Disclosure: I have been sailing the seas for years, but…
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it.
They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.
It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.
Devil’s Advocate: Many pirates would have not paid for access to that media so to say it takes away from the creators profit isn’t exactly true since one act of piracy does not equal one lost sale.
Devil’s Advocate Part II: There is s significant amount of research that supports the notion that pirates actually spend more money on media than the average person.
I personally am an example of part II. I pirate a lot of music but I refuse to use Spotify because of how little it pays artists and I have also spent significant amounts of money buying music from artists I enjoy via Bandcamp or buying from the artist directly because I know they get a bigger cut of the profits that way.
Because people don’t want to pay for shit content. Let’s take pirating out of the equation. If I read a book I borrowed and I really like it, I would buy. If the content was trash then I wouldn’t. Same goes if I watch a movie, listen to an album, or eat a microwavable burrito at a friend’s or family member’s house.
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
It does though, since no harm is being done.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
They also don’t receive profit from not copying, unless there’s a purchase made. By your logic, watching something on Netflix or listening to it on the radio is actively harmful to creators, which I think most people can admit is absurd.
but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data.
You made this assertion, but don’t really back it up. If you were correct here, being able to copy cassette tapes or burn cds would have killed the music industry decades ago. Piracy is the original grassroots promotional method.
At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it.
That’s a separate argument and doesn’t relate at all to the supposed financial harm.
They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.
That’s a loaded assertion. If I sing a song right now, what am I entitled to be paid for it? And you’re ignoring that most of the “work” of being a musician (in most genres at least) is playing live performances, the experience of which cannot be pirated.
It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.
I don’t think it’s definite at all. Most of what musicians make these days is from merch and ticket sales, which piracy contributes to by bringing in new fans.
You have some very entitled opinions, if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media. You’re free to not watch movies or listen to music but it’s pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
Edit: I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget but apparently not.
Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you’d need some kind of income to support that hobby.
FOSS is the same but you need some income to survive.
Nah, the entitled opinions are coming from the “pay me, but you can’t own media” folks.
if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media
If everyone thought like me, people could buy digital media in convenient formats at reasonable prices, and buying media would probably still be a lot more popular. My Bandcamp library is in the tens of thousands and growing. I support digital purchasing more than most, when it’s done well.
but it’s pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
As the whole crux of the thread makes clear, no taking is involved. You might want to go re-read the OP again, speaking of asinine.
People do it for clout or for love. Sure, the Hollywood blockbusters would cease being made but that might be an overall social good IMO.
I agree with Brian Eno who describes how, if we had a universal basic income, we would see more artists creating content just for the hell of it. He also explains how there is no “genius”, there is instead what he calls “scenius” where it is an entire artistic scene which breaks new ground but only one or two happen to go viral.
I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget. Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you’d need some kind of income to support that hobby.
With UBI that would change
Disclosure: I have been sailing the seas for years, but…
This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.
The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.
Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it. They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.
It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.
Devil’s Advocate: Many pirates would have not paid for access to that media so to say it takes away from the creators profit isn’t exactly true since one act of piracy does not equal one lost sale.
Devil’s Advocate Part II: There is s significant amount of research that supports the notion that pirates actually spend more money on media than the average person.
I personally am an example of part II. I pirate a lot of music but I refuse to use Spotify because of how little it pays artists and I have also spent significant amounts of money buying music from artists I enjoy via Bandcamp or buying from the artist directly because I know they get a bigger cut of the profits that way.
Ironically, piracy develops more ethical consumers
Because people don’t want to pay for shit content. Let’s take pirating out of the equation. If I read a book I borrowed and I really like it, I would buy. If the content was trash then I wouldn’t. Same goes if I watch a movie, listen to an album, or eat a microwavable burrito at a friend’s or family member’s house.
It does though, since no harm is being done.
They also don’t receive profit from not copying, unless there’s a purchase made. By your logic, watching something on Netflix or listening to it on the radio is actively harmful to creators, which I think most people can admit is absurd.
You made this assertion, but don’t really back it up. If you were correct here, being able to copy cassette tapes or burn cds would have killed the music industry decades ago. Piracy is the original grassroots promotional method.
That’s a separate argument and doesn’t relate at all to the supposed financial harm.
That’s a loaded assertion. If I sing a song right now, what am I entitled to be paid for it? And you’re ignoring that most of the “work” of being a musician (in most genres at least) is playing live performances, the experience of which cannot be pirated.
I don’t think it’s definite at all. Most of what musicians make these days is from merch and ticket sales, which piracy contributes to by bringing in new fans.
You have some very entitled opinions, if everyone thought like you no one would create digital media. You’re free to not watch movies or listen to music but it’s pretty asinine to take things without compensating the creator and claim no wrongdoing
Edit: I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget but apparently not. Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you’d need some kind of income to support that hobby. FOSS is the same but you need some income to survive.
Nah, the entitled opinions are coming from the “pay me, but you can’t own media” folks.
If everyone thought like me, people could buy digital media in convenient formats at reasonable prices, and buying media would probably still be a lot more popular. My Bandcamp library is in the tens of thousands and growing. I support digital purchasing more than most, when it’s done well.
As the whole crux of the thread makes clear, no taking is involved. You might want to go re-read the OP again, speaking of asinine.
People do it for clout or for love. Sure, the Hollywood blockbusters would cease being made but that might be an overall social good IMO.
I agree with Brian Eno who describes how, if we had a universal basic income, we would see more artists creating content just for the hell of it. He also explains how there is no “genius”, there is instead what he calls “scenius” where it is an entire artistic scene which breaks new ground but only one or two happen to go viral.
I assumed it would be pretty obvious I was talking about digital media that needed a budget. Of course anyone can make digital media for free in their spare time but you’d need some kind of income to support that hobby. With UBI that would change