5 ms·

(sorry, posted this comment in the wrong thread by accident) Do you think at least some of the content that was shared would have been purchased otherwise? We

(sorry, posted this comment in the wrong thread by accident) Do you think at least some of the content that was shared would have been purchased otherwise? We can't measure the impact directly but it's odd to assume that pirating content somehow does not affect the wellbeing of creators and other participants of the market. I can say anecdotally with 100% confidence that when I can't easily find a freely available copy of a movie to watch online I pay for it.

CommitSyn 4y ago
Why do you search out pirated content when you can pay for it? Since I'm an adult with a decent paying job now, I pay for everything I can afford. I don't think I've pirated a program or movie in 5 years now.
- carewell 4y ago
  That's a completely different question, of course. But to answer: on many occasions I am not committed to a particular movie, so just watch it in the background for a while and might end up not finishing. Sometimes I don't want to deal with different services or even a subscription required to watch a single movie/show legally (Paramount+ on Amazon or a Netflix show). Again, if I have to I will pay, but the convenience of free movie websites is great. There are probably other reasons but I would be really surprised if my behavior was an exception. I can pay for movies but it's more convenient not to (sometimes).
- asdff 4y ago
  I'm against a $3.99 digital rental out of principal
- indemnity 4y ago
  When you live outside the USA? Some content you cannot get for any amount of money due to syndication deals, and providers like HBO have spotty availability. I already pay for Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+ and Apple TV+, but their content libraries are smaller outside the US by some margin. I pirate HBO and other services since there is no legal pathway to stream it where I live, and I’m not forking out to get it from whichever shitty local service bought the rights. Happy to pay once they actually offer it worldwide as a first party option!
realusername 4y ago
The answer to that is pretty clear, there's never been a single research paper which manage to demonstrate a monetary loss.
- carewell 4y ago
  I don't have a link to a scientific paper. But if you want to sum the losses yourself, here is something to start with: 1. Last Sunday I streamed a movie called Stutz (2022) for free instead of purchasing it from Netflix. That's a loss of $16 for the industry (1 month subscription, but I am not interested in anything else from their catalog).
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    This example is a good demonstration of my point: when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless. Prior to digital copying, that scarcity was not artificial; it actually cost people money to copy and distribute things and those people more often than not were trying to see what they copied. Someone was distributing that movie for free because the movie did not have value in a market.
    - carewell 4y ago
      > when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless. If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless? Meaning it has no value? Let's break this down. If I construct a physical object and sell it - it has worth because you can hold it in your hands. If I record an album and release it digitally - it's worthless, despite costing me 100x more than the physical object I created. And despite you appreciating the music 100x more than my physical object. So what defines value? Then physical aspect only? I guess that's a theory, doesn't help to navigate the world increasingly dominated by intangible things, but okay.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        > If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless? That is my intended meaning, though it doesn't need to be released for free, only digitally. If the album is a series of mp3 files in a zip archive why would one pay for it when they could just get a perfect copy from their friend (who got it from a friend, who got it from a friend, who got it ...)? I do know the answer to this question: kindness (Patreon and similar). I don't know market forces to be particularly kind, however.

CommitSyn 4y ago

Why do you search out pirated content when you can pay for it? Since I'm an adult with a decent paying job now, I pay for everything I can afford. I don't think I've pirated a program or movie in 5 years now.

carewell 4y ago
That's a completely different question, of course. But to answer: on many occasions I am not committed to a particular movie, so just watch it in the background for a while and might end up not finishing. Sometimes I don't want to deal with different services or even a subscription required to watch a single movie/show legally (Paramount+ on Amazon or a Netflix show). Again, if I have to I will pay, but the convenience of free movie websites is great. There are probably other reasons but I would be really surprised if my behavior was an exception. I can pay for movies but it's more convenient not to (sometimes).
asdff 4y ago
I'm against a $3.99 digital rental out of principal
indemnity 4y ago
When you live outside the USA? Some content you cannot get for any amount of money due to syndication deals, and providers like HBO have spotty availability. I already pay for Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+ and Apple TV+, but their content libraries are smaller outside the US by some margin. I pirate HBO and other services since there is no legal pathway to stream it where I live, and I’m not forking out to get it from whichever shitty local service bought the rights. Happy to pay once they actually offer it worldwide as a first party option!

realusername 4y ago

The answer to that is pretty clear, there's never been a single research paper which manage to demonstrate a monetary loss.

carewell 4y ago
I don't have a link to a scientific paper. But if you want to sum the losses yourself, here is something to start with: 1. Last Sunday I streamed a movie called Stutz (2022) for free instead of purchasing it from Netflix. That's a loss of $16 for the industry (1 month subscription, but I am not interested in anything else from their catalog).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  This example is a good demonstration of my point: when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless. Prior to digital copying, that scarcity was not artificial; it actually cost people money to copy and distribute things and those people more often than not were trying to see what they copied. Someone was distributing that movie for free because the movie did not have value in a market.
  - carewell 4y ago
    > when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless. If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless? Meaning it has no value? Let's break this down. If I construct a physical object and sell it - it has worth because you can hold it in your hands. If I record an album and release it digitally - it's worthless, despite costing me 100x more than the physical object I created. And despite you appreciating the music 100x more than my physical object. So what defines value? Then physical aspect only? I guess that's a theory, doesn't help to navigate the world increasingly dominated by intangible things, but okay.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      > If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless? That is my intended meaning, though it doesn't need to be released for free, only digitally. If the album is a series of mp3 files in a zip archive why would one pay for it when they could just get a perfect copy from their friend (who got it from a friend, who got it from a friend, who got it ...)? I do know the answer to this question: kindness (Patreon and similar). I don't know market forces to be particularly kind, however.