5 ms·

Taking the cash from a bank deprives others of the money. Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything. Piracy is simple: when you make your

by Daneel_ 12d ago

Taking the cash from a bank deprives others of the money. Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything. Piracy is simple: when you make your product more convenient than piracy, people use it. Steam is popular for a reason - no crap, enormous game selection.. it’s just better than pirating. Netflix used to be the same - great selection, no ads.. now look: terrible selection and price is too high.

Brendinooo 12d ago
If a production crew of 1000 people makes a movie and everyone pirates it, you don't think those people will be deprived of anything?
- mitxela 12d ago
  The production crew is getting peanuts anyway. If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead. Also maybe it's their job to come up with a business model that everyone doesn't hate. If they'd just syndicate to all streaming platforms, piracy wouldn't be a problem for them.
  - Brendinooo 12d ago
    >The production crew is getting peanuts anyway 1000 people on a feature film, you're looking at about $70 million in salary. That's peanuts to you? > If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead. In other words, you're conceding the point that they would be deprived of something if everyone pirates their work.
    - chrisstu 12d ago
      His argument has all the intellectual strength of a newborn lamb.
- exe34 12d ago
  In what world is everyone able or willing to pirate? I think your ad-absurdum is just absurd here.
  - Brendinooo 12d ago
    >Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work. You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.
    - exe34 12d ago
      What are they being deprived of when somebody who was never going to pay makes a copy?
      - Brendinooo 12d ago
        The motive of the pirate doesn't matter: they are deprived from the revenue that was circumvented.
        exe34 12d ago
        No they can't be deprived of imaginary revenue.
        Brendinooo 12d ago
        They are deprived of the payment they asked for in exchange for someone viewing their work. Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access). Regardless, it strikes me as a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.
- mahboi 12d ago
  And they're taking a risk that the movie turns out bad. It does seem like newer movies have become mediocre because they don't want to take risks anymore.
charcircuit 12d ago
They are deprived of the license fee they are entitled to for the copy made.

by Daneel_ 12d ago

Brendinooo 12d ago

If a production crew of 1000 people makes a movie and everyone pirates it, you don't think those people will be deprived of anything?

mitxela 12d ago
The production crew is getting peanuts anyway. If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead. Also maybe it's their job to come up with a business model that everyone doesn't hate. If they'd just syndicate to all streaming platforms, piracy wouldn't be a problem for them.
- Brendinooo 12d ago
  >The production crew is getting peanuts anyway 1000 people on a feature film, you're looking at about $70 million in salary. That's peanuts to you? > If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead. In other words, you're conceding the point that they would be deprived of something if everyone pirates their work.
  - chrisstu 12d ago
    His argument has all the intellectual strength of a newborn lamb.
exe34 12d ago
In what world is everyone able or willing to pirate? I think your ad-absurdum is just absurd here.
- Brendinooo 12d ago
  >Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work. You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.
  - exe34 12d ago
    What are they being deprived of when somebody who was never going to pay makes a copy?
    - Brendinooo 12d ago
      The motive of the pirate doesn't matter: they are deprived from the revenue that was circumvented.
      - exe34 12d ago
        No they can't be deprived of imaginary revenue.
        Brendinooo 12d ago
        They are deprived of the payment they asked for in exchange for someone viewing their work. Also, "the pirate was never going to pay" is a far more imaginary thing here; it's an unproven claim (especially since it's often paired with "pirates would pay if it was cheaper/more convenient to access). Regardless, it strikes me as a particularly arrogant kind of entitlement for you to violate someone's terms to enjoy their thing while telling them you think it's worthless.
mahboi 12d ago
And they're taking a risk that the movie turns out bad. It does seem like newer movies have become mediocre because they don't want to take risks anymore.

charcircuit 12d ago

They are deprived of the license fee they are entitled to for the copy made.