If there was no DEMAND it wouldn’t exist. It exists illegally specifically because it can’t be done legally at the price point. That doesn’t mean anyone needs it, all the content is presumably available elsewhere. It just costs money and people don’t want to pay money.
I don’t want to pay money either, I’m just not high minded about it.
Want is not the issue. You can want anything and everything but unless you are able to pay, the need arises for access to the material for a price you can pay that the “legal” owners either dont comprehend or refuse to in the name of greed.
That doesn’t track at all. I can’t afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It’s absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.
If it’s stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it’s an actual need. If it’s getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there’s no need there.
The ethical argument is that there’s no one harmed because you can’t afford it anyway. It’s not that you need it like a starving man’s bread.
Just one specific point of contention. A physical object is very different from an object that can infinitely and effortlessly be copied with 0 degradation of that thing.
I think you are making a good argument and but maybe not the best example.
I think there is significance in the difference that needs to be accounted for in any discussion of piracy as theft.
It is currently, and has been for a long time, legal to copy music from the radio or movies and tv shows from a broadcast(but not pay per view, or copys for distrubution) or go to a library and borrow whatever interesting (to you) media they have.
If you’re saying “you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people” then, we’re not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn’t make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.
If you’re saying “everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times” that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That’s not a political position I’d be on board with.
If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don’t pay for…again, there’s an argument for that, but let’s not pretend it’s some high minded one. It’s selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don’t want to pay money and it’s really easy not to.
Yea, I understand the problems you describe and I am not a genius who knows how to solve that problem. I want to point out that I consider ads and tracking as privacy invasive.
In my opinion the solution should be a way where we can ensure loss of media at all cost where the whole humanity has access to all human culture and knowledge in a reasonable timeframe (not the livelong time the copyrights hold today)
And competition on the market should be about the best way to deliver content, not about on delivering which content.
If there was no DEMAND it wouldn’t exist. It exists illegally specifically because it can’t be done legally at the price point. That doesn’t mean anyone needs it, all the content is presumably available elsewhere. It just costs money and people don’t want to pay money.
I don’t want to pay money either, I’m just not high minded about it.
Want is not the issue. You can want anything and everything but unless you are able to pay, the need arises for access to the material for a price you can pay that the “legal” owners either dont comprehend or refuse to in the name of greed.
That doesn’t track at all. I can’t afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It’s absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.
If it’s stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it’s an actual need. If it’s getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there’s no need there.
The ethical argument is that there’s no one harmed because you can’t afford it anyway. It’s not that you need it like a starving man’s bread.
Just one specific point of contention. A physical object is very different from an object that can infinitely and effortlessly be copied with 0 degradation of that thing.
I think you are making a good argument and but maybe not the best example.
I think there is significance in the difference that needs to be accounted for in any discussion of piracy as theft.
It is currently, and has been for a long time, legal to copy music from the radio or movies and tv shows from a broadcast(but not pay per view, or copys for distrubution) or go to a library and borrow whatever interesting (to you) media they have.
Yeah semantics is a bitch
Digital media is culture. And culture should not be reserved for rich people, in my opinion.
If you’re saying “you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people” then, we’re not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn’t make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.
If you’re saying “everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times” that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That’s not a political position I’d be on board with.
If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don’t pay for…again, there’s an argument for that, but let’s not pretend it’s some high minded one. It’s selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don’t want to pay money and it’s really easy not to.
Yea, I understand the problems you describe and I am not a genius who knows how to solve that problem. I want to point out that I consider ads and tracking as privacy invasive.
In my opinion the solution should be a way where we can ensure loss of media at all cost where the whole humanity has access to all human culture and knowledge in a reasonable timeframe (not the livelong time the copyrights hold today)
And competition on the market should be about the best way to deliver content, not about on delivering which content.