this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
17 points (87.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

57221 readers
1032 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

Torrenting:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

People need to expect to pay for art and entertainment. People should. It's immoral and unethical to not pay for art and expect art to be there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I have no problem paying for such things.

But when the distributors block access, and tell me buying ain't owning by removing access to what I've paid for, well fuck 'em.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I agree with you.

But we had a situation where consumers were happy and were paying for content, piracy dropped off, and it was insanely profitable for Netflix.

Then everyone got greedy and stuck their dicks in the pie and ruined it, and this is the backlash.

If you buy content digitally, it gets pulled from your library without your consent or recourse. If you steam you're paying more and more for less.

What we had was good, now none of my friends talk about TV shows because it starts with "hey, did you watch X, it's on paramount?" "No", "oh, nevermind".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's a tragedy of the commons - as an economics problem it matters, sure, but copyright is an artificial monopoly, not a human right. We could provide these more efficiently with public funding of the arts or crowdfunds, without the need to make up imaginary property with imaginary ethics.

But if you want to sign up for a bunch of subscriptions because some might trickle down to the writers, be my guest.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I think most people would agree that artists should be fairly paid for their work. But when greedy, profiteering corporations are the ones commissioning and profiting from art, then IMO we have a moral duty to fuck with their exploitative business model.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

And art should be accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy. There's a reason that piracy almost died out completely and then came back with a vengeance. People don't mind paying a reasonable price for art, the prices and accessibility of art has just become unfeasible.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, but isn't there something to be said for denying people access to the popular culture based on their ability to pay for it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not particularly. Things generally cost money. It's not a human rights violation to say you can't see a movie if you have zero dollars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So then we don't worry about people's ability to engage in their communities through shared experiences and exposure to arts and culture, we just leave people out? Exclude them if they're poor. I don't think I care for that to be honest.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People need to expect to pay reasonable prices on a reasonable basis for art and entertainment, and pretending everyone should be cool with fifty different streaming services and never owning anything again is its own sort of immorality and lack of ethics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly, we’re not paying for the art, we’re paying for a limited license to view art that has already been made.

Not to mention I don’t mind paying when I know the artists who do the work will get a bigger cut than the guy who owns the servers they’re hosted on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People also should be able to pay the artist directly and not some billion dollar company who continue to try to squeeze the artists and limit creativeness all in servitude to the almighty dollar (or any other currency)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine paying $1 to each name that appears in the credits of a movie or tv show, which would be paying the artists directly for their work. It's not feasible, but that's what I read when folks toss out paying the artist directly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's assume that this hypothetical movie had 2,000 people working on it, which isn't a crazy number to assume. You think people should pay $2,000 to watch a movie?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, that's exactly the point they were making.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But if we assume a movie that made a billion dollars, and assume a high ticket price like $20, then that's 50 million tickets sold. That math only checks out if each person paid $0.01 per worker. If we cut out useless executives, that number goes way the fuck down. So yes, let's pay artists directly, and we'll save money at the same time. Even if it were a tenth of a penny to each credit per viewer, that's $50k on average, which is higher than the actual average wage for crew.. I know actors and directors make more, but that's why I'm not going so far as to say we should only pay $2 for a ticket.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So yes, let’s pay artists directly

Where does the money come from to actually make the movie?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Based on actual ticket prices, from producers that expect to triple their investment I guess. Us idiots are fantasizing about ~10% while they're hitting triple digit percentages.