Piracy isn't wrong.
Intellectual property is.
All of human creation is based on previous creation. Drawing arbitrary lines around how ideas can be used serves no-one except for media conglomerates. The only times at which IP law ever seemed reasonable was during the time where it was only enforceable against other corporate bodies. The advent of the internet and the shift of focus towards enforcement against individual private citizens has highlighted enormous contradictions in its application.
> b-but without IP law there would be no incentive to create
IP law does not protect or nurture any human incentive to create. The human drive to create is innate and unkillable, as evidenced by the huge amount of IP-law-breaking creations. IP law serves only to incentivize corporate investment in shitting out the same garbage over and over based on knowledge of a guaranteed return on investment due to name recognition.
> b-but piracy hurts sales
literally every time this has been studied it has been found to be false. Piracy does not hurt sales, people who pirate something are in no way "potential customers." They represent an almost completely distinct group.
> b-but preservation isn't our job, it's the company's
preservation is literally exclusively the domain of us, the public. Companies not only do not have any incentive to preserve non-profitable works and are in fact incentivized against it, whereas the entire foundation of culture is based upon preservation and sharing of our creation. It's the entire point behind the Public Domain, which has consistently been eroded by corporate interests in service of profit-seeking.
It is literally (in the actual, literal meaning of the word "literally") your moral, ethical duty to pirate.
I'm not reading any of that. I will simply refuse to pirate anything and discourage others from doing so.
that's fine, thankfully piracy is its own encouragement and literal decades of campaigns against it have done nothing to dissuade people.
Of course it is, because people think they like getting things for free. They like it even more when they think they're "getting away with" something they shouldn't be doing.
I'm simply concerned with people being properly paid for the things they worked hard to create, protected against criminals that would steal from them.
same.
luckily for all of us, piracy has been shown not to negatively affect these things.
corporations arent entitled to sales, a pirate wouldve never purchased the product in the first place, therefore not being a customer in the first place.
Worry not, you can rest assured nobody's being properly paid whether you pirate or not, the real talents behind your media are almost universally undercut.
based
Based. FPBP
If only someone would discourage you from taking HRT pills
You can't force people to pay for something they don't want to. And copying files isn't hurting the other end in any way. So anti-piracy laws are just arbitrarily bending logic in order to get away with a potential increase in revenue.
It's already been proven that people are going to buy your game if they think it's worth it. Companies just want to squeeze their customer's last pennies. A practice that in my opinion sounds more like what an actual pirate would do.
If there was no intellectual property then big corporations would still use it in their favor.
Someone small (Ex. an Indie Developer) would make an original concept/IP that's legitimately fun and exciting, and then some mega corporation with billions of dollars would pump out some soulless game based on it and throw millions into advertising it. Then the vast number of moronic normies would believe that the mega corporation made the original concept and the small developer is the one ripping off the idea. They'd do that constantly and essentially own all intellectual property through popularity.
Would it prevent you from playing those original works or from them being made? No, but it'd be incredibly infuriating when popularity is what pushes things onto people through search engines or social media. It'd be incredibly difficult to find or even talk about the original works compared to the megacorporation rip offs that would get shoved in your face constantly.
>Someone small (Ex. an Indie Developer) would make an original concept/IP that's legitimately fun and exciting, and then some mega corporation with billions of dollars would pump out some soulless game based on it and throw millions into advertising it.
this is not how that problem would manifest itself, however.
you're thinking of this problem in terms set by how we've organised ourselves under the current system (one which revolves around distinct IP's being the identifiers for products)
This would necessarily not be the case in a system where IP was not the defining aspect of a piece of media, anon. You would simply pay more attention to the creator than to the name of the game itself.
>You would simply pay more attention to the creator than to the name of the game itself
Why?
Who made this song?
>Why?
>Who made this song?
you actually provide the perfect example-case for my argument.
there are dozens of songs in the public domain with innumerable covers.
When you want to find the version you care about, or more music that sounds like a particular version, what do you search for, anon? The artist who sang the rendition you liked. That's it. Focus moves away from the IP protected "title" of the work, and onto the creator. That is why the issue presented by
wouldn't actually be an issue as he presented it.
When the system changes, the identifiers that matter change. Seeing those identifiers as immutable simply doesn't make sense.
The song was made in times where IP wasn't even a thing. No one knows who exactly made it, which proves people didn't focus on "who". People historically always cared about the thing itself.
And still to this day a lot of people who don't really care anyway, think Metallica wrote that song. In the same way Thin Lizzy fans may think THEY wrote it.
as an end user (and dare I say it, consumer) why do you even care who made the product?
To use a food analogy it's like complaining about having a variety of cake
you have the original indie cake, the soulless AAA cake, the rival indie cake, the subversion cake, and you can choose between any and all of them
As a consumer I care because it's more than useful to know another potential future source of enjoyable content. It gives me a better understanding of where I'm putting my money.
But that's not what's important. What matters is that the creator needs to be compensated and motivated to make more content. That might go beyond buyer's responsability, in such a complex system where thousands of people might be envolved on the thing you buy to all sorts of different degrees, and the only way to make sure that happens, while avoiding theft, is to have some sort of neutral entity who keeps track of who does what. That's lincenses. It's a pile of complicated shit because humans are like that.
Laws do more good than harm in this scenario.
didn't this already happened with Candy Crush or Bejeweled? i remember reading somewhere that either of those cell phone games was done with stolen code from some random indie dev who sued the megacorporation because of it
i can't oppose piracy because IPs are with corporations and not the true creators who should get the loot, and corporations are evil, they try to israelite consumers whenever they can, so frick them, i pirate their stuff, steal from the whenever i can and encourage everyone else to do so because it is morally right to steal from thieves
that said, i cannot oppose the existence of IP laws, they are as necessary as the need to rework them so megacorporations can never use them in their favour
>If there was no intellectual property then big corporations would still use it in their favor.
yes, so the question is simply "is IP law as we have it the best tool to fight the issue you describe?"
the answer is, equally simply, no.
>IP law does not protect or nurture any human incentive to create
spoken like an ignorant commie
why would i bother creating Sonic if i can't profit from it?
>b-b-buh you should make vidya as a hobby, not to earn shekkels!
hobbyist devs make the bulk of the broken unfunny shovelware on steam, anything with even a slightly little bit of quality in it was made by someone trying to make a buck
sure, IP laws are fricking broken giving massive corporations like Disney the right to ban hammer kindergartens who pain Mikey on their walls, and they keep loggying to extend the time in which their IP hit popular domain
but if people can't profit from their creations, nor ensure that at least one generation of their descendants can reap the fruits of their parent's labor, then all those with the mind and the will to create will go away to do so in a place that allows them to profit from it
>The human drive to create is innate and unkillable
perhaps, but putting food on the table is more important, and if people can't do so by their "unkillable drive to create", they will dedicate their time to mopping floors, peeling potatoes, scrubbing toilets or anything that gives them bread at the end of the day, instead of dedicating their time to perfecting their "unkillable drive to create"
but don't believe me
ask anyone who has lived under soviet boots if they or anyone else they knew had ever felt compelled to do even slightly more than the bare minimum necessary,
>why would i bother creating Sonic if i can't profit from it?
this already happens every day
but here's a fun thought experiment: even using a single piece of IP, there's been enormous changes in the laws "protecting" it between its inception versus the laws today.
is your argument "IP laws as they currently exist are the only way to ensure that a 'Sonic' can be made?"
if so, this is objectively and immediately false. Sonic was not created under todays IP laws.
is your argument instead "IP laws as they existed at the time of Sonic's creation are the only way to ensure that a 'Sonic' can be made?"
if so, because of changes in IP law, we are already living in a world where you have no incentive to create Sonic.
>laws change
point taken, but the OP was not calling for a reform of IP law to wrestle control away from megacorporations, he was arguing in favor of abolishing IP laws altogether
that's like cutting off a whole hand because the tip of a finger got infected
I think that while OP's proposed change is way more drastic, the idea that without IP law people wouldn't create is already disproven by the wealth of culture and creation available to us from a time before IP law of any kind.
And the way I see it with regards to your analogy of the finger, IP law is less an infection and more of a cancer. The solution is, in fact, to cut it off. It has been spreading and expanding like a tumor since its inception.
>he requires time-limited, government-granted monopolies on ideas in order to generate wealth
who's the real commie here
>generate wealth
we are not talking about an expendable consumer product like an apple or a shoe, we are talking about entertainment media that can be plagiarized by talentless hacks
if i invent Tetris and want to sell it, i will sell it in a place where the law will guaranty me that no low effort rip off will get away with stealing my idea
Take Walt Disney (the man, not his company) as an example of the worst and best of IP law
his first character was stolen by israelitelywood and he was left dirt poor because of it, so he made his second character (Mickey) somewhere away from israelitelywood where he could keep the rights and build an empire upon that character, and with that empire he propelled the art of animation further forward than anyone else had before, all because he was allowed to profit from his creation without low effort copycats stealing his potential customers
Government over reach if shit, but without a government, you have corporate overreach
Intellectual property is theft. What I do with my hard drive is my business. You can’t claim some sort of in-absentia control over the arrangement of the filings on those platters. You can’t own data.
based kropotkin reader
Truth
>*hits blunt* you can't, like, own an idea, maaaaaaaaaan
this but actually unironically
Okay, so if you create a game I can shamelessly rip it off and not pay you a dime, right?
Yes.
And you'd be okay with someone else profiting off your ideas and not paying you?
Do pirates actually believe they're not hurting sales by what they're doing? Like, this isn't a meme? Just admit you people want stuff for free.
a better question is "do pirates actually care whether or not they're hurting sales by doing what they do?"
and in my case the answer is a resounding "No!"
That's an obvious answer to a moronic question
It's not my duty to prop up your sales numbers.
if I pirate a game, its because I won't buy it to begin with. how is that hurting sales?
>How's that hurting sales
I won't buy X to begin with because I planned to pirate X from the beginning.
Easiest hypothetical in the world
Pirates are literal Black folk. They break the law just because they can and they only care about their own gratification.
I care about undermining the israelite and his poisonous influence on my nation's legal system.
If you can afford a game, and you choose to pirate it anyway, you're the israelite. That's a israelite move. Trying to get something for free when you can afford to buy it is exactly what a israelite does.
Just because you think the law is stupid, doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. If I think the law forbidding murder is stupid, does that mean I won't go to prison for committing murder?
I mean it literally doesn't
Piracy is illegal and I've been pirating for decades and I've never been stopped and likely never will.
Maybe you should just get better at murder?
Laws are a spook
next you're going to tell me taxation is fine because 'the government gives us like roads and shit (that they also tax you for using LOL)'
>mmmmm oh yes corporate daddy, keep fricking my ass and taking my money no matter how many times you scam me and make a fool out of me