5 ms·

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

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.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> pirating content somehow does not affect the wellbeing of creators and other participants of the market Why are we assuming there's a viable market? People are trying to sell something that's worthless[0] and they're whining when other people offer it for free. I get that someone had to go through the trouble -- admittedly it's usually a fair amount of effort -- to make the thing that others want but, unfortunately, they didn't make something from which they can expect to profit. I think many people would prefer that to be different but that is just how it is (from my perspective). [0] This is controversial, and thus the likely point of disagreement for most. If the only thing I need is 1 copy of The Little Mermaid (and a computer) to make 1e9 copies of The Little Mermaid, then The Little Mermaid doesn't have value as a thing to be sold.
- carewell 4y ago
  So no books, movies, music - anything that can be duplicated digitally - has value as a thing to be sold? I am sorry, I am not sure this is a genuine argument. Why does digital duplication make any difference? When you are buying a physical book you are not paying just for the paper and the printing process. So the remaining part of the cost - writer's check, publisher's check, etc - is what you should be paying for when consuming things digitally (plus the cost of streaming, storage and whatnot). > Why are we assuming there's a viable market? Because there is? There is a proven, big, viable, essential market for creating and distributing ideas.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    You seem to be understanding me correctly. When one buys a physical book, they are paying for the paper and the printing process. That is the barrier to entry for producing such a copy for sharing, distinctly different from producing a shareable copy of, e.g., a .mp4 file. This person did not have this barrier to entry and therefore they did not see value in selling what they copied. The work does not have value in a market unless the value is propped up artificially as is currently being done by copyright law. > I am sorry, I am not sure this is a genuine argument. If it helps, these markets were clearly viable when certain resources were required to copy and distribute works. The difference with today is the public internet and the proliferation of personal general-purpose computers that people like to keep on themselves at all times. It's new and it's causing market disruptions. Finally, I'll say that many people will choose to give money for things even if they aren't otherwise required to pay: Humble Bundle, Patreon, Youtube, Twitch, etc. People donate to the Wikimedia Foundation only because they are asked, to the point that that the organization now has an order of magnitude more money in the bank than Wikipedia's annual operating costs (recent funding controversies aside, they donate because they think it helps keep around something they'd like to see stick around).
    - carewell 4y ago
      Your position somehow completely ignores the cost of... producing the content itself. It might come as a surprise, but people who write books, make music, film movies all have expenses. Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content. It sometimes takes years to produce and release a movie, hundreds if not thousands of people are involved. Who is paying for that? Should they all go to Patreon and ask for donations?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        > It might come as a surprise, ... Please don't condescend. > Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content. I am not ignoring the cost, I am simply not respecting it. They are trying to run a business; the costs of doing so are their problem. If they cannot capture revenue to offset the mentioned costs, then they do not have a viable business. Currently, copyright law is required for the revenue to be captured, thus the business is not viable. It is unfortunate, but I don't see how I am mistaken (I can understand disagreement that copyright law is broken, but it would be disagreement).
- SideQuark 4y ago
  If it had no value then people would not want it, so would not pirate it. The simple fact that people want to pirate a thing means it has value.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    If I get a copy of my friend's copy of The Wolf of Wall Street -- of course which they got from a torrent -- the real world value of a new copy that I create approaches nil.
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      Marginal value going to zero does not negate original total value, it only increases the total value more slowly per item. The items still have value, and now larger total value than before. You're sinking your own argument.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
        Fair enough, I lost myself in that comment. What I mean to say is that the thing has no value in a market where it's being sold digitally. If it's so easy for a person to make copies of something and share it with their friends then some people will make every copy they can and give it to whomever asks. In this world of proliferated general purpose computers and the public internet, it turns out people can make infinite copies and give them to everyone. I 1) do not think it's necessarily wrong for someone to choose to do that and 2) do not agree with where the line has been drawn for when it is considered wrong. In this case, the person downloaded 100TB and uploaded 20TB and we're saying it's wrong enough to be 5 times more receptive than giving that we threaten prison. All that being said, I see a situation where someone thinks they have something they can sell, but then it happens that anyone can indiscriminately make and share copies of the thing so it's not actually worth buying. The producers of the thing then start whining about people making copies and those people who choose to do that get thrown in prison. It's very hard for me not to see the people being imprisoned as the victims when the people alleging harm have done fuck all to prove that they were caused any harm.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

> pirating content somehow does not affect the wellbeing of creators and other participants of the market Why are we assuming there's a viable market? People are trying to sell something that's worthless[0] and they're whining when other people offer it for free. I get that someone had to go through the trouble -- admittedly it's usually a fair amount of effort -- to make the thing that others want but, unfortunately, they didn't make something from which they can expect to profit. I think many people would prefer that to be different but that is just how it is (from my perspective). [0] This is controversial, and thus the likely point of disagreement for most. If the only thing I need is 1 copy of The Little Mermaid (and a computer) to make 1e9 copies of The Little Mermaid, then The Little Mermaid doesn't have value as a thing to be sold.

carewell 4y ago
So no books, movies, music - anything that can be duplicated digitally - has value as a thing to be sold? I am sorry, I am not sure this is a genuine argument. Why does digital duplication make any difference? When you are buying a physical book you are not paying just for the paper and the printing process. So the remaining part of the cost - writer's check, publisher's check, etc - is what you should be paying for when consuming things digitally (plus the cost of streaming, storage and whatnot). > Why are we assuming there's a viable market? Because there is? There is a proven, big, viable, essential market for creating and distributing ideas.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  You seem to be understanding me correctly. When one buys a physical book, they are paying for the paper and the printing process. That is the barrier to entry for producing such a copy for sharing, distinctly different from producing a shareable copy of, e.g., a .mp4 file. This person did not have this barrier to entry and therefore they did not see value in selling what they copied. The work does not have value in a market unless the value is propped up artificially as is currently being done by copyright law. > I am sorry, I am not sure this is a genuine argument. If it helps, these markets were clearly viable when certain resources were required to copy and distribute works. The difference with today is the public internet and the proliferation of personal general-purpose computers that people like to keep on themselves at all times. It's new and it's causing market disruptions. Finally, I'll say that many people will choose to give money for things even if they aren't otherwise required to pay: Humble Bundle, Patreon, Youtube, Twitch, etc. People donate to the Wikimedia Foundation only because they are asked, to the point that that the organization now has an order of magnitude more money in the bank than Wikipedia's annual operating costs (recent funding controversies aside, they donate because they think it helps keep around something they'd like to see stick around).
  - carewell 4y ago
    Your position somehow completely ignores the cost of... producing the content itself. It might come as a surprise, but people who write books, make music, film movies all have expenses. Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content. It sometimes takes years to produce and release a movie, hundreds if not thousands of people are involved. Who is paying for that? Should they all go to Patreon and ask for donations?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      > It might come as a surprise, ... Please don't condescend. > Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content. I am not ignoring the cost, I am simply not respecting it. They are trying to run a business; the costs of doing so are their problem. If they cannot capture revenue to offset the mentioned costs, then they do not have a viable business. Currently, copyright law is required for the revenue to be captured, thus the business is not viable. It is unfortunate, but I don't see how I am mistaken (I can understand disagreement that copyright law is broken, but it would be disagreement).
SideQuark 4y ago
If it had no value then people would not want it, so would not pirate it. The simple fact that people want to pirate a thing means it has value.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  If I get a copy of my friend's copy of The Wolf of Wall Street -- of course which they got from a torrent -- the real world value of a new copy that I create approaches nil.
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    Marginal value going to zero does not negate original total value, it only increases the total value more slowly per item. The items still have value, and now larger total value than before. You're sinking your own argument.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      Fair enough, I lost myself in that comment. What I mean to say is that the thing has no value in a market where it's being sold digitally. If it's so easy for a person to make copies of something and share it with their friends then some people will make every copy they can and give it to whomever asks. In this world of proliferated general purpose computers and the public internet, it turns out people can make infinite copies and give them to everyone. I 1) do not think it's necessarily wrong for someone to choose to do that and 2) do not agree with where the line has been drawn for when it is considered wrong. In this case, the person downloaded 100TB and uploaded 20TB and we're saying it's wrong enough to be 5 times more receptive than giving that we threaten prison. All that being said, I see a situation where someone thinks they have something they can sell, but then it happens that anyone can indiscriminately make and share copies of the thing so it's not actually worth buying. The producers of the thing then start whining about people making copies and those people who choose to do that get thrown in prison. It's very hard for me not to see the people being imprisoned as the victims when the people alleging harm have done fuck all to prove that they were caused any harm.