I get that the economy weāre in means a bunch of people, like yourself, feel justified in entertaining themselves using whatever means they can afford. Iād be lying if I said I never pirated music when I was a broke highschooler.
But the reality is, if the funding isnāt there, it doesnāt happen. I donāt think DRM is the ethical way to squeeze money out of your audience, nor do I think not compensating people who worked hard to create something you enjoy is the ethical way to consume media.
If you liked it, and you can afford it, pay them a fair price for your experience. Artists are already starving without society having a ācopying isnāt stealingā mentality. It doesnāt matter if itās Netflix, or a busker; youāre not paying them for a physical thing that they hand you, youāre paying them for the effort they went to craft an experience for you.
the money Iād pay to Netflix or Spotify wonāt actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If youāre not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artistās content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
But theyāre always going to take more than they should, thatās just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if itās not generating enough income, the content simply wonāt happen.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
Most imortantly: I donāt want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually donāt know their financial situtation.
Totally agree. I felt I was very clear that I myself pirated when I couldnāt afford to pay, which is consistent with the belief that you should pay what you can afford.
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If youāre not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually donāt get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money Iād spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artistās content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
Those people donāt get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show Iām watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but letās not forget that most of the money Iād pay will go to shareholders.
But theyāre always going to take more than they should, thatās just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if itās not generating enough income, the content simply wonāt happen.
I donāt really care for this liberal narrative.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
So, people who make that āgarbageā donāt deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
that you should pay what you can afford.
I donāt think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
But the money Iād spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholdersā¦Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but letās not forget that most of the money Iād pay will go to shareholders.
Yes, more than should, sure, weāre saying the same thing.
And then I said:
But if itās not generating enough income, the content simply wonāt happenā¦Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
To which you responded:
So, people who make that āgarbageā donāt deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
Which is a textbook straw man. And then thereās this gem:
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about ācompetitionā and āinefficienciesā a āliberal narrativeā? Thatās what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they donāt understand?
Itās impossible to not be condescending in that situation, Iāve already done it enough, and Iād rather not continue. Cheers.
You make a decent point, but the disconnect between people paying for content and the money going to the people who contributed effort to it is getting wider and wider.
Popular shows that people subscribed for get axed after 1 season or moved to another service. All the work people did for Warner Brothersā Batgirlgets thrown in the trash so that WB can get a tax write-off, before any movie watcher can even give a cent to them in support.
The point is big studios make so much year after year that pirating their stuff doesnāt make a dent in whether the people they hire get paid accordingly.
Artists are already starving without society having a ācopying isnāt stealingā mentality.
If labels didnāt take huge chunks of their incomeā¦ with very little return on their part. Guess whatā¦
This actually isnāt a problem with the consumers, itās a problem with the āproductionā side of this equation.
or a busker
A busker doesnāt hold my files I create via video recording on my phone of the āeventā hostageā¦ under threat of lawsuit/men with guns beating down my door and taking all my electronics.
youāre not paying them for a physical thing that they hand you, youāre paying them for the effort they went to craft an experience for you.
No Iām not. Iām paying to own the disc/content. I couldnāt give a damn what āexperienceā they think theyāre creating. But itās in their best interest that the āexperienceā is worthwhile so I purchase the next one.
If labels didnāt take huge chunks of their incomeā¦ with very little return on their part.
That is my point, yes.
This actually isnāt a problem with the consumers, itās a problem with the āproductionā side of this equation.
It is both. Contrary to the simpliatic worldview of Lemmy/reddit circle jerks, more than one problem can exist.
A busker doesnāt hold my files I create via video recording on my phone of the āeventā hostageā¦ under threat of lawsuit/men with guns beating down my door and taking all my electronics.
Again, I donāt think DRM is ethical. I also donāt think being able to afford to compensate someone, and not compensating them is ethical.
Iām paying to own the disc/content. I couldnāt give a damn what āexperienceā they think theyāre creating
You can go buy blank disks for a fraction of the price of ones with content on them.
You will never own their content, they own the copyright, you do not. Even when you purchase a physical blu-ray disk, you would not be allowed to open a theater and start showing it to people. That is because: You. Do. Not. Own. Their. Content. Ever. Youāre only paying for the experience of witnessing it. Just like going to see a play 200+ years ago, just like going to a movie theater today. Youāre allowed to be confused about that, but it doesnāt change reality.
itās in their best interest that the āexperienceā is worthwhile so I purchase the next one.
So you literally do āgive a damnā about the experience. Which is it?
Some countries have a blank media fee on writable casettes, discs and hard drives that are paid to music and movie studios for this purpose.
And yet: Netflix prevents me from recording any of their shows and sharing the recording with my friends and family.
I get that the economy weāre in means a bunch of people, like yourself, feel justified in entertaining themselves using whatever means they can afford. Iād be lying if I said I never pirated music when I was a broke highschooler.
But the reality is, if the funding isnāt there, it doesnāt happen. I donāt think DRM is the ethical way to squeeze money out of your audience, nor do I think not compensating people who worked hard to create something you enjoy is the ethical way to consume media.
If you liked it, and you can afford it, pay them a fair price for your experience. Artists are already starving without society having a ācopying isnāt stealingā mentality. It doesnāt matter if itās Netflix, or a busker; youāre not paying them for a physical thing that they hand you, youāre paying them for the effort they went to craft an experience for you.
Donāt get me wrong: I pay for my indie games and donāt have the time for the so-called ātriple-AAAā crap.
But the money Iād pay to Netflix or Spotify wonāt actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff. Thatās just not how this works.
Most imortantly: I donāt want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually donāt know their financial situtation.
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If youāre not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artistās content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
But theyāre always going to take more than they should, thatās just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if itās not generating enough income, the content simply wonāt happen.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
Totally agree. I felt I was very clear that I myself pirated when I couldnāt afford to pay, which is consistent with the belief that you should pay what you can afford.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually donāt get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money Iād spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Those people donāt get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show Iām watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but letās not forget that most of the money Iād pay will go to shareholders.
I donāt really care for this liberal narrative.
So, people who make that āgarbageā donāt deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
I donāt think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
Yes, more than should, sure, weāre saying the same thing.
And then I said:
To which you responded:
Which is a textbook straw man. And then thereās this gem:
So yeah, I think weāre done here. Bye.
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about ācompetitionā and āinefficienciesā a āliberal narrativeā? Thatās what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they donāt understand?
Itās impossible to not be condescending in that situation, Iāve already done it enough, and Iād rather not continue. Cheers.
You make a decent point, but the disconnect between people paying for content and the money going to the people who contributed effort to it is getting wider and wider.
Popular shows that people subscribed for get axed after 1 season or moved to another service. All the work people did for Warner Brothersā Batgirl gets thrown in the trash so that WB can get a tax write-off, before any movie watcher can even give a cent to them in support.
The point is big studios make so much year after year that pirating their stuff doesnāt make a dent in whether the people they hire get paid accordingly.
If labels didnāt take huge chunks of their incomeā¦ with very little return on their part. Guess whatā¦
This actually isnāt a problem with the consumers, itās a problem with the āproductionā side of this equation.
A busker doesnāt hold my files I create via video recording on my phone of the āeventā hostageā¦ under threat of lawsuit/men with guns beating down my door and taking all my electronics.
No Iām not. Iām paying to own the disc/content. I couldnāt give a damn what āexperienceā they think theyāre creating. But itās in their best interest that the āexperienceā is worthwhile so I purchase the next one.
That is my point, yes.
It is both. Contrary to the simpliatic worldview of Lemmy/reddit circle jerks, more than one problem can exist.
Again, I donāt think DRM is ethical. I also donāt think being able to afford to compensate someone, and not compensating them is ethical.
You can go buy blank disks for a fraction of the price of ones with content on them.
You will never own their content, they own the copyright, you do not. Even when you purchase a physical blu-ray disk, you would not be allowed to open a theater and start showing it to people. That is because: You. Do. Not. Own. Their. Content. Ever. Youāre only paying for the experience of witnessing it. Just like going to see a play 200+ years ago, just like going to a movie theater today. Youāre allowed to be confused about that, but it doesnāt change reality.
So you literally do āgive a damnā about the experience. Which is it?