7 ms·
> Piracy isn't exactly a zero-sum game, but there is a cost associated with it. There is zero cost associated with piracy. Zero. At best, there's an expectati
by rewmie 3y ago
> Piracy isn't exactly a zero-sum game, but there is a cost associated with it.
There is zero cost associated with piracy. Zero.
At best, there's an expectation of profit that's not met. To argue that, you need to show how copying a file translates to a potential sale being converted to a no-sale, and there are plenty of evidence that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted work drives demand up.
> Pretending piracy doesn't hurt revenue is a shaky ground to stand on
Go ahead and show exactly where copying a file hurts anyone. You're trying to pass off your personal assertions as axioms, but it's on you to prove that copying a file without the consent of someone hurts anyone.
Go ahead.
> now whatever it hurts the artists revenue is a different question
If anything, artists are the least impacted counterpart as they literally get paid a small fraction of the whole income.
>
- giantrobot 3y ago> Go ahead and show exactly where copying a file hurts anyone. Wait until the grandparent learns about public libraries. Just havens of content larceny! People "stealing" content left and right!
- tzs 3y agoAt all the public libraries I've used they only let me checkout something if the total number of copies already checked out is less than the number of copies the library has licenses for. If the number checked out is not under the number of licenses they make me wait until one of the checked out copies is returned.
- giantrobot 3y agoThat's still no different from the content creator's point of view than a non-sale or pirate. The practical limitations of libraries is immaterial to the fact I can view content without paying the creator anything. Carving out some logical exception for content pirates is ludicrous. They're functionally no different than non-customers or library patrons.
- omeid2 3y agoAbsolute bonkers. Libraries have limited copies and restrictions on when the content can become available. Comparing library access to piracy is comparing National Parks to Squatting.
- giantrobot 3y agoThe physical limitations of libraries are immaterial. Patrons are non-customers of the content publisher. They're doing the same exact thing pirates are doing, experiencing some piece of content without paying the original publisher. The same thing as if they watched a movie on broadcast TV, listened to the radio, or bought that content second hand. If you're going to argue against piracy you're also arguing against libraries. The differences between a pirate and a library are mostly statutory.
- omeid2 3y ago> The physical limitations of libraries are immaterial. No, it is not.