You're viewing part of a thread.
You're talking about supply and demand for intangible products. That means that you're either being intentionally obtuse about the fact that intangibles aren't affected by supply and therefore can't be bound to it or you're being dishonest about the argument from the start. No one is talking about slavery. No one mentioned it. You're mischaracterizing what I said so that you can dismiss it because it invalidates the argument you've attempted to make.
And now you've confirmed that you're being dishonest because I've said far more than "that's just the way it is". I've provided the logic behind the argument and the evidence for why it is stealing and even prefaced the argument with the clarification that I am not against piracy and that I believe that there are situations in which case it may be justified and even beneficial. You ignoring that is why I know you're being dishonest and why this third point is justified.
I'm not saying that because I don't like your reasoning. I'm saying it because what you've said has no bearing on the point I'm making nor is it in any way an argument against what I'm saying. You're arguing something else entirely which means it's irrelevant to the point I'm making and therefore unnecessary to address or even validate.
No one is talking about slavery. No one mentioned it.
Maybe you're just confusing terminology, but traditionally 'supply' is referring to 'supply of a commodity', as in 'supply and demand' economics. I took -'The supply is the creator, not the product that the creator made'- to mean the creator is the commodity you're paying for and not the product, but maybe i've misunderstood your point.
That means that you’re either being intentionally obtuse about the fact that intangibles aren’t affected by supply and therefore can’t be bound to it or you’re being dishonest about the argument from the start.
Actually I think I was being generous, you seemed to be talking about economic properties of price and value since you were implying that a digital product's 'price' was determined by your willingness to pay for it (i.e. demand). That's how our market works now, and I was pointing out that the nature of digital media is that the supply is theoretically unlimited so market price would be zero without an artificial restriction in supply (i.e. withholding access in order to justify a price). Maybe you really don't know what you're talking about here, but honestly it's hard to tell anymore. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you're arguing that creators should own and control access to their work so that they can extract their price from it? If that's the case, then I'm saying that ownership and artificial restriction to the access to that work is literally what makes that possible. You've alluded to as much when you say that piracy is stealing; by circumventing that restricted access you're denying the price the creator is demanding? It is directly relevant to the point you're trying to make.
I’m saying it because what you’ve said has no bearing on the point I’m making nor is it in any way an argument against what I’m saying. You’re arguing something else entirely which means it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making and therefore unnecessary to address or even validate.
Maybe you should put your argument in precise terms, so it's impossible for me to misunderstand then?
maybe i've misunderstood your point.
Yes, you have. Creators/artists/producers exchange their time and talent for something - whether that's money or something else that they gain as a result. Their time and talent are the scarce "supply" that would normally be "supplied" in your argument. It's not slavery to exchange your time/effort/labor/creations in exchange for money or another commodity. That's literally how jobs work.
I think you're just overextending my point to give yourself something to argue against. All I am saying is that creators deserve to be paid for their work (if that's what they're asking in exchange for that work) and that, if people are pirating that work, then it means they find some value in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have put my argument in precise terms but you're just ignoring it and arguing something else entirely.
I think you’re just overextending my point to give yourself something to argue against. All I am saying is that creators deserve to be paid for their work (if that’s what they’re asking in exchange for that work) and that, if people are pirating that work, then it means they find some value in it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And I'm saying they should be paid for their work, not for exclusive access to it.
Who should they be paid by, then, if not the people who want access to that work?
Remove all your preconceptions about distributors and production studios and whatever other justifications you've used to condone piracy. At what point is it ok to not pay for an artists work? Is it ok if they're just a single person and you're taking it from them without paying? Is it ok if they work for a studio and you take it without paying the studio? Or is it ok if Amazon or someone else paid to have it made and is distributing and marketing it? What's the cut-off where it's ok and where people do deserve to get paid vs. where they don't deserve to get paid?
I'm not taking anything from them, they spend their time on the work and then relinquish the product of that work at the time and price of their choosing. By the time that work gets to me, the artist will have extracted a price for the work and whoever received it from them would have paid it. An creator doesn't possess the less by their work being copied.
Remove all your preconceptions about distributors and production studios and whatever other justifications you’ve used to condone piracy. At what point is it ok to not pay for an artists work? Is it ok if they’re just a single person and you’re taking it from them without paying? Is it ok if they work for a studio and you take it without paying the studio? Or is it ok if Amazon or someone else paid to have it made and is distributing and marketing it? What’s the cut-off where it’s ok and where people do deserve to get paid vs. where they don’t deserve to get paid?
Copying is not taking. Copying is not taking. Copying is not taking.
Artists starve and loose their houses now, in this system, even absent any piracy. Who is to blame for that injustice? Is art only valuable if it can be profited from? Let's not pretend that the market has ever meant to favor artists. What harm has been done to the Da Vinci by my viewing the Mona Lisa from online, if I sneak into a ballet at intermission that I couldn't afford otherwise? What harm has been done to a baker if I take a loaf of bread from their trash?
We encourage waste and exclusion because our system depends on it, not because it's ethical or justified.
Who should they be paid by, then, if not the people who want access to that work?
We all should pay for it. We produce gratuitous surplus, we can provide the means of living to everyone without concern for exchanging it for labor. Art has always been a product of surplus time, even before agriculture. That work has always had value, and it has always been done freely. We should be celebrating the marvel of technology that allows infinite access to all our creative work, not crippling it with legal battles and accusations of theft.
they spend their time on the work and then relinquish the product of that work at the time and price of their choosing
...to the people who have paid for that work.
An creator doesn't possess the less by their work being copied.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, you'd have to pay for it. Without paying for it, you would't be able to consume it.
Copying is not taking.
The media itself is not what's being stolen. It's the income being stolen by ingesting/consuming the media. If you don't pay for it, you don't consume it unless you steal it.
Is art only valuable if it can be profited from?
I have never made that argument nor that point.
What harm has been done to a baker if I take a loaf of bread from their trash?
You didn't pay for a loaf of bread. This is disingenuous anyways because bakers bake their goods in order to get paid for them.
system depends on it, not because it's ethical or justified.
An entirely different argument than what I'm making. A different system that what we live in doesn't exist currently so that entire argument is meaningless and piracy doesn't somehow magically bring about that other system.
We produce gratuitous surplus, we can provide the means of living to everyone without concern for exchanging it for labor.
Again with the fantasy. I agree with your fantasy. I would love that. We don't live in a world where people don't need money to survive. Full stop.
An creator doesn't possess the less by their work being copied.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, you'd have to pay for it. Without paying for it, you would't be able to consume it.
This is false. "Pay for it" or "Pirate it" are not the only 2 options available.
This is false. "Pay for it" or "Pirate it" are not the only 2 options available.
What are the other options then?
Again with the fantasy.
It isn't fantasy, we have social programs now, UBI exists now, 4 hour and reduced working hours are happening now.
You are the one insisting that compensation must come from exclusive ownership and consumption, and I've made a very realistic case for an alternative. Dismissing it as fantasy does nothing to prove otherwise.