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
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
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)
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.
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.
As opposed to everyone else calling them bootlickers, I think there is likely a subset of people like this who are not considering piracy against the big corporations as unethical, but the "trickle down effect" of piracy towards smaller business/individuals.
For example, if you were to pirate Starfield, no one would really care. If you were to pirate something like BlackOps, most people wouldn't care (and those that do are corporate bootlickers). However, what about pirating indie games, or music VST's, or circumventing a patreon from someone with under 100 supporters?
There's two camps when I see anti-piracy comments; the bootlickers, and those that have the idea that pirates pirate everything relentlessly. The fact of the matter is that piracy does not hurt big corporations, but we cannot say that is also true for small developers publishing their game on their own, and vocal anti-piracy, or rather artist-in-mind individuals, will let the world know that we should support independent artsits and not pirate.
Now, whether or not indie games are getting pirated is a whole different story. And really, what this comes down to is just having the opportunity to purchase in a way that supports the pirates ease of access.
Also, it completely ignores the ethical aspect of piracy which is why support a company that doesn't have your interests at the forefront of its business practices. Which is a very similar reason to decide to not pirate -- I enjoy It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I would like to see more if it, I will pay Hulu and watch the show to tell them to make more IASIP.
If you like something, don't pirate it if you want more of it. It's actually very simple. If you do like it but can't support it for personal reasons, don't expect to get more of it.
Which of course, for the anti-piracy crowd is another sentence for, "you didn't pay to watch it so they cancelled my favorite show!"
Tl;DR - A poor crossover between an individuals enjoyment of corporate content and an supporting independent artists living wage.
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.
hell yeah i'm the villain of the story, and i love being immoral 
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.
piracy is moral and should be encouraged actually
Why do you think piracy is immoral?
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.
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:
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 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.