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

  • Venia Silente
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time

      And where do you think that money comes from…?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year 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

      • Venia Silente
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          That’s exactly it. Investors. They are not donations. They expect a return on their investments.

          • Venia Silente
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            And such “return” comes after the work, not before. So there’s no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people. Now that would be air-quotes “stealing”!

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And such “return” comes after the work

              And once again, where do you suppose it comes from?

              So there’s no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people.

              How does one “condition wages”?

              Is your argument simply that theft is a-ok 👌 when the person you’re stealing from is wealthy?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year 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)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year 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.

      • Venia Silente
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year 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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Every artist in every field get MAYBE paid a tiny bit upfront, and then a percentage of the sales. That’s how books and music work, for instance