this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
1566 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

56343 readers
2962 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com 13 points 7 months ago (6 children)

the way i see it, on big budget productions anyone who is relying on their paycheck to survive already got paid for their work, and the ones collecting royalties or sales percentages are rich enough that i couldnt care less. smaller independent studios or individual creators are the ones that i will always support, and in cases like itch.io games that are pwyw i will take the free download and figure out how much i will pay based on how much i like the game.

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's Like saying I don't pay rent to the landlord, the house has already been built.

If a society agrees on this being right, no more houses will be built. And no movies will be made.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

If society agrees on something like that then houses will still get built as obviously we've entered the socialist utopia were all waiting for

Capitalist brains stuck on "buh peeps need money or not do nothin"

[–] yum_burnt_toast@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago

well, when reduced to those terms they so seem to be similar concepts but needs and luxuries are not exactly equivalent, not to mention the difference between a tangible possession vs an intangible "experience" which have wildly different relationships, transaction types, and even grey area over what is considered piracy.

also, claiming society has agreed on these exchanges being "right" isnt exactly accurate. society certainly tolerates these exchanges, but to what degree has changed significantly in recent years. theres a good debate over intellectual property ownership, and whether the original idea is more valuable than the creation of the work itself. certain aspects of filmmaking, for instance, are recognized as being more significant to the finished work than some other roles (directors, cinematographers, etc) but the fair compensation of other roles which make no less significant contributions to the relevance of any work is a subject on which society cannot make a fair judgment without knowing the details of every relationship.

in the end, i believe piracy is and should be viewed as an organic market force which should prompt corrections in order to minimize, but due to the nature of the transaction it will never go away.

load more comments (3 replies)