What's new

What is the argument against piracy in 2021?

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
My Argument against Piracy: If literally everyone pirated everything all the time, then eventually media would collapse under no funding and we would lose the ability to generate anything new. We cannot have a functioning entertainment industry without cashflow. Inb4 >bUt mUh fAvOrItE iNdIe aRtIsT sElLs hIs sTuFf fOr fReE. That is not a reasonable standard for anything long-term. Even if quality stays very high, that will only exponentially increase the duration that it takes to create media of high quality.

That being said, I have been sailing the high seas for nigh 15 years now and have accrued a server of roughly ~27TB of movies and shows (after deciding I would archive as opposed to download, watch, delete).
I buy from artists and companies I support, even if I have torrented their wares. I vote with my dollar and I want those I like to survive and thrive. We have so much media, currently, though, that even if the opportunity for future media was destroyed, we would have no need to be worried for a long time. That being said, that will never be the case. It will be impossible to ever reach a time where literally everyone on the planet never spends a single iota of their currency on media. Piracy will not destroy the music industry, it will not destroy Hollywood, and it probably won't even destroy low-budget indie artists and media creators.

What piracy could do, though, is hamper the ability of a company to run properly. So, DO NOT use piracy as a substitute for supporting those media creators you like. DO use piracy to shirk the money-hungry billion dollar corporations that do not fund the creators you like. (EG, see the infinitesimally small kickback mangaka and artists get from manga and anime sales in the US.)
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

PierceTheVeil

JackAss of All Trades
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Messages
30
Reaction score
76
Awards
21
i download games to try em out. I miss the days of disks from pizza hut and the like with demos for everything, if I like it ill go buy it especially for multiplayer, if its not to my liking oh well saved me from a waste of money
Who Knows Idk GIF
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Pangolin

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
72
Awards
23
At the end of the day money shouldn't be the reward for creation, but since we live in a capitalist society it is. Creation and sharing your creations should be about the betterment of humanity.
Lol wat. Sorry, but altruistic goals above money won't put food on the table and make electrons in my computer jiggle when I plug it into the wall.

How else should we reward productive and desired behavior? Maybe some sort of token system where your work is worth X tokens? We live in a society of limited resources that need to be efficiently allocated. Government enforced allocation systems, communism, do not work, nor will they ever work.

Price is a signal of worth. You pay more tokens for something worth more.

Edit: Open source software is probably some of the best out there, and its a clear shame that we don't have more. Only the most elite software engineers produce open source AND have it become widespread.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

Crabbelly

Active Traveler
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
20
Awards
9
How else should we reward productive and desired behavior? Maybe some sort of token system where your work is worth X tokens? We live in a society of limited resources that need to be efficiently allocated. Government enforced allocation systems, communism, do not work, nor will they ever work.

Why do people assume you support communism just because you don't support or believe capitalism is anything remotely resembling a sustainable system to live by? Lol. And who said anything about relying on the government? They're not for us, we all know that, and if you don't then you're blind and foolish. We don't need a group of old white men running our lives for us, we're not children. We're perfectly capable of governing ourselves.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Bob Jones

Traveler
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
13
Reaction score
20
Awards
4
My Argument against Piracy: If literally everyone pirated everything all the time, then eventually media would collapse under no funding and we would lose the ability to generate anything new. We cannot have a functioning entertainment industry without cashflow. Inb4 >bUt mUh fAvOrItE iNdIe aRtIsT sElLs hIs sTuFf fOr fReE. That is not a reasonable standard for anything long-term. Even if quality stays very high, that will only exponentially increase the duration that it takes to create media of high quality.
...
What piracy could do, though, is hamper the ability of a company to run properly. So, DO NOT use piracy as a substitute for supporting those media creators you like. DO use piracy to shirk the money-hungry billion dollar corporations that do not fund the creators you like. (EG, see the infinitesimally small kickback mangaka and artists get from manga and anime sales in the US.)

When new technology has emerged in the past, did anyone protect the industries that were disrupted? When cars were invented, no laws were made protecting horse-and-buggy manufacturers. Anti-piracy laws, and intellectual property laws in general, presume that by simply reproducing something, you harm its original producer, not because you actually deprive them of anything tangible, but because you might have given them money in the future. Should you be prosecuted if you break your regular habit of buying sausages every Tuesday, and decide to buy your own hog, slaughter it, and make your own sausages, because you copied the sausage manufacturer's idea without continuing to pay it?

Humans are creative. No amount of piracy in the world can stop people from trying to create art, even high-quality art. Yes, companies would likely be forced to adapt their business model, as every other company has when new technology has disrupted an industry, or they may even go out of business -- but it isn't as if they were producing high-quality art to begin with. Nothing of value would be lost.

I refuse to accept that there's anything morally wrong with piracy. But there is a great deal wrong with giant corporations prosecuting poor people for performing mathematical operations, or trying to control what people can or can't do with their personal computers.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
...


When new technology has emerged in the past, did anyone protect the industries that were disrupted? When cars were invented, no laws were made protecting horse-and-buggy manufacturers. Anti-piracy laws, and intellectual property laws in general, presume that by simply reproducing something, you harm its original producer, not because you actually deprive them of anything tangible, but because you might have given them money in the future. Should you be prosecuted if you break your regular habit of buying sausages every Tuesday, and decide to buy your own hog, slaughter it, and make your own sausages, because you copied the sausage manufacturer's idea without continuing to pay it?

Humans are creative. No amount of piracy in the world can stop people from trying to create art, even high-quality art. Yes, companies would likely be forced to adapt their business model, as every other company has when new technology has disrupted an industry, or they may even go out of business -- but it isn't as if they were producing high-quality art to begin with. Nothing of value would be lost.

I refuse to accept that there's anything morally wrong with piracy. But there is a great deal wrong with giant corporations prosecuting poor people for performing mathematical operations, or trying to control what people can or can't do with their personal computers.
I'm not sure why you quoted me, because your post has almost nothing to do with mine.

"When new technology has emerged in the past, did anyone protect the industries that were disrupted?"
Yes, in fact, they did. When the first electric car was invented in the 1890, a revolution for sure, one that people forecast would be the future of transport. That was, until the early 1900's saw mass-government funding of petroleum based engine manufacturing and infrastructure to support petroleum-based engine vehicle as opposed to electric vehicles. The government put so much effort into protecting the disrupted industry that it took almost half a century to see electric vehicles as a viable means of transportation again. Laws were made to tax electric vehicles and protect gasoline vehicle manufacturers. And if we go back further, when industrialization hit America hard and massive apartment towns were cropping up to support the factories, farmers and the like flocked to them. So much so, in fact, that it began to damage countries agriculture and the government had to begin incentivizing farmers to protect the agriculture industry. America has a history of, and a vested interest in, protecting disrupted industries. Otherwise, government bailouts and multi-decade financing plans wouldn't exist. Not that I'm a fan of that anyways.

"Should you be prosecuted if you break your regular habit of buying sausages every Tuesday, and decide to buy your own hog, slaughter it, and make your own sausages, because you copied the sausage manufacturer's idea without continuing to pay it?"
Comparing buying a hog, slaughtering it, and making your own sausage is nothing like pirating software. In fact, you might have just set the long jump world record with that one. Let me make a more apt comparison: Should you be prosecuted if, instead of buying hotdogs from the store, you magically materialized an exact replica of an oscar-meyer weiner into your fridge? No, you should not be prosecuted for such, because in a world where this is possible, the hot dog manufacturer no longer exists. In a world where people can just create exact, like-for-like copies of any food they want is a world where no food manufacturer needs to exist. The only role left that a food manufacturer could fill would be that of a think tank, for new food products no one had ever thought of materializing into existence before.

Hopefully that sounds as ridiculous to you as that sounds to me (though, StarTrek did make that idea popular many decades ago), because you can't compare the manufacturing of real, physical goods to digital media. Real, physical goods require real, physical materials. Digital media does not. You can watch an episode of Naruto 10000000000 times and that episode never degrades, falls apart, breaks, or becomes unwatchable. Now, the physical disc you watch it on may fail, or your pc may fail, or your dvd player or whatever, but that episode of Naruto won't.

"I refuse to accept that there's anything morally wrong with piracy. But there is a great deal wrong with giant corporations prosecuting poor people for performing mathematical operations, or trying to control what people can or can't do with their personal computers."
Its actually incredible how close we are to agreeing and yet don't. The second sentiment I agree with. I'm pretty sure I said nothing that supported the idea of corporations controlling user freedom. What I do have an issue with is the idea that someone might enjoy someone's art and do nothing to support that artist. Imagine being so unapologetically callous that you would consider someone's music so good that you would listen to it thousand and thousands and thousands of times, then think to yourself "Why should I give them any support? They don't deserve my money, its just 1's and 0's lmao". Every time you pirate something, you make the active decision to withhold paying someone for a good or service. Now, that is not inherently bad. I often use that as a form of protest to companies I hate, by pirating all their good and withholding paying them a cent until they make changes I agree with or go defunct. On the other hand, if there is a company I like, I may still pirate their media, but I will compensate them in some form, either via donations or buying physical goods that they sell.

"Humans are creative. No amount of piracy in the world can stop people from trying to create art, even high-quality art."
You are correct. En masse, art will always exist. But you know what won't? Individual artists. People die. One thing that can kill people is starvation. Or not addressing medical conditions. Some people even kill themselves because life becomes too difficult for them to deal with. So you can pretend bankrupting an indie studio with the mentality "nothing is wrong with pirating" is okay, but when they cease to exist and can no longer make their art, it is every fan of theirs's who didn't support them that is partially at fault for the loss.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
Why do people assume you support communism just because you don't support or believe capitalism is anything remotely resembling a sustainable system to live by? Lol. And who said anything about relying on the government? They're not for us, we all know that, and if you don't then you're blind and foolish. We don't need a group of old white men running our lives for us, we're not children. We're perfectly capable of governing ourselves.
Its incredible how you still haven't actually proposed an alternative to monetary reward for creation.

Should we go back to the times of bartering our goods and wares? Well, I hope a blacksmith, chicken farmer, crop farmer, seamstress, cobbler, mechanic, engineer, chemist, carpenter, plumber, electrician, mason, etc etc all live in close proximity to you.

If you can present an alternative system to monetary reward for creation, I would be glad to listen. If not, then realize that your ideas will lead to the end of many, many artists whose livelihood depends on their ability to receive compensation for their creation.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Pangolin

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
72
Awards
23
Why do people assume you support communism just because you don't support or believe capitalism is anything remotely resembling a sustainable system to live by? Lol. And who said anything about relying on the government? They're not for us, we all know that, and if you don't then you're blind and foolish. We don't need a group of old white men running our lives for us, we're not children. We're perfectly capable of governing ourselves.
Thats a pretty big leap to assume that people are capable of governing themselves. Our full jails say otherwise.

Okay smart guy, what method should we use to run society and reward creation that isn't just a rebranding of communism? We should have some sort of token based system. Where if you don't want to barter for anything I have we can still trade cause I will accept the tokens in exchange for my item.

Communism now in this super sleek modern package called socialism. Its society sharing and caring for each other <3 <3. Nah, we all will starve. Me less than you cause I've taken precautions against socialism by getting fat. Nobody works cause everyone else provides for them.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Crabbelly

Active Traveler
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
20
Awards
9
Its incredible how you still haven't actually proposed an alternative to monetary reward for creation.

Should we go back to the times of bartering our goods and wares? Well, I hope a blacksmith, chicken farmer, crop farmer, seamstress, cobbler, mechanic, engineer, chemist, carpenter, plumber, electrician, mason, etc etc all live in close proximity to you.

If you can present an alternative system to monetary reward for creation, I would be glad to listen. If not, then realize that your ideas will lead to the end of many, many artists whose livelihood depends on their ability to receive compensation for their creation.
Many people are starting to grow their own food, from vegetation to livestock. What does that tell you? That they're not satisfied with the standards/setup/costs of relying on the global food market. There already are alternative ways of living, in fact ideas of alternative ways of living are starting to increase. Take eco-villages for instance. There are quite a lot of them all over the world and they're operating successfully but don't expect to see that in the news. Then there's the indigenous people who still live in tribes, have no contact with the outside world and don't live by the rules of this parasitic system; they're still alive and kickin'. By the way it's not just up to me come up with an alternative, it takes a group of like minded people who shares the same values.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
Many people are starting to grow their own food, from vegetation to livestock. What does that tell you? That they're not satisfied with the standards/setup/costs of relying on the global food market. There already are alternative ways of living, in fact ideas of alternative ways of living are starting to increase. Take eco-villages for instance. There are quite a lot of them all over the world and they're operating successfully but don't expect to see that in the news. Then there's the indigenous people who still live in tribes, have no contact with the outside world and don't live by the rules of this parasitic system; they're still alive and kickin'. By the way it's not just up to me come up with an alternative, it takes a group of like minded people who shares the same values.
And tell me, which one of those eco-villages or indigenous tribes are making piratable media? Are they producing vaporwave albums? Are they making Marvel movies? Do they run streaming services with 100's of shows and movies from foreign countries? Have they built powerful PC's they can build video games on and network and share 3D model concepts? And that's just keeping on the topic of piratable media (some people here want to bring in unrelated physical goods).

I suppose if your goal is to go back in time to a period when you don't have piratable media to... make sharing piratable media morally justifiable in all situations, then you'd be successful.

But if you can show me an economy with piratable media where it is completely and freely distributed, that does not run on a system of rewarding the media creator for creating the media, then you might be able to convince me that we can convert modern society to a currency-less system.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Crabbelly

Active Traveler
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
20
Awards
9
And tell me, which one of those eco-villages or indigenous tribes are making piratable media? Are they producing vaporwave albums? Are they making Marvel movies? Do they run streaming services with 100's of shows and movies from foreign countries? Have they built powerful PC's they can build video games on and network and share 3D model concepts? And that's just keeping on the topic of piratable media (some people here want to bring in unrelated physical goods).

I suppose if your goal is to go back in time to a period when you don't have piratable media to... make sharing piratable media morally justifiable in all situations, then you'd be successful.

But if you can show me an economy with piratable media where it is completely and freely distributed, that does not run on a system of rewarding the media creator for creating the media, then you might be able to convince me that we can convert modern society to a currency-less system.
Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think people who live in indigenous tribes or eco-villages are really interested in western media or western society. They probably have their own activities and create their own music. That's kind of the whole point I'm trying to make. Let's say the whole population started to live the way indigenous tribes/eco-village's do, that would mean the artists and creators you're talking about would live under that system too, so your point would be moot.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think people who live in indigenous tribes or eco-villages are really interested in western media or western society. They probably have their own activities and create their own music. That's kind of the whole point I'm trying to make. Let's say the whole population started to live the way indigenous tribes/eco-village's do, that would mean the artists and creators you're talking about would live under that system too, so your point would be moot.
I do agree with everything you said here that I'm quoting.

My question to you then is: What about the developed societies already in place? Anime and manga are a huge part of Japan's culture and have been for a long time. Its one of the top commodity exports to other countries. Part of their economy is sustained by it. Its even engrained in their culture, ironically, as its also looked down upon in their culture. They have massive corporations using anime as mascots for their products.

What do you propose existing societies like that do? Section their country down into more insular tribes? Toss away the decades they've spend building this portion of their economy and culture, just so as to remove monetary compensation from art? The last time Japan was built upon a multitude of various, communal tribes, they warred with each other for hundreds of years, and their country and population were barely that of a fraction of other, more developed countries at the time!

I just don't understand how what you propose as a solution solves anything. If anything, the idea of breaking countries down into non-monetarily oriented communal tribes is very dangerous. Of course, I am a proponent of small communities taking care of themselves, but when not balanced well, it only leads to conflict with other tribes. Now, of course, even if the tribes were at war, perhaps there would be no monetary incentive for art. Art would only be made for the sake of art! But, who would make art when your village is constantly training and arming to prevent the neighboring tribe from attacking you and stealing your resources? It just seems like a serious degradation of humans to me.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

RisingThumb

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
Awards
2
Website
risingthumb.xyz
The main argument against piracy is that it means no money goes to the creator of the work, unless you actively go out of your way to give them the money. You go out of your way to give them money in purchasing the work when distributed normally.

There are resource-based arguments that render piracy a bad choice for the individual. Obscure media on torrents usually can't be fully torrented due to few seeders. Some don't even exist in a way that can be torrented. There is a time cost to pirating that is usually, but not always longer than downloading directly from a storefront. As far as physical resources, other than the cable which has to be laid by your ISP, and the storage space and computer which needs to be purchased or owned by the seeder and the leecher, and electricity to power their devices, there's little physical resources that are being used in pirating. It's not none, but it's close to none in the 21st century. It also comes at no resources taken from the creator. You don't take money from the creator, instead you don't give them money.

The convenience offered, can also be discussed. Torrenting programs are pretty poor for an end user, and can't really compare to a storefront which is designed to maximise sales. There is also shared suspicion of torrented files containing malware, but that only really holds for executable files. In the case of executable files, you can choose to either sandbox it, which requires technical expertise, or to purchase it from a storefront, which generally(but not always, malware can slip through the cracks) guarantees that it will be safe to run.

With the point of giving money mentioned, it is worthwhile adding that the equivalent legal platforms also frequently give creators the short end of the stick. Spotify gives music creators a sliver of money for the time they put in. GPL Licensed code, can be compiled and sold, but any technical person can come along and fork it, compile it and make it freely available(an example of this is Conversations and the Conv6ations fork which are XMPP chat programs). As a result, sometimes there is almost no de facto difference in pirating or acquiring it legally, to the creator, but a significant difference to the end user. De jure, there is a difference as it's illegal and a lot of money is put into piracy. This legal difference can also have a psychological effect of fear. Some people simply do not want to disobey the law, even in acts of civil disobedience out of fear for the consequences.

Another argument against piracy, is the number of jobs it "creates". DRM has to be produced, and battle-tested and continuously improve as it is an arms race against DRM crackers. There is also a whole area of copyright law that lawyers train in and can make money from. As a result, by pirating, you help in justifying these industries further, despite fighting against it as an individual. I put the word creates in quotations above because I do not believe these jobs provide value to society. Copyright law(and hence those lawyers) could provide value, especially if reverted to a much earlier variant and understanding of it(28 years, renewable once for another 14 years in America, 1831), but the modern variant(death of the author + 70) is utterly broken that products become mostly unusable for the public to expand upon for about a century or 2 centuries. It will only get worse as health technology improves, making the author live longer.

its not morally right at all but i do whatever

An argument based on morality, or comparison to theft can be put forward, but that depends on the individual subscribing to the same moral principles(which can be fair on a local level, for example in Ireland which is a strongly Catholic nation so by culture and tradition people share Catholic morality for the most part, hence it being pro-life on abortion). To put forward an argument of morality on the global level falls apart very badly as different systems work best for different people. The stereotype of the Russian or Chinese pirate holds because it's true :^) and American law applies to America not foreign nations(though allies can help them enforce it). The problem with theft as an argument is it requires resources to be stolen. The only other claim for theft is if a seeder is seeding unknowingly(usually due to insecure computers) so you are stealing their bandwidth, electricity and computation for piracy. Interestingly this isn't theft from the creator but theft from a seeder. Of course most people won't be culpable of that, nor care for it.

The solution to the main argument is a support of more crowdfunded projects. If there is no support for it, then unless the creator really wants to make it(art made for the sake of art), or needs credentials of finished works, or wants a following, the product is unlikely to be manufactured. For digital works I believe this is a pretty good solution as the monetary cost is almost always in manufacture and production, and rarely in distribution or maintenance(there are some cases where the latter needs constant funding like in MMO games or online services). This breaks down in the production of very low-demand goods, but the same ones would also suffer similarly badly under the typical storefront method. The other way this fails is that the majority of crowdfunded projects use middlemen, which suck up their cut. I quote the above, as media manufacture is distinct from media distribution.

My Argument against Piracy: If literally everyone pirated everything all the time, then eventually media would collapse under no funding and we would lose the ability to generate anything new. We cannot have a functioning entertainment industry without cashflow. Inb4 >bUt mUh fAvOrItE iNdIe aRtIsT sElLs hIs sTuFf fOr fReE. That is not a reasonable standard for anything long-term. Even if quality stays very high, that will only exponentially increase the duration that it takes to create media of high quality.

I quote the above, as I think it confuses manufacture and distribution. If everyone pirated, then the status quo of paying for completed works would collapse, but then the payment would move towards manufacture as opposed to a finished product. Also where do you get the idea that just because a person sells something for free, the duration of production increases exponentially? Video producers sell videos for free(YouTube, Oddysee, Peertube e.t.c.). They make their money from people funding their manufacture(patreon or liberapay) which is how they can justify removing advertisements too. I don't pretend that this is an optimal solution, because a lot of these crowdfunded works are scams, or simply unfinished works. Due diligence is required of the consumer.

I will personally continue to support piracy, and fund the creators I like, and purchase well within my means.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

LANDSHARK22

Rubbin' is Racin'
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
12
Awards
6
I am aware that lots of people still are afraid of piracy for reasons that I can't understand. Yes, it's illegal, but it should also be illegal to have to have seven separate streaming services to watch the shows you want to watch. You can get vpns for free now, and most of the sites I see don't require any real personal information other than your email.

So far, I mostly use Zlibrary and Watchcartoononline for my needs. I just need a good place to watch live-action movies and tv shows now.
Quentin Tarentino actually doesnt mind piracy because he said it lets more people access his movies
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
42
Reaction score
49
Awards
13
Also where do you get the idea that just because a person sells something for free, the duration of production increases exponentially? Video producers sell videos for free(YouTube, Oddysee, Peertube e.t.c.). They make their money from people funding their manufacture(patreon or liberapay) which is how they can justify removing advertisements too.
And what happens when no one funds them? What happens when an indie artist produces a game, sets up a Patreon, offers the game up for a paltry sum to fund his endeavors, and then everyone pirates his game instead of paying the Patreon fee? How will this artist expedite the process with zero funding?

Also, patreon, or anything of the like, is not a manufacturer. Patreon doesn't manufacture anything. They are more akin to a merchant, making money off the backs of artists by doing nothing but giving them an intermediary platform to sell their wares on. In the age of the internet, we do not need Patreon, because an artist can start their own website and ppromot their art there. Unlike something like a car manufacturer who is necessary to build a car.

In fact, suggesting that something like Patreon makes my point null completely misunderstands my point. I already said that, as opposed to paying corporations I don't support, I support artists by giving them donations or, behold, subscribing to their patreon. But that, in and of itself, is rewarding the artist for their works monetarily.

In fact, you literally state the same point I make in my statement that you say confuses manufacturer and distributor.
"I will personally continue to support piracy, and fund the creators I like, and purchase well within my means."

We have the same opinion, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of manufacturer and distributor.

The artist is the manufacturer. Patreon, Youtube, etc, are the distributors. Any funding given at all to the artist, whether it be for a final product or unfinished garbage, supports the manufacturing process. You don't need any of those websites to support artists, you can donate to the artist directly. The issue is not who gets money where, the issue is 'Does the artist get money', which, at the end of your post, you support the idea of paying artists you support.

If we pirate everything, but pay the artist to work on their works, what are we pirating? We have already paid for the product, so we are not pirating. You cannot both "pirate everything" and "support artists". The act of pirating is the act of not supporting an artist.
Perhaps you have torrenting and pirating confused? They are not one in the same.
I can torrent open-source software all day without pirating, because the software was free to the public in the first place. Torrenting is just a method of downloading. In fact, pirating can be achieved without torrenting, as it did in the decades before the internet.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Pangolin

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
56
Reaction score
72
Awards
23
Let the jury be aware that this thread devolved into a discussion communism in 3 pages. Everything ends up about communism.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

RisingThumb

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
Awards
2
Website
risingthumb.xyz
And what happens when no one funds them? What happens when an indie artist produces a game, sets up a Patreon, offers the game up for a paltry sum to fund his endeavors, and then everyone pirates his game instead of paying the Patreon fee? How will this artist expedite the process with zero funding?
They can't. As such they should move towards a payment model where they collect payment before manufacture as opposed to after. This has its own issues for the consumer. He could also try DRM using game keys, but that still has piracy as an issue to contend with, and adds in the issues of DRM which may anger some consumers. Another funding choice is funding from the state via benefits, welfare or UBI, but then you're at the mercy of the state and the political stability of that country.

Also, patreon, or anything of the like, is not a manufacturer. Patreon doesn't manufacture anything. They are more akin to a merchant, making money off the backs of artists by doing nothing but giving them an intermediary platform to sell their wares on. In the age of the internet, we do not need Patreon, because an artist can start their own website and ppromot their art there. Unlike something like a car manufacturer who is necessary to build a car.

In fact, suggesting that something like Patreon makes my point null completely misunderstands my point. I already said that, as opposed to paying corporations I don't support, I support artists by giving them donations or, behold, subscribing to their patreon. But that, in and of itself, is rewarding the artist for their works monetarily.

In fact, you literally state the same point I make in my statement that you say confuses manufacturer and distributor.
"I will personally continue to support piracy, and fund the creators I like, and purchase well within my means."

We have the same opinion, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of manufacturer and distributor.

The artist is the manufacturer. Patreon, Youtube, etc, are the distributors. Any funding given at all to the artist, whether it be for a final product or unfinished garbage, supports the manufacturing process. You don't need any of those websites to support artists, you can donate to the artist directly. The issue is not who gets money where, the issue is 'Does the artist get money', which, at the end of your post, you support the idea of paying artists you support.
Patreon isn't a manufacturer, but depending on how it is used by an artist, it can allow funding manufacture. It can be used as a distribution platform, and a platform to fund distribution. YouTube is just a distribution platform that can fund the manufacture and distribution badly with ads and with those community supporter things.

It doesn't make your point null. Your point tackles distribution, which is what piracy does. Moving from being paid for distribution to being paid for manufacture is how you can avoid not being paid by pirates. As such a pirate has to vote with their dollar in what they want to see more of.

Sometimes you do need those websites if the artist is uninformed on how to be paid "directly". I put that in quotes because how direct is questionable. With cryptocurrency, you have miner and transaction fee overhead. With any payment processor you have their payment processing fees(commonly around or a bit beneath 5%). The issue of who gets money is still significant in piracy. Some of these distribution platforms like Spotify give such a tiny cut to the artist that the difference by pirating is insignificant and harms the distributor as opposed to the artist. It's important because without the artists being knowledgeable on how to receive payments then the artists will continue to get the short stick by middlemen. In some cases, purchasing a product will give no money to the creator... normally when the creators have no legal rights to that product anymore(DOOM, Quake, Minecraft, Tetris are all examples that hold today).
If we pirate everything, but pay the artist to work on their works, what are we pirating? We have already paid for the product, so we are not pirating. You cannot both "pirate everything" and "support artists". The act of pirating is the act of not supporting an artist.
This is a non-sequitur. You can pirate everything and support artists, as these artists will still distribute their works on storefronts with DRM(Steam for example). If you don't pirate, and proceed to fund and enjoy the work, you are in effect supporting the use of DRM by using them. The act of pirating is the act of not using the distribution methods that the artist chooses.
Perhaps you have torrenting and pirating confused? They are not one in the same.
I can torrent open-source software all day without pirating, because the software was free to the public in the first place. Torrenting is just a method of downloading. In fact, pirating can be achieved without torrenting, as it did in the decades before the internet.
I am aware. It goes as far back as the Warez scene in the 70s. Torrenting is the main method of piracy these days though, but other methods exist(a somewhat surprising amount of piracy is still done via google drive especially in the switch scene). It's because of that it's associated with it. Aside from Linux .isos I rarely see open-source software available to torrent. As a result, I joke about pirating Linux .isos :^)

As an aside, I really enjoy the Warez scene from 70s-00s because from it you have a lot of "crack-tros" which are very fun and interesting graphics to watch. It is very much a seed for the demo scene which has since moved away from cracks. Here's a cool site of such crack-tros converted to JS to check out on that point.
Let the jury be aware that this thread devolved into a discussion communism in 3 pages. Everything ends up about communism.
I certainly wouldn't want the works to be manufactured by the state nor would I want them to be distributed by the state. Communism asks for artists to have their creative liberties fettered by the state and selected works being distributed(as seen by burning books and restricting knowledge on topics in those same authoritarian countries). Piracy advocates much more for works to be freely distributed unfettered by the state or laws. Technologically advanced communist countries have an abysmally unfree internet as you'll observe thanks to the CCP.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

CognacDefender

Anglo-Agora Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
107
Reaction score
227
Awards
46
They can't. As such they should move towards a payment model where they collect payment before manufacture as opposed to after. This has its own issues for the consumer. He could also try DRM using game keys, but that still has piracy as an issue to contend with, and adds in the issues of DRM which may anger some consumers. Another funding choice is funding from the state via benefits, welfare or UBI, but then you're at the mercy of the state and the political stability of that country.


Patreon isn't a manufacturer, but depending on how it is used by an artist, it can allow funding manufacture. It can be used as a distribution platform, and a platform to fund distribution. YouTube is just a distribution platform that can fund the manufacture and distribution badly with ads and with those community supporter things.

It doesn't make your point null. Your point tackles distribution, which is what piracy does. Moving from being paid for distribution to being paid for manufacture is how you can avoid not being paid by pirates. As such a pirate has to vote with their dollar in what they want to see more of.

Sometimes you do need those websites if the artist is uninformed on how to be paid "directly". I put that in quotes because how direct is questionable. With cryptocurrency, you have miner and transaction fee overhead. With any payment processor you have their payment processing fees(commonly around or a bit beneath 5%). The issue of who gets money is still significant in piracy. Some of these distribution platforms like Spotify give such a tiny cut to the artist that the difference by pirating is insignificant and harms the distributor as opposed to the artist. It's important because without the artists being knowledgeable on how to receive payments then the artists will continue to get the short stick by middlemen. In some cases, purchasing a product will give no money to the creator... normally when the creators have no legal rights to that product anymore(DOOM, Quake, Minecraft, Tetris are all examples that hold today).

This is a non-sequitur. You can pirate everything and support artists, as these artists will still distribute their works on storefronts with DRM(Steam for example). If you don't pirate, and proceed to fund and enjoy the work, you are in effect supporting the use of DRM by using them. The act of pirating is the act of not using the distribution methods that the artist chooses.

I am aware. It goes as far back as the Warez scene in the 70s. Torrenting is the main method of piracy these days though, but other methods exist(a somewhat surprising amount of piracy is still done via google drive especially in the switch scene). It's because of that it's associated with it. Aside from Linux .isos I rarely see open-source software available to torrent. As a result, I joke about pirating Linux .isos :^)

As an aside, I really enjoy the Warez scene from 70s-00s because from it you have a lot of "crack-tros" which are very fun and interesting graphics to watch. It is very much a seed for the demo scene which has since moved away from cracks. Here's a cool site of such crack-tros converted to JS to check out on that point.

I certainly wouldn't want the works to be manufactured by the state nor would I want them to be distributed by the state. Communism asks for artists to have their creative liberties fettered by the state and selected works being distributed(as seen by burning books and restricting knowledge on topics in those same authoritarian countries). Piracy advocates much more for works to be freely distributed unfettered by the state or laws. Technologically advanced communist countries have an abysmally unfree internet as you'll observe thanks to the CCP.
Patreon is shite. Get a real job and stop being a gay.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Similar threads

Containment Chat
Help Users
    (Guest) You Hi: Hi