But it is though: via the power of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_television?wprov…
Though you could charge for the experience of other sweaty humans, bad ventilation in some cases, and the thrill of potentially being trampled
Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
Cypher@aussie.zone 11 months agoThe performers time is not infinitely reproducible so your argument is apples and oranges.
Coasting0942@reddthat.com 11 months ago
ominouslemon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
But the time to create a novel, a videogame, or a news story is not infinitely reproducible, either. So when you are pirsting one of those things, you are actively reaping the benefits of someone’s time for free, like going to a concert without a ticket
veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 months ago
There’s a difference between the performer’s time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user’s time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.
Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I’m actually paying for something to be made.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
And where do you think that money comes from…?
CybranM@feddit.nu 11 months ago
It just magically appears /s Its disingenuous to try and justify piracy on the basis that the performers have already been paid. I don’t agree with studios either of course, customers are being scammed
veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 months ago
From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.
ominouslemon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
This only applies to cases where the artist/actor/whatever gets paid upfront. Most of the times, that does not happen. The creator of something only gets money when somebody buys what they have created (books, videogames, music, etc)
Katana314@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Even if they were paid upfront, they were paid off the idea that the company could make bank on their (ready yourself for the word in case it triggers): Intellectual Property.
In a future world where people have achieved their wish and the concept no longer exists, companies have no reason to pay creators ahead of time.
veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I can get that they’d not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?
Chobbes@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah, this is the real issue. That said it is a shame and a waste for the results of these efforts to be artificially restricted. I do really hope that one day we can find a way to keep people fed and happy while fully utilizing the incredible technology we have for copying and redistributing data.
ominouslemon@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I mean, we’ve kinda already found a way, and it’s ads. Now it’s obvious that the ad market as a whole is horrible (it’s manipulative, it has turned into spying, it does not work really well, it’s been controlled by just a handful of companies etc), but at least it’s democratic in that it allows broader access to culture to everyone while still paying the creators.
Personally, I would not be against ads, if they were not tracking me. As of now, though, the situation seems fucked up and a new model is probably necessary. It’s just that, until now, every other solution is worse for creators.