this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
4611 points (99.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
374 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then you don’t get to ingest it. “I want it” isn’t any more of an argument than if it was a physical item.

For me, personally, piracy in this case is justified and can even serve as preservation of art. But to pretend that people are somehow entitled to it is childish.

Edit: If Stargate was the only thing you were pirating, you might have a point but let’s be honest… it’s not. People don’t pirate one show because they can’t watch and the subscribe to a piracy forum.

[–] dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you don’t get to ingest it

Says who? You? MGM?

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Says the “free market a-holes” I mentioned in the comment you replied to… In this case, they’re also right if we’re being honest and acknowledging that piracy is depriving the creator of income for their work.

[–] thesanewriter@vlemmy.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In most cases the creator doesn't hold the IP anymore, they signed it over to the platform. I don't think it's cool to pirate indy games when you can afford them because in that case the money is genuinely being withheld from the content creator, but in a lot of cases depriving Amazon of $5 for a TV show isn't going to impact anyone.

[–] FactorSD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's more complex than that - You aren't wrong, but there's a lot more going on. Almost anything made by an employee as part of their job belongs to the company. If Amazon licences your work to make something based on it, that's one thing, but if you are a jobbing writer who gets assigned to develop a new series, Amazon will own everything. You get paid in your salary, not in royalties. And, frankly, a lot of creatives are quite happy with that arrangement (since it's so rare to make money at all).

And that's why it's... Odd. Because the "creator" is some dude who has already been paid; literally has received his salary. But the performance of his show does impact him, at least to some degree. Low ratings don't mean he gets paid less, but it means he's unlikely to earn more in future.

[–] dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

who has already been paid; literally has received his salary. Not if they are paid royalties based on how much income that thing generates

[–] FactorSD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Royalties is part of the music business. In TV, everyone gets paid per episode.