Online piracy is a perfect proof you shouldn't blindly follow all laws.
Most of my used content is either free or pirated. That's because I simply wouldn't buy 95% of my pirated content. In my case piracy isn't same lost sales. In my case piracy is growing popularity and possible promotion. Therefore I'm doing a favor for content creators by pirating their stuff.
Discuss.
I agree with everything you're saying, but to play devil's advocate for the other side, it does cost money to produce the stuff. With low quality pleb bait, usually not out of the creators' pockets, but their production/record company, which is why no one cares about stealing from them. When artists have to pay out of pocket to create something, it means less crap, higher quality, but there is no way to predict that people will like it, so it's more cost effective to make garbage that COULD turn a profit than let the market run itself.
>>1364753
> That's because I simply wouldn't buy 95% of my pirated content.
Except this isn’t true and you know it.
Prior to easy and practical on-line pirating, everybody paid for cable tv, everybody was buying CDs and DVDs and everybody was paying to rent movies from video rental stores and later, Netflix.
But as technology improved and anyone could quickly and easily pirate content, everyone did, as there is no way you can sell something for less then free.
It has absolutely nothing to do with your taste in entertainment and is in fact, all about getting something for nothing.
intellectual property laws are literally thought policing
>>1365552
>intellectual property laws are literally thought policing
While I’ll agree the laws and regulations are getting out of hand, (the NFL demanding payment from a mom & pop bar that advertises a Superbowl party) people have a right to profit off their labor but technology nowadays is such, that this is fast becoming impossible.
In theory, a movie studio could spend a bazillion dollars making a movie and only sell one ticket, to discover their movie all over the Internet a day later being downloaded by millions for free.
>>1365617
If people have the right to profit off their labor, would you be in favour of cost the limit of price? It make sense to claim this and believe in traditional property rights in the first place.
>>1365648
*makes no sense
>>1365547
It's worth noting that piracy has declined since the advent of convenient retail services online.
>>1365648
>cost the limit of price
?
Intellectual property is an absurdity; a state granted monopoly over something that doesn't actually exist, and an impediment to innovation. But it is also a necessity of our economic system, in which large corporate structures are a dominant force.
>>1365675
the real price of acquiring something is the effort it takes to make it, this is called cost
and to make cost the limit of price is to make the price of something in a market the effort it takes to produce it
>>1365671
>It's worth noting that piracy has declined since the advent of convenient retail services online.
For now, except the metanational media corporations are again looking to soak the consumer via "bandwidth caps", now that everybody is jumping onboard the streaming train.
Friends of mine use Roku and the wife wanted to watch Game of Throne, so she signed up for $15 per month for HBO but as of now, they're not subject to any kinda bandwidth cap. But once that kicks in (and it WILL happen) in addition to "4K" sucking up even more bandwidth, they'll be up the creek and at that point, can either pirate content or stop watching.
What does this have to do with /his/?
>>1365692
> cost the limit
Are you will to be subject to the same, when it comes to your paycheck?
Yeah, I didn't think so....
>>1365710
yes actually, I mainly lean towards communism anyway
>>1365709
>What does this have to do with /his/?
History of entertainment.
>>1365692
How would you even calculate that?
>>1365709
Law.
>>1365734
would you pirate a play?
>>1365752
>would you pirate a play?
That's the point; this is about technology and the cat has been let out of the bag.
>>1365735
this is a problem Kropotkin talks about, and is probably the reason I and most anarchists prefer communism to mutualism
>>1365770
It's a problem that Kevin Carson talks about, he points out that in relatively free markets, prices will naturally trend towards costs as supply expands to meet demand, barring a few exceptions like one of a kind items or land. The problem here is that cost of producing a file is always independent of the cost that came in producing the original work.
Regardless, if you'd like to look further into his explanation, he addresses it in Mutualist Political Economy.
>>1365780
thanks for the rec anon
>>1365547
>It has absolutely nothing to do with your taste in entertainment and is in fact, all about getting something for nothing.
I'd be flat broke if I had bought every game, book and movie I've downloaded. It IS about getting stuff for free, but I know for sure that if I couldn't pirate games I'd just find another hobby.
>>1365709
Philosophy
>>1366669
>every
Nice mental gymnastics. Let's imagien for a second that piracy was flat out impossible. Never mind the method.
Would you buy every game/movie/piece of software that you would normally pirate? Fuck no.
You'd still end up buying SOMETHING because you want some of those products, and you know enough that you can afford the things you want the most.
As it stands it is impossible for me to download a fully functional car off of TPB, so I had to buy my car. If it was possible to download a car I would be driving a Ferrari instead of a beat up Toyota.
