3 ms·

> available on your terms Why does this desire make them less sympathetic? The irritating thing about this is that one may be unable to find some movie or son

> available on your terms Why does this desire make them less sympathetic? The irritating thing about this is that one may be unable to find some movie or song which they’ve already seen or heard. Even in a case where it is officially available, gating some record of culture behind a fee is just holding said culture hostage to ransom it back. More charitably, it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical. (That question I asked wasn’t rhetorical; I am genuinely interested in the answer but I also wanted to explain a different perspective.)

maccard 3y ago
Saying "I refuse to use the media as you provided it, will pirate it for my personal use" is akin to walking into a greengrocer, taking a 1kg bag of carrots and pulling two of them out and demanding to only pay for them because you only want two. Particularly when it comes to arts - games (disclaimer: I work in games), music (disclaimer I make music), art, theatre, there is usually another person I the other side of it who has made decisions to get that to you in the first place. Saying "my way or the highway" doesn't show Amazon that you're not willing to engage with the Kindle DRM and will buy it if they provide CC licensed prints, it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead. > it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical. An over idealistic belief of free market being the only way that a product can exist, and throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise. Compromising is the basis of any transaction - I want the item for free and you want to be recognised for it, so we come to an agreement.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead They assume what they want of my actions. They may instead choose to think that I don't like using their service; perhaps I don't like the licensing terms that a copyright owner might choose to not offer their stuff on Amazon anymore leaving me SOL on my purchase. I buy games on Steam because their service doesn't suck for consumers. Valve recognizes that Steam's revenue comes from people choosing to use the platform to purchase games and they act like it. > music (disclaimer I make music) How do you feel about the settlement between Tom Petty and Sam Smith[0]? Do you think your music is infringing copyright because you independently made a song that happens to contain a copy of a part of another song's melody? Does the other song writer deserve their 12.5% cut of your music "as is usual for writers of sampled or interpolated work" even if they clarify that they don't think your interpolation was intentional? I personally wouldn't think so; seems to me that it's just a cartel doing its thing. Even if said interpolation was unintentional, you, the song writer, made the mistake of not knowing that the melody in your song had already been popularized. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#Agreement_with_Tom_Petty_and_Jeff_Lynne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#... > I want the item for free No, this is just a common assumption that people make. I bought the item already, lost it, and recognize that making another copy is practically free. I no longer have my copy of Pokemon Red that I had as a kid and I'm not apologizing to Nintendo or Game Freak just because I found a ROM online to use instead. Let's take a more recent personal example: Monster Sanctuary[1]. I have purchased this game no less than 3 times (Steam, Playstation, Switch) because it was more convenient and reliable than pirating it in every instance. 1: https://monster-sanctuary.com/ https://monster-sanctuary.com/ > throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise Like how every time anyone speaks out against the copyright cartel it's immediately framed to be because they want something for nothing by someone who disagrees. Pot, meet Kettle. I will stand by that statement. This copyright shit is a farce. 10-year terms would be fine but Disney didn't want to lose Mickey Mouse. Tom Petty doesn't need to go after Sam Smith for supposedly copying the melody of a song that was written 34 years ago. You personally shouldn't lose revenue on your own songs just because you accidentally copied the melody of a song you heard when you were 6. ------------------------ Where do you offer your music for sale?
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  So your viable alternative is for the customers to just get screwed by some shysty company that rolled out a beta as a GOLD release game? Maybe we should pay MORE for them taking the time to sell me a product, that I came to rely on, then suddenly, there is now a subscription model? Not because of costs, not because of added services, but because PROFIT. You have a point, but this lacks the context that caused people to stop being shafted more and more and MOAR, making it more pollyanna, than useful, imo. YMMV.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  I mean if we're playing analogies... What if all the shops that sold chocolate near you bar one decided to shut down? This chocolate shop (ChocStix) keeps selling, but says you need to keep eating it in the store or in an authorised location to ensure you don't share or give away the chocolate. You can at this stage give up chocolate all together, or find an alternative. The manufacturer isn't at fault here. However if they've signed an exclusive deal to only sell chocolate to ChocFlix in your area, it's not unreasonable to buy your chocolate from a dodgey looking dude selling it out the back of a van. The big issue is exclusive rights over media on broad scales here, not some niche demand for a specific use case.

maccard 3y ago

Saying "I refuse to use the media as you provided it, will pirate it for my personal use" is akin to walking into a greengrocer, taking a 1kg bag of carrots and pulling two of them out and demanding to only pay for them because you only want two. Particularly when it comes to arts - games (disclaimer: I work in games), music (disclaimer I make music), art, theatre, there is usually another person I the other side of it who has made decisions to get that to you in the first place. Saying "my way or the highway" doesn't show Amazon that you're not willing to engage with the Kindle DRM and will buy it if they provide CC licensed prints, it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead. > it’s someone attempting a business model which is thwarted by how inexpensive it is for individuals to copy and share digital media. I instead lack sympathy for the people with an obviously bad business strategy and prefer to recognize this culture-renting as farcical. An over idealistic belief of free market being the only way that a product can exist, and throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise. Compromising is the basis of any transaction - I want the item for free and you want to be recognised for it, so we come to an agreement.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> it shows them you're willing to dodge paying $10 instead They assume what they want of my actions. They may instead choose to think that I don't like using their service; perhaps I don't like the licensing terms that a copyright owner might choose to not offer their stuff on Amazon anymore leaving me SOL on my purchase. I buy games on Steam because their service doesn't suck for consumers. Valve recognizes that Steam's revenue comes from people choosing to use the platform to purchase games and they act like it. > music (disclaimer I make music) How do you feel about the settlement between Tom Petty and Sam Smith[0]? Do you think your music is infringing copyright because you independently made a song that happens to contain a copy of a part of another song's melody? Does the other song writer deserve their 12.5% cut of your music "as is usual for writers of sampled or interpolated work" even if they clarify that they don't think your interpolation was intentional? I personally wouldn't think so; seems to me that it's just a cartel doing its thing. Even if said interpolation was unintentional, you, the song writer, made the mistake of not knowing that the melody in your song had already been popularized. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#Agreement_with_Tom_Petty_and_Jeff_Lynne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_with_Me_(Sam_Smith_song)#... > I want the item for free No, this is just a common assumption that people make. I bought the item already, lost it, and recognize that making another copy is practically free. I no longer have my copy of Pokemon Red that I had as a kid and I'm not apologizing to Nintendo or Game Freak just because I found a ROM online to use instead. Let's take a more recent personal example: Monster Sanctuary[1]. I have purchased this game no less than 3 times (Steam, Playstation, Switch) because it was more convenient and reliable than pirating it in every instance. 1: https://monster-sanctuary.com/ https://monster-sanctuary.com/ > throwing jingoism and shade at at anything you disagree with furthers the idea that you're not open to compromise Like how every time anyone speaks out against the copyright cartel it's immediately framed to be because they want something for nothing by someone who disagrees. Pot, meet Kettle. I will stand by that statement. This copyright shit is a farce. 10-year terms would be fine but Disney didn't want to lose Mickey Mouse. Tom Petty doesn't need to go after Sam Smith for supposedly copying the melody of a song that was written 34 years ago. You personally shouldn't lose revenue on your own songs just because you accidentally copied the melody of a song you heard when you were 6. ------------------------ Where do you offer your music for sale?
sonicanatidae 3y ago
So your viable alternative is for the customers to just get screwed by some shysty company that rolled out a beta as a GOLD release game? Maybe we should pay MORE for them taking the time to sell me a product, that I came to rely on, then suddenly, there is now a subscription model? Not because of costs, not because of added services, but because PROFIT. You have a point, but this lacks the context that caused people to stop being shafted more and more and MOAR, making it more pollyanna, than useful, imo. YMMV.
averageRoyalty 3y ago
I mean if we're playing analogies... What if all the shops that sold chocolate near you bar one decided to shut down? This chocolate shop (ChocStix) keeps selling, but says you need to keep eating it in the store or in an authorised location to ensure you don't share or give away the chocolate. You can at this stage give up chocolate all together, or find an alternative. The manufacturer isn't at fault here. However if they've signed an exclusive deal to only sell chocolate to ChocFlix in your area, it's not unreasonable to buy your chocolate from a dodgey looking dude selling it out the back of a van. The big issue is exclusive rights over media on broad scales here, not some niche demand for a specific use case.