Piracy, in today’s context of unauthorized sharing of digital content, is wrongly condemned as immoral theft. However, it is not piracy itself that is immoral. Rather, it is the greed-driven laws and practices that censor knowledge and creative works to maximize profits. At its core, piracy is about sharing information and creative works with others, which should be seen as a moral good. 🤑
Do you think people are donating enough money to sustain the families of the instance admins? They obviously have jobs and Lemmy is a hobby or a project for them. They aren’t depending on Lemmy for a living.
That can happen sometimes but expecting the world to work around donations for every piece of software, music or literature is just too naive.
Some instance admins have said that they need to create a monetization strategy because depending on donations isn’t reliable.
I mean, what’s the point of arguing if you have yet decided things cannot be different than how they are now?
There are tons of example of free open source software made by regular employer as a full time job. Tons of example of artist (writers, actors, filmmakers, game developer) that share all their works for free and rely on donations, patreons or other kind of strategy to sustain themselves while keeping access to their art free for everyone.
It’s definitely possible, and it would be incredibly better if whole industries would shift to this and more people would shift from paying/services to other methods of contributing (accordingly to their availability).
Why do you think it can’t be made? What we are going to loose? Million dollars budget movies/videogames? Million dollars marketing campaign? I don’t see how is it a bad things.
Yes, exactly, you would lose the interest of high quality producers and artists that don’t think donations are enough or reliable. Why can’t people put a price on the shit they created? Just because you don’t like the way the system works doesn’t give you the right to dismiss its rules. Imagine if someone violated your fundamental rights because they don’t agree with them in their personal world view.
They created that content BECAUSE they wanted to sell it. If there wasn’t an incentive to sell, they wouldn’t have created it, depriving people of the content anyways.
Keep pirating, I don’t care, but don’t pretend you’re not harming the producers of the content or the industries that feed millions of people. You’re probably also harming legal consumers because companies factor in the losses of piracy and increase prices to match their target revenue.
Yeha, I don’t think an economy based on donations would work because I know how awful humanity is.
Same way people figured out how to exploit capitalism, they’d figure out how to exploit your proposed system…and it is the most exploitable system I’ve heard of. This isn’t paradise, people aren’t singing Kumbaya and holding their hands.
Your proposal is the equivalent of putting a passed out girl and a rapist in a dark room and asking him to please behave. The rapist is humanity and the girl is a donations based economy, in case that wasn’t clear.
There are instances of communities in which communism works, but it never does at large scale. Idealism doesn’t always match reality, specially considering how evil and power hungry humans are.
The problem of capitalism isn’t capitalism itself, it is a decent system. The problem of the system is their users, power hungry and corrupted users. And any system will get twisted as long as humanity doesn’t change its nature.
What’s next? A government that relies on donations instead of taxes? Workers that rely on donations from their employers?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Do you think people are donating enough money to sustain the families of the instance admins? They obviously have jobs and Lemmy is a hobby or a project for them. They aren’t depending on Lemmy for a living.
That can happen sometimes but expecting the world to work around donations for every piece of software, music or literature is just too naive.
Some instance admins have said that they need to create a monetization strategy because depending on donations isn’t reliable.
I mean, what’s the point of arguing if you have yet decided things cannot be different than how they are now?
There are tons of example of free open source software made by regular employer as a full time job. Tons of example of artist (writers, actors, filmmakers, game developer) that share all their works for free and rely on donations, patreons or other kind of strategy to sustain themselves while keeping access to their art free for everyone.
It’s definitely possible, and it would be incredibly better if whole industries would shift to this and more people would shift from paying/services to other methods of contributing (accordingly to their availability).
Why do you think it can’t be made? What we are going to loose? Million dollars budget movies/videogames? Million dollars marketing campaign? I don’t see how is it a bad things.
Yes, exactly, you would lose the interest of high quality producers and artists that don’t think donations are enough or reliable. Why can’t people put a price on the shit they created? Just because you don’t like the way the system works doesn’t give you the right to dismiss its rules. Imagine if someone violated your fundamental rights because they don’t agree with them in their personal world view.
They created that content BECAUSE they wanted to sell it. If there wasn’t an incentive to sell, they wouldn’t have created it, depriving people of the content anyways.
Keep pirating, I don’t care, but don’t pretend you’re not harming the producers of the content or the industries that feed millions of people. You’re probably also harming legal consumers because companies factor in the losses of piracy and increase prices to match their target revenue.
Agree to disagree
Yeha, I don’t think an economy based on donations would work because I know how awful humanity is.
Same way people figured out how to exploit capitalism, they’d figure out how to exploit your proposed system…and it is the most exploitable system I’ve heard of. This isn’t paradise, people aren’t singing Kumbaya and holding their hands.
Your proposal is the equivalent of putting a passed out girl and a rapist in a dark room and asking him to please behave. The rapist is humanity and the girl is a donations based economy, in case that wasn’t clear.
There are instances of communities in which communism works, but it never does at large scale. Idealism doesn’t always match reality, specially considering how evil and power hungry humans are.
The problem of capitalism isn’t capitalism itself, it is a decent system. The problem of the system is their users, power hungry and corrupted users. And any system will get twisted as long as humanity doesn’t change its nature.
What’s next? A government that relies on donations instead of taxes? Workers that rely on donations from their employers?