75% of the anti-piracy discussions I see rarely blame companies like Nintendo or Disney and always try to talk about how piracy is immoral, and you should feel "dirty" for doing it. My question is why do people seem to hate those who pirate more than the bad practices of mega-corporations or the fact that they don't want to preserve their media?
Propaganda works.
The put out a lot of propaganda saying that copying files is stealing. They point to intellectual property rights laws as if that means intellectual property is justified because of the existence of laws.
Ignorant idiots who can't think for themselves will always follow the narrative that is forced down their throat.
See also "The war on drugs". The majority of the people who will demonise you for choosing to use "illegal" substances will also be smashing their livers with alcohol which is more detrimental to both themselves and society than a lot of other drugs on a weekly or often daily basis.
Just because it is legal they feel like they are fine to not do their own independent research into what these things actually do to them and how fucking addictive they are.
Show
I still see people parroting these narratives about stuff like weed even after it has been legalized. Some people are too far down the propaganda rabbit hole.
just conversely, I think people were a bit too convinced that weed is totally harmless for a while there. i think in more recent years there's been some healthy pushback on that and people understand the science a bit better. obviously it should still be legal.
Capitalism does a very good job at making people who do not and never will hold capital into sheepdogs for the cause. You get someone addicted enough to your slop, they'll advertise for you, they'll evangelize for you, they'll even come report to you who didn't pay 'their fair share' for entry.
They're well-trained dogs, incog. Might as well ask why a dog chases cars.
There's propaganda, definitely. Also, there are people who simply don't care what they watch. They'll just open Netflix and watch whatever they see on the home screen. It's hard for them to understand why I might wanna watch some Iranian movie from the 80s.
hell yeah i'm the villain of the story, and i love being immoral
Because if you aren't the bad guys then they're just essentially the low level stooges of the evil mastermind just doing mundane evil shit for no discernable reason.
Where as if you're the bad guy they're virtuous principled people just doing what's right (allowing them to have complete dominion over the moral high ground)
People buy into the BS sold by companies, they eat it all up without thinking twice about it. It's easier to point fingers at each other than at companies when companies are paying so much money to attack end-users.
It’s because they are paying money for something and you’re getting a better deal. See that’s not fair. Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high. They tell themselves that their money is going to the artists. And if you believe that, then piracy is harming artists in a very direct way.
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
This "vegans have a superiority complex" take is a thought-terminating cliché ultimately rooted in projection. Since vegans make you feel self-conscious about the unethicality of your carnist tendencies, you divert to accusations of a "superiority complex" when that is just the result of you internally grappling with the cognitive dissonance you have when it comes to funding animal exploitation that you have no proper justification for.
Veganism is a justice movement, and vegans express disdain for non-vegans because they often double down on their oppressive tendencies that keep animals enslaved, exploited, and slaughtered. I don't think I'm superior to you because, just like me, you have the capacity to understand why you shouldn't support the oppression of sentient beings. Not only do you have the capacity to understand it, but you can take that to its logical conclusion and live in a way that is in accordance with said understanding.
Also, the framing is off here. A principled ethical vegan doesn't see veganism as a "benefit;" we see it as a moral obligation and baseline. Saying that veganism comes with "benefits" is like saying that refraining from calling racial minorities ethnic slurs comes with "benefits," when it's actually just basic decency toward BIPOC.
Oh my, I literally read the comment you're replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I'm glad you're here to read properly and give a great response!
There’s no projection. I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors. Zero. I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering. It’s not that I don’t understand vegans. I do. But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals. Because we differ on that fundamental belief, we can reach no understanding about the ethics beyond that.
And I think it is a fair comparison. People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume. And in both the case of vegans, and those who pay for streaming, the perceived benefit of that choice is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. But it’s really not a big deal to me. I was just trying to answer OPs question. I think your response only validates my analogy. Thank you.
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
Holy mother of red flags.
Why do you think animals do not have consciousness? Do human animals have consciousness? And are non-human animal brains not remarkably similar to our own? Did we not come out of the same stuff, live on the same earth, and evolve from the same common ancestors? It seems the logical default to assume that non-human animals do experience the world in much the same way you or I do.
I do not believe animals to be sentient
And why do you believe that?
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
So you wouldn't have any objections if you were taken as a slave and worked to death, right? Because those aren't suffering?
I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors.
Appeal to tradition.
I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering
Objectively false belief. Source
Also, saying "I do not equate death or servitude with suffering" is just using an absurd personal opinion to invalidate objective considerations. It'd be like me saying, "I don't associate shouting slurs at racial minorities with racism," to validate such an act. In either case, neither distortion serves as a justification for this wicked behavior.
But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals.
False equivalence. One belief is speculative and far more abstract, but the other belief has legitimate concrete evidence to support it. Once again, read the very comprehensive analysis.
People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume.
Again, this is a false equivalence, and it seems that you are abusing the notion of morality being subjective in order to justify an immoral act. You could also easily say something like "People who refrain from assaulting innocent people see it as an ethical baseline, but I don't" as a bad attempt at justifying assaulting innocent people, but it won't hold weight on its own. You have to provide a solid basis for why such an equivalence actually makes sense, but you do not. You just state it like it's plainly obvious and doesn't need further details.
This is so copey that it hardly deserves a full-fledged response. Please know that this comment isn't the "own" you think it is. You're embarrassing yourself.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles. Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains. Birds and mammals are on a higher level of consciousness than a lot of the animal kingdom. But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock. Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that. My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I'm not seeing you say that it's okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.
"I don't attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains."
By you using such "I" phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you've already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather "personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro." Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
This is irrelevant, as we don't necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a "dignified and painless death." These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the "painless" nature of the death?
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals "gave their freedom away." You're so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you've already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that "If the animals didn't want humans to exploit them, they should've just escaped!" This is not shocking for someone who "does not equate death or servitude with suffering," though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that's exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r--- racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You're contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don't support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you're at it.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying "I feel no sorrow for livestock" is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, "I feel no sorrow for black people," surely you wouldn't think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that.
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn't mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn't about whether or not you're okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn't morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you're going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you're doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, "I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering," so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it'd truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn't even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it's striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck's sake.
Thank you for the very detailed response. This is a discussion about piracy. It’s interesting to speak of coping and projection. You know a lot of the most hateful homophobes keep coming out of the closet as gay? I think this kind of hate is very prevalent in our society. Basically you hate that somebody who doesn’t share your moral restrictions, who is out there enjoying life without a care in the world. A kind of moral jealousy. “I have to live with this burden and it’s unfair for somebody else to live without it”. I said it in my original comment and now I will emphasize it in response to your wall of text. Your contempt for me is the same as closet gay homophobes. In this analogy my love for cheese is gay sex, and you think you hate it because your religion (your moral code) is correct, but you actually hate it because you are deprived of it, and it’s unfair that I can enjoy it without guilt. This brings us full circle to the original question about why I think some people view piracy negatively.
It seems you think that all non-vegans must be ignorant. “If only 90% of the population would read the scientific literature or if they were aware of how their animal products came to market, they’d all be vegan”. I am aware of the indirect consequences of my actions and I carry on so I must be some kind of monster. Clearly I am not your brother in Christ, rather a spawn of Satan or perhaps worse. Perhaps I’m just a creature of this earth. A natural consequence of everything up until now.
It is absolutely futile. Being a vegan is like recycling. If it makes you feel better about your life, good. But anybody with the privilege to debate such things, with the worldwide industrial grocery selection to even contemplate veganism, has a huge wake of environmental destruction associated with existing. All the fuel that’s been burned, all of the lumber, loss of habitat for your dwelling. Every time you bathe a freshwater fish or amphibian dries up. Don’t worry about it. I forgive you. It’s not your fault. It’s not your burden. You are a worthy allocation of this planets resources. Thank you for your insight.
This is a discussion about piracy.
You're the one who brought up veganism you complete fucking clown
You are a disgusting human. I'm actually appalled reading the shit you're writing. It's not often that I read such concentrated evil. You don't think death and servitude cause suffering? You think domesticated animals choose to stay in factory farms? You're a fucking ghoul.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness.
Show
And here's that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
How so? I literally stated that they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation. Such an understanding isn't hard to grasp, and I'm no ascended, especially enlightened person for being vegan. If I believed myself to be, I'd have no reason to hold others to the same standard. The incentive lies in the fact that carnism comes with victims; veganism isn't about me.
Regardless, this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché. It's a loophole to avoid engaging with ideas via focusing on the people expressing such ideas instead. Do you have any actual insight regarding the assertions I'm making or is it just cope?
they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation.
This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy
this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché.
veganism is a moral obligation
carnism comes with victims
is it just cope?
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You're projecting here.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.
I have no issues with someone not supporting animal torture, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is no functional difference between your original text and my bolded replacement. To be a carnist is to, through your actions, support animal torture.
Hmm. Claims to not support animal torture yet joins hexbear and tortures all of us mammals on Lemmy any time one of you "writes" a comment. I'm seeing a disconnect in your reasoning here...
This is such a shitty "joke". Fucking hell. I hope you experience even half of the suffering a dairy cow experiences during their life. You won't, because the world isn't fair, but if I could imprison you and exploit your reproductive system until you're too old and worn out to be worthwhile and then kill you, I would do so.
This is a "begging the question" logical fallacy
How is asserting "It doesn't seem morally superior to hold others to the exact same moral standard as me" circular reasoning? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You're projecting here.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice. And once again, this isn't about whether vegans are "morally superior" or not. You can engage in ideas without using such an ad hominem as a cushion for your own guilt, but you are still actually refusing to do so. There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a "superiority complex" than any other subject. For instance, I take it and hope that you wouldn't say "anti-racists think they're so superior to racists 🙄," but doing so holds the exact same amount of weight as what you're doing right now with veganism. You're using a thought-terminating cliché to degrade the person asserting an idea rather than discussing the idea itself.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is a reason why I said "veganism isn't about me." You are committing victim erasure by glossing over the fact that I made very clear that veganism is a justice movement that takes a stand for victims. And once again, you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans "self-righteous" and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the "superiority of their choices" rather than engage in and advocate for a justice movement.
Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the "correct morals" while everyone else who doesn't align with you is incorrect. That's a textbook definition of this fallacy.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice.
That's exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a "superiority complex" than any other subject.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you're strawmanning here.
I said "veganism isn't about me."
you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans "self-righteous" and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the "superiority of their choices"
"Veganism isn't about me, but if you criticize me personally, you're criticizing veganism!"
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the "correct morals" while everyone else who doesn't align with you is incorrect. That's a textbook definition of this fallacy.
No, "begging the question" refers to circular logic. What you're stating is actually called a belief in moral realism, which is a different subject altogether. How are you going to throw out an accusation of a fallacy so damn smugly and then proceed to say that I engaged in a textbook example of the fallacy when you clearly struggle to even know what said fallacy means?
Furthermore, if you're appealing to moral relativism, you could easily reductio this to some absurd conclusions, like saying "My personal morals justify SA, so stop thinking you're superior for opposing SA!"
That's exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don't just say it like it's obvious and a "no shit" kind of take.
That's not what veganism is. Veganism is a deontic stance against animal exploitation, and this is common knowledge for many people, even if not for an overwhelming majority of carnists. Not going to zoos, not wearing leather, boycotting the pet industry, and abstaining from riding horses have nothing to do with diet, but they are still aspects of a vegan lifestyle. Acknowledging these things, however, would come with a more explicitly ethical consideration, so you avoid such an acknowledgement because you're unable to narrow these things down to this trivial dietary choice you're framing veganism as.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you're strawmanning here.
None of your comments discuss veganism in the context of it being a philosophy and a principle, but every single one of your comments have tried to drive home this ad hominem.
Examples:
And here's that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they're morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another?
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can't help but talk about how superior their choices are.
"Veganism isn't about me, but if you criticize me personally, you're criticizing veganism!"
What is nuance? You are criticizing vegans for advocating for the victims of their movement, which is a criticism of veganism in and of itself, even if you do not realize this and do the pseudo-respectful, "I don't mind you being vegan as long as you don't push your lifestyle onto other people!" You clearly don't agree with veganism ethically because you support animal exploitation and slaughter, so my point is that, instead of actually trying to argue a case for why veganism is ethically incorrect, instead, you decided to just adhere to the classic ad hominem tactic that carnists abuse the shit out of all the time. Also, you have a very one-dimensional, myopic way of thinking. Even in cases where a justice movement isn't about the supporters of a movement itself, insulting the supporters of that movement still comes with the negative connotation of undermining the validity of the movement. For instance, if you insulted a male feminist, a cishet ally of the LGBTQ+ community, and a white advocate for racial justice for being "pushy" about their beliefs, you are giving away an indication that you disagree with the advocacy of their respective movements on some level.
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
This is hilariously ironic. It's starting to read like parody even!
Lets say you see a moral wrong that others ignore, often while admitting that they're wrong to do so, and you alone act against that moral wrong despite it being hard and being mocked for your decision. How else would you feel? If you felt that being vegan was morally equal then you wouldn't have become a vegan for ethical reasons in the first place. So by definition, you must believe yourself (in this specific area) morally superior, and based on that one data point, it's probably safe to generalize that you're morally superior to the majority of non-vegans, just like how you probably consider yourself morally superior to people who litter or hit their kids.
When Netflix was just in, their subscribers got the better deal. But currently, tech companies are doing their best to squeeze customers dry for every cent.
Tech corps made the deal bad, piracy didn't change
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
Nah, that's not why we hate you
I think piracy is immoral but I still partake in it and I don't hate anyone for doing so.
It's like eating meat.
The only reason there’s content for us to pirate is because there are still people paying for it. If it weren’t for them, nobody would be spending millions on new movies or games. They’re the ones funding our content, and we’re just freeriding.
I think a good measure for morality is to imagine wether the world would be a better place if everyone acted as I do. In this case, I don't think it would.
That's a common misconception. But it's not true. Artists will keep making art whether they're paid or not. Anti-piracy rhetoric tends to come from large corporations (AAA game studios, movie studios, publishing houses, record labels) who demand ever-increasing profits, not from the artists themselves. The people who actually do the work to make games, movies, songs, books, whatever are basically never well-paid, instead their corporate overlords make all the profit and pay the people who actually make the art you enjoy as little as they can possibly get away with, just as with every other job under capitalism.
Pirating media does absolutely no harm unless you're pirating from a small indie creator. But if you just want to play the latest Ubisoft slop or watch the latest Marvel movie, go ahead and pirate. The money you'd spend on them go straight into the pockets of wealthy executives, not to the artists who do the work.
I think it's objectively a true statement that the vast majority of big budget hollywood movies, video games and TV-series would stop existing if nobody was paying for them.
Obviously not all media would go away. I've never gotten paid for my photography or YouTube videos because I'm not making them for money. Same applies to a ton of other content creators as well.
I agree we probably wouldn't get any more Assassin's Creed or Deadpool and Wolverine. Very likely those kinds of media would die out in a world where no one pays for media. I have a hard time saying that's a bad thing. We'd instead have more weird little indie projects, which are so, so much better in every way. But sure, if you feel morally queasy about "stealing" (it's not stealing, it's copying) from giant corporations who make artistically bankrupt crap, I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and it would be a waste of my time to try and do so.
Maybe I should point out here that sometimes I do go out of my way to pay for media (especially games) when I don't have to. I bought Dwarf Fortress on Steam, even though the devs give it away for free and I donated to them a couple times before they released it on Steam. They are living off the money people pay for Dwarf Fortress and I'm so glad they're able to do so. I also bought my sister a copy of Pathologic 2 she has never (and probably will never) play because I bought my copy on sale and loved it and felt bad that I hadn't paid full price to a dev team that put their heart and soul into the game and had it sell abysmally for some reason. (Side note, play Pathologic 2, it's good!) I bought the Celeste soundtrack from Lena Raine's bandcamp because I love it so much, even though it's extremely easy to find and I've actually lost access to my bandcamp account.
I guess I'm saying there's nuance here and I like it when actual artists who make good art are paid. It's just that in our current society, buying a DVD or paying for Netflix or paying for Xbox gamepass or anything like that doesn't benefit the artists, the vast majority of any money you spend to acquire media goes straight to wealthy executives and I just don't see anything wrong with not giving them more money than they're already getting.
I think you'd still get some big budget projects from publicly funded art grants and crowdfunding. In a society where IP and patents either don't exist or are much less restrictive, a lot of code and assets will be freed up to reuse when you make your "new" game, lowering the barrier to entry.
I expect we would see more things like doctor who; low budget, thousands and thousands of episodes because it's beloved by millions of people who keep demanding more.
Yeah, good point! In a world without intellectual property rights, of course there would still be large projects, they'd just be, well, actually good and not shitty focus-grouped sequels.
While your claim is true---big budget movies, etc., need someone to pay for them---the unspoken corollary you're implying isn't true---that without the current economic model, no-one would pay for big budget productions, or that undermining the current model via piracy will reduce the rate at which they are funded.
The current model is: massive corporate copyright-holders can purchase the right the profit from an artistic production. They pay for its production up front. Even though we have a technology that can costlessly copy these products and very cheaply distribute them to almost everyone who wants them, the copyright holders maximise their profits by a) crippling this capacity by spend considerable money, labor and human expertise on technologies that artificially limit copying, and b) use state-supported coercion (e.g., fines, lawsuits, police, etc), to punish individuals who would circumvent these crippling technologies. To be clear, these copyright holders still make massive profits, vastly beyond what any individual they are persecuting for copyright infringement could ever dream of. Their policing of piracy is to make even greater profits.
Even though this is how big artistic productions are funded today, it is not true that in the absence of this economic model, big artistic productions would not be funded. The demand for these products would still exist, and if there's one thing our society excels at, it's directing capital to meet demand.
Alternative models that could fund big artistic productions:
- a centralised fund we all contribute to in proportion to our means (e.g., progressive taxation), that pays artists in proportion to how much their product is consumed (like the Spotify model, but publically administered, like TV licences)
- many small scale investors rather than corporate monoliths (like Kickstarter), whose investments are recouped by a) privileged access to get product and b) the still highly profitable cinema and dvd markets whose constraints (physical premises/media) are not compatible with free copying.
- a legislated solution that protects copyright until artists are sufficiently recompensed and then allows free distribution.
These are just some examples of the many possible alternative models for funding large art projects and deciding who should profit from them and how much. However the details aren't nearly as important (many different models could work), as the ultimate driver: whether our actions/systems/laws enhance or undermine demand for the art.
Piracy does undermine the current (corrupt, exploitative, reprehensible) economic model but it also increases demand for the media it distributes more widely and equitably. It doesn't, as you imply, reduce the likelihood of big budget media existing in the future, it increases the likelihood of it existing in a more fair and equitable way, that harness our ability to freely copy rather than crippling it for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy copyright-buyers.
I stand by what I said: if everyone pirated, no one would be making or funding big-budget movies because there would be no money to be made. Coming up with alternative payment systems for the media we consume is all well and good, but that’s not piracy - it actually just reinforces my point about paying being the moral thing to do. My argument isn’t that the current system is good; it’s that piracy wouldn’t be sustainable if everyone started doing it.
If everyone were doing it, it wouldn't be piracy. It would be free, legal copying.
I just presented you with several models of how big budget movies could make money, even if everyone were freely, legally copying. You haven't responded to that argument, you've merely ignored it and insisted on your original point.
There is another model proposed at the end of the 90s by a french professor.
Just tax my internet (it's actually alrrady taxed) and monitor torrent / p2p shares (like it's already being done). Then pay a proportion of the money gathered via taxes to the creators of the media. It's a system that is already in place for some Television companies in Europe. Today, I would compare it to spotify. You still get the capitalist model where big budget peoductions make tons of money, but you live in a world where you are free to share and remix
Its fanboy/girlism.
If you pirate content from their favorite author/artist/producer/whatever, basically all of their screeching comes down to a hysterical emotional response that you are hurting a person or group that they worship as God.
They just learn rhetoric to justify their emotions as a side effect, a consequence of wanting to be able to argue against the bad mean people that are hurting their favorite creatives.
They are naive, ignorant or misinformed, immature... usually believing in some kind 'just world' type worldview where everything is fair and square actually if you just follow the rules.
They don't understand that the actual 'losses' from piracy are far, far smaller than whatever the RIAA or game studios say it is.
They don't understand that the people who actually create or perform the art basically get paid a tiny fraction of what their labels or corporate overlords make.
They don't understand that some people are actually poor, and the poor deserve art as well.
They don't understand that when a reasonable cost forma product with reasonable ownership rights exist, a great, great many will prefer a streamlined but slightly costly method over a complex but monetarily costless method.
They don't understand that you don't really own anything which you can't use or view or listen to as you please without relying on some proprietary other system which may just poof that ability out of existence one day, without refunding you.
Many think streaming services went more expensive because of piracy ( less people paying for same content = content price needs to be higher, where I believe it is other way around (higher price for less content = more pirates).
The market of distribution of films and series is just fucked. The fight with competitors using exclusive content leads to worst way of distribution since company with exclusive content has monopoly of that content. Streaming services should not be the one owning the content but should be in competition with other distributors offering the same content.
I think the politics have forgotten that we need at least social capitalism if we not want to create cyberpunk dystopia.
1:Follow bad rules, get something out of jt
2:Follow bad rules, get nothing out of it
3:Don't Follow bad rules, get something out of it
People in group 2 are always getting angry about people in group 3
