance.
Aeolun 3y ago
I think I'm just following the old goldie: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would not mind, and do not mind, other people using my work, that's why I have a bunch of open source work. You can bet you ass that if I were touring the world giving sold-out concerts to 50k people at $200/ticket, 4 times a day, 4 days a week, I would not care if some bunch of random teenagers -that would have never paid for my music in the first place- download it off some torrent site. They now know I exist, and if they're still fans when they grow older, they might come by and pay $200 to see me when I'm doing my 'legacy' tour in 30 years (hello Maroon 5). If you do have the money, and you don't pay for the music, that's just sad, so now I've been a happy Spotify subscriber for years (and Apple Music, and Amazon Prime :eyeroll:).
- badcppdev 3y ago
  A bit of a tangent but I've been paying for Spotify for years and I love it (although I do miss the old UI) but I've got to admit I'm not happy when I read about the amount the artists get paid. $120 per year is a great bargain for me and I understand that Spotify is going to lose subscribers if they start putting the price up but really it's not fair to musicians who's entire back catalog is just sitting there available to me whenever I feel like playing it.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Over several years it must be a lot more money than it would have been if I bought every album once?
- ilyt 3y ago
  I think it's worth to differentiate here profit going to actual people responsible for making a piece of media vs profit going to middlemen. I have no problems screwing over the middlemen By vast majority they are shitty, predatory companies that abuse the position that they're in to screw over both consumers and creators, and probably avoid taxes too. But I'd rather pay people that actually made the stuff I enjoy because I want more of it. > You can bet you ass that if I were touring the world giving sold-out concerts to 50k people at $200/ticket, 4 times a day, 4 days a week, I would not care if some bunch of random teenagers -that would have never paid for my music in the first place- download it off some torrent site. That only because the losses are insignificant if you have enough money to not worry about money. It's different thing for smaller creators.
belorn 3y ago
Society and the rules that hold it together is built on mutual trust and cooperation. In order for it to work people need to feel that those rules and social constructs are fair and reasonable. Morality in turn depend on people feeling that rules and social constructs are fair and reasonable. Not paying taxes is wrong and theft. Peoples willingness to pay taxes depend on how much trust they have in government. A government that is general corrupt, do not represent the people, will result in people seeing tax collecting as wrong and theft. Not paying taxes is thus morally right and the self defense. The whole definition of right and wrong, theft, morality in general, depend on trust and the social constructs. One can not discuss morality of choice without talking about morality, Viewing theft from a grocery shop as morally good necessitate that a person view the existence of the shop to exist outside of the social bonds and constructs of society. A modern approach to crime reduction is to increase the social support and social connections for people in high crime areas (the social part of social economic status). As is often found, harsher punishment for crime do not often reduce crime, which is partially explained by the social economic status model. Viewing copyright violations are morally good only necessitate that a person view the current implementation of copyright to exist outside of the social bonds and constructs of society. I see maximalists of copyright as to be extremists that lives way outside of social norms. That those maximalists happen to have deep enough pockets to bribe politicians, and politicians are morally bankrupt to accept the bribes, is just that. Somewhat it is actually a simple moral choice, and those choices were wrong and made by people who should have known better.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  Interesting point but can you describe a more appropriate version of copyright that you would prefer to replace the corrupt one? What would you change? Is watching a pirated stream still stealing from the artists?
  - belorn 3y ago
    The easy boring answer would be to just do damage mitigation and return copyright to 25 years. The longer and more complex answer is to raise people to respect of copyright law. What should society expect in return for giving individuals and companies a time limited monopoly? A mandatory license given to libraries would be appreciated symbolic gesture. Different categories could also have longer or shorter duration depending on that markets needs and requirements, and government could measure the market impact that such time limited monopoly has and see if the benefits of market intervention is greater than the drawbacks (just like any other market regulation). Marketed products towards children and young adults could get additional regulated in order to reduce the differences in access to culture between the poor and rich. Such changes are however extremely unlikely to happen due to extensive overlapping international agreements that has cemented the long copyright terms of 75+ years after the author death.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
I have a right to do anything I want as long as my actions don't harm anyone else. Pirating digital content causes no harm as long as I was not going to pay for the content anyway because consuming the content has zero marginal cost to the creator. They're in the exact same position either way.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  So in your scenario do you enable pirating digital copies for other people? After all they might have decided to pay for the content at a later stage? And how do you feel about this conversation? Are your words influencing me to perhaps walk back from my stance of, "Don't watch if you don't pay"? Are you causing potential harm to the content creators if you convince me? And how do you know that you wouldn't pay for the content in the future?

NalNezumi 3y ago

Problem is that some illegal downloading (even today) is not just to circumvent paying but to some, the only way to access it. For example, early 2000 you couldn't (even if you wanted to pay) get access to Japanese Anime. And even if you did pay to get access (satellite TV) they didn't have subtitles so you couldn't really watch it. So fan-made subtitle and fan-supported illegal sites was your only option outside Japan. (except for a handful of shows) It would've all been solved if the close-minded Japanese publisher cared to put some effort to make it available globally but they didn't. And hence there wasn't really ANY money lost in the process, because they didn't even sell it to the people outside Japan downloading it. One can even argue (but publisher will fanatically oppose you) that illegal downloading did lead to profit; anime was a subculture outside Japan that is now a global money making industry. It didn't just randomly out of nowhere spur because "industry finally acted" but because it already had a strong following that amplified it as soon as it got available on major platforms. Putting all illegal download under one umbrella and judging it in a moral white/black, is a narrow view.

badcppdev 3y ago
You could have chosen to not watch the anime. No one forced you to pirate it. Sometimes the only way for an individual to access some content is for them to steal that content. And that person can choose to steal or not watch the content. How is that not a simple black and white moral choice. You have no right to see something just because you really really want to.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ilyt 3y ago
  He was arguing loss of profit, not moral issues. How's that white horse treating you?
  - badcppdev 3y ago
    White horse is holding up well. Some interesting points but I'm still happy with my "Don't pay don't watch" stance.

Aeolun 3y ago

I think I'm just following the old goldie: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would not mind, and do not mind, other people using my work, that's why I have a bunch of open source work. You can bet you ass that if I were touring the world giving sold-out concerts to 50k people at $200/ticket, 4 times a day, 4 days a week, I would not care if some bunch of random teenagers -that would have never paid for my music in the first place- download it off some torrent site. They now know I exist, and if they're still fans when they grow older, they might come by and pay $200 to see me when I'm doing my 'legacy' tour in 30 years (hello Maroon 5). If you do have the money, and you don't pay for the music, that's just sad, so now I've been a happy Spotify subscriber for years (and Apple Music, and Amazon Prime :eyeroll:).

badcppdev 3y ago
A bit of a tangent but I've been paying for Spotify for years and I love it (although I do miss the old UI) but I've got to admit I'm not happy when I read about the amount the artists get paid. $120 per year is a great bargain for me and I understand that Spotify is going to lose subscribers if they start putting the price up but really it's not fair to musicians who's entire back catalog is just sitting there available to me whenever I feel like playing it.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Over several years it must be a lot more money than it would have been if I bought every album once?
ilyt 3y ago
I think it's worth to differentiate here profit going to actual people responsible for making a piece of media vs profit going to middlemen. I have no problems screwing over the middlemen By vast majority they are shitty, predatory companies that abuse the position that they're in to screw over both consumers and creators, and probably avoid taxes too. But I'd rather pay people that actually made the stuff I enjoy because I want more of it. > You can bet you ass that if I were touring the world giving sold-out concerts to 50k people at $200/ticket, 4 times a day, 4 days a week, I would not care if some bunch of random teenagers -that would have never paid for my music in the first place- download it off some torrent site. That only because the losses are insignificant if you have enough money to not worry about money. It's different thing for smaller creators.

belorn 3y ago

Society and the rules that hold it together is built on mutual trust and cooperation. In order for it to work people need to feel that those rules and social constructs are fair and reasonable. Morality in turn depend on people feeling that rules and social constructs are fair and reasonable. Not paying taxes is wrong and theft. Peoples willingness to pay taxes depend on how much trust they have in government. A government that is general corrupt, do not represent the people, will result in people seeing tax collecting as wrong and theft. Not paying taxes is thus morally right and the self defense. The whole definition of right and wrong, theft, morality in general, depend on trust and the social constructs. One can not discuss morality of choice without talking about morality, Viewing theft from a grocery shop as morally good necessitate that a person view the existence of the shop to exist outside of the social bonds and constructs of society. A modern approach to crime reduction is to increase the social support and social connections for people in high crime areas (the social part of social economic status). As is often found, harsher punishment for crime do not often reduce crime, which is partially explained by the social economic status model. Viewing copyright violations are morally good only necessitate that a person view the current implementation of copyright to exist outside of the social bonds and constructs of society. I see maximalists of copyright as to be extremists that lives way outside of social norms. That those maximalists happen to have deep enough pockets to bribe politicians, and politicians are morally bankrupt to accept the bribes, is just that. Somewhat it is actually a simple moral choice, and those choices were wrong and made by people who should have known better.

badcppdev 3y ago
Interesting point but can you describe a more appropriate version of copyright that you would prefer to replace the corrupt one? What would you change? Is watching a pirated stream still stealing from the artists?
- belorn 3y ago
  The easy boring answer would be to just do damage mitigation and return copyright to 25 years. The longer and more complex answer is to raise people to respect of copyright law. What should society expect in return for giving individuals and companies a time limited monopoly? A mandatory license given to libraries would be appreciated symbolic gesture. Different categories could also have longer or shorter duration depending on that markets needs and requirements, and government could measure the market impact that such time limited monopoly has and see if the benefits of market intervention is greater than the drawbacks (just like any other market regulation). Marketed products towards children and young adults could get additional regulated in order to reduce the differences in access to culture between the poor and rich. Such changes are however extremely unlikely to happen due to extensive overlapping international agreements that has cemented the long copyright terms of 75+ years after the author death.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

I have a right to do anything I want as long as my actions don't harm anyone else. Pirating digital content causes no harm as long as I was not going to pay for the content anyway because consuming the content has zero marginal cost to the creator. They're in the exact same position either way.

badcppdev 3y ago
So in your scenario do you enable pirating digital copies for other people? After all they might have decided to pay for the content at a later stage? And how do you feel about this conversation? Are your words influencing me to perhaps walk back from my stance of, "Don't watch if you don't pay"? Are you causing potential harm to the content creators if you convince me? And how do you know that you wouldn't pay for the content in the future?