this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Memes

45317 readers
93 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Why pay corporate scum when you can not :| sorry not sorry people in the entertainment industry. You should negotiate better union terms.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Yes, it really does come to morals.

Like, would I really feel ok supporting an industry like that? With their shitty wages, horrible copyright practices, just evil corporate practices (nepotism, extortion, sexism, etc) - not exclusive to entertaining industry, but I can def chose not to support & fuel the suffering.

I want & do pay for small studio projects, FOSS initiatives, etc.
Let's normalise that so that such support may grow and change the world.

Long live there *arr services & their contribution to worlds culture & humanity through equality/comradeship.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If it comes down to morals, don't pirate, boycott. If your actions can be perceived as indistinguishable from selfishness, they probably are. And the only message you're sending is "we need to crack down more on piracy" not any actual good.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No. You sound apologetic towards shareholders.
Morals are not the same as laws, lol.
And when something is part of the everyday life like this it isn't really the best thing to stay out of.

Also, boycotting something I wouldn't have payed for doesn't make sense. I don't even understand what you mean.

And what you call selfishness is the boycott here. That takes away from the megacorps (and not from the artists).

I don't wanna boycott people making series, I want way-too-big publishers & co to die.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Morals are not the same as laws, lol.

Agreed. Don't know why you're saying that, since I didn't mention the law anywhere.

And what you call selfishness is the boycott here. That takes away from the megacorps

It is not. If you boycott something you aren't benefitting. You are making a sacrifice in order to enact a change. And critically, if corporations want you behave differently, in a boycott they give in to demands. With piracy, they try to crack down on piracy.

(and not from the artists).

I'm sorry, how do the artists get paid when you pirate?

I don't wanna boycott people making series, I want way-too-big publishers & co to die.

If that is genuinely what you want, all you have to do is not purchase the content. Pirating it does not help you kill giant publishers. All it does is make it shittier for the people funding your free entertainment.

As I said in a different comment, if this is actually a moral thing for you, for every dollar you save by not paying for the things you enjoy, donate it to a union. If you're not, it clearly wasn't really about the artists, it was about you getting free shit.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have to say I mostly disagree with your points.
At that kind of profit margins only the dividends get financed.

And I do spent the money on donations (FOSS devs, Wiki, random research, animal stuff), tho I haven't though of donating to unions. I didn't even know that is a thing. It isn't where I live.

I understand they need to be financed, but the whole point of unions is to get a better bargaining position & thus finance. That shouldn't need money. You dont donate to the strog guy that already has the power, you donate to the poor. Ot perhaps like some sort of semi-political parties that help organise workers? But we have regulators that strongly encourage unions at certain company size or sector.

What you can donate to or finance is smol studios. That's boycotting the big studios, regardless of content consumption.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What are the margins, specifically? Do you do the research on every piece of media you take, or is "just kinda a feeling" that you believe enough for you to feel fine about what you do? And what is your line for at what point you'll grace them with your money?

It's great that you make donations, but do you make contributions in line with what you would have paid for the media to take? If so, I believe you that it's not about the money but a moral stance. If not, I don't believe that you aren't doing it for your own self interest.

I understand they need to be financed, but the whole point of unions is to get a better bargaining position & thus finance. That shouldn't need money. You dont donate to the strog guy that already has the power, you donate to the poor. Ot perhaps like some sort of semi-political parties that help organise workers? But we have regulators that strongly encourage unions at certain company size or sector.

I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that you don't think unions need money? Are you familiar with union dues? Or strike funds? Lobbyists or lawyers?

And are you saying that the unions are the "strog guys?" If so, then why are you saying that they don't make enough of a percent for it to justify you paying them for their work? If you want to pay to the poor or a charity, fine.

My fundamental point is, if you pirate a $20 movie/game/whatever and you don't donate $20 to whatever cause you feel is worthwhile, and instead keep that money for yourself, you are pirating because you want things without having to pay for it. Full stop. Anything else is just trying to justify your free shit.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’m sorry, how do the artists get paid when you pirate?

my guy, they were already paid for their time, this isn't a small indie production.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You didn't answer the question. Where did the money come from that paid for their time?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the studios that originally produced the content, the people that are paying for streaming services, and if it's a movie, the box office earnings.

And physical media sales, if any.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago

So, in summary, their income comes from people buying their stuff. So I ask again, how do artists get paid when you pirate? Or is your stance that you want the artists to get paid, you just want other people to do it for you?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

unless you bring in archival, in which case piracy is actually morally good, because of how often content just fucking disappears from the market.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Archival and piracy are different. For you to pirate, there was already an archival copy. Mission accomplished. You downloading a copy without paying for it is not you helping preservation.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

For you to pirate, there was already an archival copy.

is it not the case that the more archival copies there are of something the more likely it is to survive?

There is a rather simple paradox, in the world of online and digital archival where, unless you archive it, nobody else has any reason to archive it. I could simply not archive any of the stuff i have archived, under the pretense that someone else probably already archived it, but that's just a guess and i have no idea whether or not that's the case.

Once i archive something, it's possible someone else has already archived it, but i being a known archiver of that material (or not, most archives are private) also substantiates that same paradox.

And besides, let's say i am archiving, how am i supposed to verify the integrity of my archival copy? Am i not supposed to consume it? That's the most effective and reliable way to determine the integrity of an archive. Sure i could use hashes or checksums, but those are only are reliable as the original creation of the hash/checksum.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago

is it not the case that the more archival copies there are of something the more likely it is to survive?

No, it is not. Compare 10,000,000 copies of something that only live on some random people's phones or 1 copy in the library of Congress where it is someone's job to manage and preserve it. 50 years from now I think it's way more likely that the Library of Congress one is still around than the random ones.

Am i not supposed to consume it? That's the most effective and reliable way to determine the integrity of an archive. Sure i could use hashes or checksums, but those are only are reliable as the original creation of the hash/checksum.

No. Consuming it is neither efficient nor reliable. How would you even know when you consume it that it is the original?

And none of this justifies the piracy itself as opposed to buying it and archiving it? Or if you don't have the capabilities or means, buying a copy and then pirating that said copy as the archive.

[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep, supporting artists and not parasitic corporations is always preferable. Unfortunately, said parasitic conglomerates try to get their greedy piggy tendrils into everything they can

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah, it's really hard and often impossible to support the artists that you want.

A good movie, but most of the people involved made fixed wages (no sales) whilst 90+% of the protis goes to the studio and the lead actor and director (+ credited people that never even saw the project, but you know, money favours)?
Yeah, your money vote does not go to what you want to support/sponsor.

A publisher is selling a game that it got by buying a studio & getting rid of the devs? What's their added value? That's just capital yields, like landlording.

[–] UnRelatedBurner@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

I have grown up with pirating. I didn't even know that you can pay for stuff for a while lol. Yet just the other day I bought the plushie DLC for portal revolution, caz it was an amazing experience, and it was a free passion project from the fans to the fans.

sell me a bluray for a reasonable price or stop fucking encrypting them and i will buy your content :)

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

There's few things that piss me off as much as self-righteous pirates. You want to say you're doing this out of a moral stand? Boycott. Give specifics for what union terms would be good enough for you to deign to pay people for their work. Check with the actual people in the industry for if they would prefer you pay or pirate. For every dollar you're not paying, donate it to a union.

Or just admit you're pirating selfishly because you can get cool stuff for free and rely on other people to fund.

[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You should be focusing on the hedge funds and billionaire families. Not directing your REEing energy at me.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago

Great response, totally makes sense and justifies everything you said.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yet piracy is what made the music industry be reasonable...

And netflix is what killed piracy originally...

HMM...

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Source?

And more importantly, did Netflix pay the creators a greater amount for the relatively little amount of money they were charging you? Was Netflix more moral because of their treatment of employees? Is that why it allegedly killed piracy?

What's that? No? It was just convenient and cheap? I guess it is, once again, just about you not wanting to pay money for things other people make.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Source?

spotify basically killing services like limewire? Netflix being incredibly popular because it was a good service?

Piracy is literally just a basic supply and demand driving force. You supply content that's easily accessible, for a fair price and people will pay for it, it's as simple as that.

I can't say much about netflix originals, but any of the licensed content would've already been paid for. Netflix currently sucks, and that's not really what we're talking about, though there is a conversation to be had there.

What’s that? No? It was just convenient and cheap? I guess it is, once again, just about you not wanting to pay money for things other people make.

if this was the case why would we see piracy decline over the last decade, only to see it increase noticeably in the last 4-5 years or so.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago

spotify basically killing services like limewire?

I thought you said that "piracy made the music industry be reasonable." Spotify basically killing limewire is not evidence of that any more than saying radio made the music industry be reasonable since it's just as killed.

any of the licensed content would've already been paid for.

Look up "residuals"

if this was the case why would we see piracy decline over the last decade, only to see it increase noticeably in the last 4-5 years or so

Because streaming services have been charging more for less content, as the content owners have come to realize how much streaming cannibalizes purchases from other revenue streams.

I'm not trying to argue that people don't pirate less when there are cheap convenient services available. I agree with that. But that's just people behaving in their own self-interest, not some moral good about fighting big companies or other stuff pirates say to feel better about it.

I accept that people do selfish things, just as I accept when people jump the turnstile in the subway without paying their share. What I don't accept is the self-righteous pirates who try to act like they're doing something good for society, like I should be thanking them for downloading the shows I helped pay for, and pretending that it has no impact whatsoever on the people who depend on that for their income.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Source?

Steam, case in point. You can find cracked games fairly easily, there's even games entirely lacking drm that could be passed around effortlessly

But steam is very convenient, the prices are reasonable, and they have good customer support. That's enough that even people who pirate switch games buy pc games on the same device

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is my point. People do things which are cheap and convenient because it is in their self interest. They stop pirating for selfish reasons just as they were pirating for selfish reasons.

Which is why I can't stand self-righteous pirates who try and convince themselves and everyone else that they aren't actually doing it selfishly, they're doing it for some fabricated moral good and we should be thanking them for their service, that they're fighting corporations somehow, and pretending that they aren't withholding money from the people who spent the time making the things they enjoy.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not going to say pirating is some morally superior act, but there is something to be said for refusing to support companies that have user-hostile distribution

And I don't think that act is cheapened by accessing the content anyways - yes, you are not contributing to the creators while enjoying their content. If you weren't going to pay into the stream that they get a small part of anyways, then you're not costing them anything - if you wouldn't have bought it and didn't, it's the same result on their end either way

Ultimately it goes back to piracy being a problem of accessibility, and rejecting an inaccessible service is the moral part, I see the piracy in this context as just neutral

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The problem is when people claim they were never going to buy an awful lot of content. If someone spends a significant amount of time playing, or consuming, pirated content, I call bullshit. They would have bought at least some of it if they weren't getting so much stuff for free. Considering the rewards and lack of consequences, I doubt the vast majority of people pirating are being really honest with themselves about what they "would never have" paid for, and instead use it as a simple excuse for bad behavior.

And rejecting a service you don't consider worth it isn't moral. That's just basic capitalism and self-interest. That's the standard decision to not buy something, which is a decision people make literally dozens of times when they go in the store. And pirating that content anyways certainly doesn't make it any more moral.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 2 months ago

There's many reasons people pirate - sometimes it's a matter of means & availability, sometimes it's a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it's basically a hobby

Some people would surely buy some games if piracy wasn't on the table (assuming the terms were unacceptable to them), but I used to rewatch the same things and play the same games endlessly. I think the vast majority would do without

And rejecting a service you don't consider worth it isn't moral. That's just basic capitalism and self-interest.

This seems to be our core difference. I don't think capitalism is a moral system, and "enlightened self interest" only works with equity of opportunity and fierce competition - that's not the world we live in. And even then, I don't think it's a very ethical moral framework

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it's like enabling an abuser, however slight, you're contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others