While the study suggests that a significant portion of Reddit content may be influenced by corporate trolls, it's important to approach such claims with a critical mindset. Reddit, like many online platforms, can be susceptible to manipulation, but not all content can be assumed to be the result of malicious intent. It's advisable to verify information from multiple sources before drawing conclusions.For more insights into online content and discussions, visit our website Chat GPT Login. Keep sharing!
Reddit gets shittier by the day. Currently, they’re blocking users using a VPN, they’re trying to force you to either login to read, or to stop using a VPN so they can have even more of your data. Reddit should be burned to the ground, it’s a data-harvesting cesspool, run by a bunch of greedy dickheads. I wish everyone would wake up and leave at the same time, destroy their IPO.
I’m not a Reddit exponent by any means, but I’ve yet to run into an issue using the site on Mullvad at the router level. There’s unfortunately communities there that can offer useful information not easily found by search engines.
Yeah, unfortunate because all that information could easily move here if Reddit users stopped feeding the machine. The site is being blocked intermittently for numerous VPN users, using Proton, Mullvad, Nord etc. They say it’s a code error but it’s clearly trying to force people to use their crappy app, or login with no privacy.
AI does have little to do with it, but we can’t do housing the way people want housing. The land does not exist in sufficient quantity, in the desired areas, without other strings attached (such as private ownership). And it would still take a decade to build it all because there aren’t enough tradespeople in the places where you want the housing built.
This is complete and utter bullshit. We have enough of everything to start solving housing this second. Workers aren’t a problem, locations aren’t a problem. We lack the political will to do it, read: we don’t want to do it. Having “AI” tell you why you don’t want to do it is just wasteful
I won’t argue that AI won’t solve the housing problem. And I agree that we can build a bunch of housing. But it won’t be where people want to live, or it won’t be affordable. I’ve got people in my town screaming for affordable housing. Even with subsidies its hard to get things going when the local municipality is practically bending over backwards. Why? Because it has to be on a bus line. It has to be within walking distance of X services. And all the land that fits those criteria is millions of dollars an acre. Even if you could find them, the contractors can’t find enough qualified, reliable workers at premium rates to service their million dollar home builds. I’m in the industry and I don’t care how much “will power” you have; short of taking land through eminent domain and using it for free, you won’t have anyplace that meets any kind of criteria for livability. Hell, I could go buy 1000 acres just an hour down the road for $1M and put up 10,000 houses that only cost $50k each to build. Thing is, nobody is going to buy them. There is literally no demand, even for cheap housing, that takes an hour drive to get anywhere useful - and if you get closer in, you won’t find land that’s affordable. Heck, by the time I extended infrastructure to them or built it out, it would be 3-4 years before the first resident could move in, and that’s with zero delay on any governmental paperwork.
There’s nothing AI could do to help with that. It’s not a technology issue, it’s purely a political will issue. We could house every single homeless person in this country with no problem whatsoever. Right now. Today. But we choose not to.
Maybe AI could solve it – at least, that’s what Scott Alexander has proposed back in 2014. His idea was that of an AGI that would optimize human life (or the universe itself, I guess) for human values instead of profit or other things that drive the whole Moloch problem he thoroughly describes. I imagine housing would also be solved along the way lol
A shame the writers of the law didn't have good enough knowledge of the underlying technology to mandate not just the USB C connector, but specific USB C standards. The fact that USB C cables are very much "you can't even tell what it does without plugging it in" is a bit of a nightmare.
But on the other hand, there's always changes for further revisions in the future.
And fortunately they made the law future proof. It doesn’t say that “hey, you should use USB-C” but it says “hey, you should use the connector mentioned in Appendix H which is defined by committee R”. That way they don’t need to start over the whole bureaucratic process the pass the law, just ask a committee to reevaluate the tech and they change the appendix. It can be USB-D from tomorrow.
Quick aside, there won’t be a USB D (unless the USB people change their mind yet again), it will be something different from USB. The idea was to have USB A be what you plug on your source and B on your destination and was designed as a way to avoid power surges in the original 1.0 spec because the A side was physically different from the B side you weren’t ever going to plug in something that sends power to something that receives power (basically it prevented users from breaking their devices on accident). USB C changed that with a chip on each cable that handles negotiation before agreeing on a power spec
Honestly I never had a problem with MicroUSB and haven’t really seen a benefit to USB-C for basic charging of devices. I guess some might charge faster, but USB-C is so screwed up that you need a magic mix of cable, charger and device to get more than baseline anyway, it works the same as MicroUSB for me.
I’ve had and seen many a device get ruined when the fragile connector breaks off. Combined with the slower charging, lower speed transfer, one way design that isn’t as obvious, etc.
And yes, I’d rather have lightning over usb-c as at least the lightning cables have consistent standards.
Yeah, thought the same thing, sounds low. Though, there’s plenty of Russian and CCP trolls too, so maybe they’ve pushed out corporations for the lion’s share.
Did the definition of “trolls” suddenly change or is this author just using it wrong? Corporate astroturfing? Sure that makes sense. Corporate trolling? Not sure I get the point of that.
One meaning of the verb ‘troll’ is to misrepresent reality to provoke some sort of reaction. Usually the desired reaction is related to frustration or confusion, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.
Like, there were certainly things that were worth a bunch of points on Game of Trolls that were less connected to making people angry than to getting them to believe you.
Well, the article (at least in the free part… I’m not making an account just to fact check this site) mentions two studies right off the bat and claims that they shed light on the impact of corporate trolls on Reddit.
“Two significant studies, the Pew Research Center study conducted in 2018 and the Computers in Human Behavior study published in 2020, have shed light on the prevalence and impact of corporate trolls on Reddit.”
If you look up these studies, the Pew Research Center has a survey they conduct and although the article claims they interviewed 2500 americans who use reddit the actual study had only 2,002 adults. It was also a study about what sites they used. It had nothing to do with Reddit. In fact, if you switch over to the Detailed Table, Reddit wasn’t even mentioned as a response. pewresearch.org/…/social-media-use-2018-methodolo…
I could not find a “Computers in Human Behavior study published in 2020” that matched the article’s description. I did find a study published by them in 2020 about selfies and body image and especially snapchat. Once again, no reddit. But I can’t say I found the article mentioned.
Then again, I can’t say the articles mentioned exist at all. ChatGPT almost certainly hallucinated this.
Operating a train is not creating a train. And media does not require resources to operate, so nothing is lost when digital media is used by someone without paying.
Bruh, no one in here is arguing about legality, we’re arguing about morality, and no one but corporate shills buy into “potential sales” having value.
You’re trying to argue against what people just fundamentally, intuitively understand; copyright is a legal construct (not a moral one) that is 99% bullshit.
Now you’re the one being obtuse, unless you’re claiming that you’re actually arguing that you can be charged with theft, which you can’t be, because legally, copyright infringement isn’t theft.
Not asking about the morality, asking whether or not the people making this argument on piracy consider jumping the turnstile to be theft, in the most practical sense. Not in an ideal world, but in the real world, would you consider that theft?
A turnstile jumper is also exploiting the products and services produced by offers without paying the cost to use them. Nothing is being "removed" in that situation either.
What would you call taking or using something without paying for it, then? Resources are still being spent to transport the person who has not paid for them.
Nothing that some customer could have bought is removed by jumping a turnstyle.
Nothing? Not even the fuel required to transport the extra weight of somebody who hasn't paid? Not even the wages for the employees who conduct and maintain the trains?
You can argue that the amounts are miniscule, sure. But "miniscule" does not equal "zero".
When you’re paying, you’re not buying the fuel nor are the salaries directly affected by one person is paying for riding a train.
What you’re describing is called “marginal cost” and reducing this is the reason why the economics of any large scale business is actually working. You could argue with these marginal costs, but you’d be entering a completely different model/domain of economics. And no one uses this model which is abstract/non-abstract in any aspect that happens to make your point valid.
I think I figured out the disconnect here. Yes, hopping a turnstile is against the law. It is still not considered theft. It is called fare evasion, and it is more akin to a traffic violation. The reason I was confused, and why I assumed you meant morality, is that nobody is saying piracy isn’t against the law. The article never said that either.
The trains cost money to run so you are using resources you haven’t paid for.
And media costs money to make.
If I wasn’t going to buy it anyway they haven’t lost anything.
If you weren't going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That's the thing, if you're interested enough in a product to want it, then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.
If you streamed it from their servers for free using an exploit that would be stealing, as you’ve actually cost them resources.
How do you think scene groups get their materials in the first place? They just find it on a flash drive on a park bench?
More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do. The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
The data to validate this is scarce, but I'd wager that most rips come from stolen physical media. I don't think there's too many people out there going "I just paid $20 of my hard-earned money for this Blu-ray, so now I'm going to give it away to strangers for free". The whole "paying for something" thing is kinda antithetical to piracy in the first place. But again, there's no real way to quantify this.
So, according to you, piracy is stealing, because it has to be stolen at some point. And the reason that it must be stolen is because it is connected to piracy.
Don’t act surprised if you’re downvoted, if you present your circular logic this plainly.
But not to copy, which is what you are asserting is being “stolen”. No one is claiming that turnstile jumpers are taking away money from train manufacturers. You’re having to mix analogies, because copying something isn’t theft.
You are trying to blur the line between the media/art/music/film, etc, and the reproductions of it.
Artists do deserve to be paid for their work, but artists do not deserve to maintain ownership over the already-sold assets, nor whatever happens to those assets afterwards (like copies made). If you want to say they should retain commercial rights for reproduction of it, sure, but resell of the originally-sold work (e.g. the mp3 file), and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work? Nah.
They didn’t put in labor towards that. To say they did expands “labor” far beyond any reasonable definition.
and non-commercial reproductions from that sold work?
But by this definition then, it should be ok for only one person to buy the item and then just copy and give it to everyone else, and the original author receives payment from a single item?
If it comes from their copy, sure. But streaming proved that people won’t do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.
People only started reverting to piracy when services started cannibalizing access to content and demanding more money than the access was worth.
Most video games don’t contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.
You’re literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.
But streaming proved that people won’t do that if they have a less onerous way to do it, whether it be Spotify or Netflix.
This is true to an extent, but if you would have a legal streaming platform that is free with all the same content then everyone would use that, no? The only reason someone would want to pay for Netflix is to donate to Netflix because they like it. But we all know how small of a percentage that would be. Reason why people use streaming services is that they’re simple and legal, and they are willing to pay for it.
Most video games don’t contain DRM, and can be found as torrents online, and yet video game sales are through the roof.
True. Though literally no clue about how much DRM there is. However, if piracy is fully legal then there would be no reason to purchase the games (assuming they’re as convenient). People are prepared to pay for things that are legal.
You’re literally just rehashing all the tired MPAA/RIAA talking points claiming that piracy would kill music and movies, that never panned out despite piracy always still existing.
Not really. I am arguing against piracy being legal. I am not arguing that piracy in its current form is killing anything.
if you would have a legal streaming platform that is free with all the same content then everyone would use that, no?
Are you suggesting a case in which it’s funded by some billionaire who does not need to charge money in order to cover the cost of hosting? Because if not, we’re back in the “commercial use” territory that I already covered.
If it’s purely hypothetical in order to ask if people prefer free things, then sure, of course people prefer free. But people prefer convenient even more, as streaming shows.
Half the reason piracy took off in the days of Limewire and Napster is because the RIAA actually made agreements with the big music publishers not to sell their music on digital services, in order to prop up CD sales. When iTunes came along, it instantly ate up the vast majority of Limewire/Frostwire/IRC traffic for music.
Are you suggesting a case in which it’s funded by some billionaire who does not need to charge money in order to cover the cost of hosting?
This is a fair point. I doubt anybody would do this, or the monetization would be done through ads which might fall into the commercial aspect? Don’t actually know, but this is already a thing and not something I was really thinking about. Relating to this actually, it would be interesting to know how much licencing fees are in comparison to server costs for the current streaming services.
I was thinking something more like a program that just pulls data from torrents directly, so no need for a central server. Yes, probably not feasible using the current system as everyone would just leech, but maybe one would have to also share things you watch or something. Yes, again, this would complicate things but I don’t think that is necessarily has to. I feel like there has been a service like this (popcorn time or something), I think I used something like this aaaaages ago.
Definitely there would be technical challenges for something like this but to me it does not sound impossible. I just feel like that if something like this system would exist (if piracy were legal), it would completely nuke the cash flow for tons of companies. It would not remove all of it, some people would donate just like they do for open source projects.
At least for me personally, I am willing to pay for stuff in order for it to be legal. Should the need to pay be removed, while keeping things legal, I’d have no incentive to pay. The only incentive would be convenience, but I don’t think there would be any reason for piracy to be less convenient than non-piracy; it’s already more convenient for tons of use cases I’m sure.
When iTunes came along, it instantly ate up the vast majority of Limewire/Frostwire/IRC traffic for music.
Definitely true, just as happened with movies etc when Netflix and the like popped up. However, one can also argue that this was not due to convenience, but due to now there being a legal way of doing things. In reality I’m sure that everyone weighs legality and convenience (and the cost of the service) differently and makes their own decision.
Currently the convenience factor is going down due to enshittification (among other things), while price is going up. I feel like piracy is up but it’s not like I can get a non-biased view from Lemmy (or reddit) and I have not actually looked into it.
It’ll be interesting to see the direction in a few years.
Just fyi what you’re describing is already baked into most modern torrent clients, letting you “stream” the video or music files, rather than downloading.
If you weren’t going to buy it, why would you pirate it? That’s the thing, if you’re interested enough in a product to want it then you taking it for free is a cost to the producer.
I don’t agree with this at all. There are tons of things someone might want to use or have but not enough that they’d be willing to pay for it. Or over a certain amount of money.
The fact is that the person in question is still taking something without paying for it. A sense of entitlement (I want it badly enough that I should have it for free) doesn't change anything in this equation.
Sure, they are procuring something worth money without paying for it. But this is a very different argument than you would not pirate something if you would not also be prepared to pay it.
The origins of any movie you pirate come from theft, full stop.
The origins of most of all western countries’ wealth comes from theft, full stop.
More often than not, scene releases are gathered internally by rogue employees in the studio who took something and distributed it in a way that they were not authorized to do.
That’s only the case for pre-Bluray release content. Most of it was just captured from rips, Amazon Prime or Netflix.
I don’t get this logic at all. Piracy doesn’t take away a possible purchase. There is an assumption that the media downloaded was ever going to be paid for. In 100% of the cases where I downloaded pirated content, I was never going to pay for the product, even if it was available to me by other means. Further I cannot remove a sale from someone when I never possessed the money to pay for it anyway.
I believe most people that pirate cannot afford to buy digital releases or pay for streaming services etc… (not all cases of course). In these situations nobody loses. The media companies didn’t lose anything because I was never going to buy it, and it wasn’t stolen because they still possess the media.
Edit - I agree with you Lmaydev I replied to the wrong comment.
Jumping a turnstile and taking a physical, actually scarce resource is not comparable to duplicating a digital, artificially scarce resource.
The train requires ongoing maintenance and can only hold a finite amount of people. Taking the train seat for free takes away something from another person. Downloading media does not use any ongoing resources, and does not take anything away from another consumer.
Comparing the morality of physical goods to digital goods are not really a good comparison specifically because of the artificial scarcity brought on by making something digital to try to make it more expensive doesn't map to the real scarcity of physical goods.
How much should they be paid for it? In a situation where the streaming services have a stranglehold on the market and are extracting a big amount in rent-seeking price vs actually paying the people who labored to create it, should we continue to pay and give in to their morally dubious tactics? In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?
However much they're asking. They put a price tag on it for exactly this question.
In this lens, can piracy be considered a form of civil disobedience?
Not really. Civil disobedience is about refusing to follow a law, not choosing to break a law. There's a difference between the two concepts; one involves going about your day as normal and ignoring laws, and the other is going out of your way to break a law. Piracy is no more a form of civil disobedience than looting a grocery store is.
Ah, that’s not my understanding of civil disobedience. I prefer this definition: “civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies” (plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/)
I suppose the piracy aspect might not be public enough to count as civil disobedience though, unless you count as public the noticeable cumulative effects of all piracy.
Agreed, and to me the solution is not “let’s hope the companies play nice”, but rather to bring in anti-monopoly regulations, like Canada’s Bill C-56.
We need to force companies to add interoperability, transparency and fairness imho. Like the ongoing fight to force Apple to allow competing browsers in iOS. Or alternate app stores for Android and iOS.
In that case you’re actually using a limited resource: space on a train. And by occupying it you’re preventing someone else from using it (assuming a full train). Copying media doesn’t cost any resources (ignoring the tiny amounts of electricity) or interfere with anyone else’s ability to use that resource.
You’re technicall still using the company’s resources (it costs some energy to run the empty train), so I still don’t think it really compares to piracy.
But since they are miniscule compared to what they are wasting by running largley empty trains I think it’s morally ok in that case.
I don’t like this analogy, because there’s a real, albeit small, cost to the subway of that free ride, in terms of fuel and increased maintenance. Digital piracy has literaly no real cost to the producer except the nebulous “lost sale.”
Digital piracy has literaly no real cost to the producer except the nebulous “lost sale.”
You know that the pirated files were stolen in the first place, right? Movies and video games aren't just sitting out in the open free for somebody to snatch up like apples on a tree. They end up in the hands of scene groups by somebody in the studio taking an unauthorized copy of the product and distributing it.
Lost sales are damages, as demonstrated by the courts hundreds and hundreds of times over now.
Ever heard of “ripping” a disk, a stream, or a download? Movies, series, and video games get paid for by someone who then proceeds to make unauthorized copies, they very rarely come from anyone at the studio.
Lost sales are “legal” damages, which doesn’t mean they’re actual loss of anything, since people who were not going to pay, are worth exactly $0.
It’s different when bootleg copies get sold, since then there is an actual payment that isn’t going to the right person.
Does you license plate say "PRIVATE"? Because this is some real sovereign citizen logic, using definitions of terms that the rest of the world doesn't agree with.
Ever read the message at the beginning of a rip? You know, the one with the FBI logo on it. Remind me what it says?
"people who were not going to pay" is not one singular group, but you use this as if everybody who isn't going to pay is part of the same demographic. Some people won't pay because they don't want it in the first place. Some people won't pay because while they want it, they can't afford it. And some won't pay but will take it anyway because they feel entitled to it.
Painting all these groups with the same brush is disingenuous at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
Many scene groups actually purchased the games and cracked them, I’ve read NFOs that say “buy the game, we did too”.
People recording in movie theatres have to either sneak into the theatre or buy a ticket themselves.
Someone scanning a book to post online had to have bought it or borrowed it.
Yes some games are cracks of illegitimate obtained leaked copies or other unscrupulous methods.
I have played pirated games in the past but my Steam library has thousands of dollars worth of games I bought, many of which I wouldn’t have if I weren’t interested in these type of games to begin had pirating games not been possible.
Sure, the opportunity cost from piracy’s “lost sales” to the publisher/licensor is non-zero. But how many sales that would have happened varies greatly on the perceived value vs. price of the product, and how available it is. If it’s not in stores anymore and can only be bought from scalpers on eBay, the publisher cough Nintendo cough doesn’t see that money anyway vs. pirating it.
I have hundreds of CDs, which are bought and paid for. Tell me, again, how making copies and (hypothically, of course) giving them to friend[1] incurs a direct cost to the CD producer?
Nearly all pirated content was most likely originally purchased once, and ripped. There’s no evidence that much of it is from shoplifted DVDs.
You’re also potentially blocking a seat that could be used by a paying passenger, and the operator will statistically run more/longer trains at higher cost to cope with increased demand.
It should be a free service anyway. Without free public transport, democracy does not exists. Same reason healthcare and education should be. So sure, you are “stealing” a ride - something that should be yours anyway because people are not born with the ability to travel kilometers of cityscapes, something that is now mandatory to survive and thrive.
The employees don’t get paid less if some jumps the turnstile, the fuel cost to carry a single person is completely trivial, and I didn’t say nobody should care about turnstile jumpers. I said its not stealing. If you damage the tracks and cause the train to derail you’re a monster, and there are financial costs, but you still didn’t steal the train. Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
So are you arguing that turnstile jumpers are harming the company, but they are not stealing the service / train / ride? Like the literal word “steal”.
Yes. That is in fact what I am arguing. I would also argue that the harm is tiny and can sometimes be justifiable, depending on the circumstances, but yes. It absolutely does do some non-zero harm, and yes there is no thing being stolen. That is the argument I am making.
I get that the economy we’re in means a bunch of people, like yourself, feel justified in entertaining themselves using whatever means they can afford. I’d be lying if I said I never pirated music when I was a broke highschooler.
But the reality is, if the funding isn’t there, it doesn’t happen. I don’t think DRM is the ethical way to squeeze money out of your audience, nor do I think not compensating people who worked hard to create something you enjoy is the ethical way to consume media.
If you liked it, and you can afford it, pay them a fair price for your experience. Artists are already starving without society having a “copying isn’t stealing” mentality. It doesn’t matter if it’s Netflix, or a busker; you’re not paying them for a physical thing that they hand you, you’re paying them for the effort they went to craft an experience for you.
the money I’d pay to Netflix or Spotify won’t actually go to the artists who worked on the stuff
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you’re not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist’s content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
But they’re always going to take more than they should, that’s just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
Most imortantly: I don’t want to shame anyone for pay/not paying, as I usually don’t know their financial situtation.
Totally agree. I felt I was very clear that I myself pirated when I couldn’t afford to pay, which is consistent with the belief that you should pay what you can afford.
Not enough of the money goes to the artist, but money does go to the artists. If you’re not sure, ask literally any artist who has their content featured on netflix, or any of the other platforms.
Really depends on the industry. E.g for games: The devs were already payed their salary and usually don’t get residuals. Here the money goes to the publisher/studio. As I already said: I pay for the indie games I play singe I want these studios to be able to exist/pay their devs. But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders.
Money also goes to the marketing team, and software developers, and internationalization teams, and all the other people in the chain who actually do have a purpose and make that artist’s content more available to the world than it otherwise would be.
Those people don’t get residuals, but wages. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere. But the animators of a Netflix show I’m watching where already payed. Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
But they’re always going to take more than they should, that’s just called inefficiency, and is where competition can happen. But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen.
I don’t really care for this liberal narrative.
Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
that you should pay what you can afford.
I don’t think people should be ripped off though. Which is what I think is happening with the big platforms.
But the money I’d spend on Call of Duty will mostly go to Bobby Kotick and his shareholders…Yes, the people currently working on stuff that will come out in the future still need wages, but let’s not forget that most of the money I’d pay will go to shareholders.
Yes, more than should, sure, we’re saying the same thing.
And then I said:
But if it’s not generating enough income, the content simply won’t happen…Which is honestly fine with me, lord knows we have too much garbage on these platforms.
To which you responded:
So, people who make that “garbage” don’t deserve to pay their rent? Either be defending the poor workers or be a market extremist. Pick a lane, my dog.
Which is a textbook straw man. And then there’s this gem:
Why are you mad that I call your stuff about “competition” and “inefficiencies” a “liberal narrative”? That’s what the liberal market economids are supposed to be. How did you interpret it exactly?
You ever find yourself in a discussion where it is abundantly evident that the other person is too ill-equipped to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, but also openly obstinate and reductive in the face of anything they don’t understand?
It’s impossible to not be condescending in that situation, I’ve already done it enough, and I’d rather not continue. Cheers.
You make a decent point, but the disconnect between people paying for content and the money going to the people who contributed effort to it is getting wider and wider.
Popular shows that people subscribed for get axed after 1 season or moved to another service. All the work people did for Warner Brothers’ Batgirlgets thrown in the trash so that WB can get a tax write-off, before any movie watcher can even give a cent to them in support.
The point is big studios make so much year after year that pirating their stuff doesn’t make a dent in whether the people they hire get paid accordingly.
But the original creation cost time and money, which you’re not reimbursing the creator for. The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.
It’s like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it’s not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn’t even happen if everyone acted like this, or the organizers would have to pay for it all by themselves.
If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you “bought”. Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
No, because it’s so widespread and natural that it should be expected and already accounted for in the price. But there is no hard line imo, and simplified examples often fail to capture all the aspects that go into the decision. E.g. I’d say paying for one person at a concert and sneaking in another would basically be piracy, even though the two situations are very similar on a surface level.
I think it’s about reasonable expectations both parties of the agreement can have, based on established social norms. If you buy a movie for personal consumption you should be able to expect that you can watch it whenever you want, and also share that experience with friends and family. And at the same time the seller should be able to expect that you limit it to a reasonable number of personal contacts, and don’t start to sell it to strangers or run a movie theater, because that expectation was used to set the price.
That’s bascially the Start Trek future, where everybody’s needs are met and people can just do whatever they want. It doesn’t “cost” anything to create stuff, so it’s fine to copy everything for free. But that’s not the reality we are living in. In our’s somebody has to pay for things, and if everyone pirated everything then things couldn’t be made anymore.
An example where it kinda works is open source software. People don’t charge for copies, because they expect to get help with their work and also be allowed to use other OS software without paying for it. As long as that balance holds it works out fine, but there are a lot of projects that required too much investment from the creator’s and didn’t provide enough back for them to keep going. And even there, companies profiting from OS projects are expected or even required to pay it back, by contributing code and paying for engineers and sponsorships.
To further the thought experiment. I digitize my Blu-ray and put it on a private tracker to share with ONLY my friends. Is that piracy?
Copywrite laws are antiquated at best and need to be destroyed at worst.
If you need more proof look at bullshit like how Paramount+ until recently couldn’t show flagship shows like Picard in Canada because the rights were given to Crave.
So as a consumer I want to go to the owner of the property and I can’t watch it because the owner told me they gave a copy of it to someone else.
The moral thing to do is to pay your share of that if you make a copy, even if the copy itself doesn’t cost anything.
i don’t need to disagree to disbelieve. i do disagree, but without establishing your justification for this claim, it’s kind of hard to argue against it.
The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn’t, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.
I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it’s a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.
Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?
Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?
Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.
your might owe under almost any circumstance, but almost all of them have to drop with a mutually agreed contract or transfer of property. what circumstance do you think created the debt here? and what if someone walks across my front yard bridge? do they owe the engineers too? it’s just silly.
This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.
The law is the “mutually agreed contract”, and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can’t be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it’s on you to contact the owner of the design, and it’s on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.
No it’s not. Why should someone let you stay in a building they payed and/or worked for, without you paying for a share of the upkeep, repairs, insurance etc., and the fact that the building exists in the first place?!
if you feel like rent as it currently exists even vaguely approximates the kind of model you claim you haven’t been paying attention. rent is, at its core, having other people pay for something because you own it. landlords are infamous for not paying for upkeep and repairs. the incentives behind owning property that other people live in lead to bad outcomes for people who can’t afford to own.
I’m talking about rent in principle, not how it is often perverted today. You can make just about anything immoral if you add price gauging and not-fulfilling-contractual-obligations to it. There are a lot of rents with fair prices, e.g. almost everything that’s not housing, but also apartments from social housing or housing associations.
rent doesn’t exist in principle, it exists in practice. and in practice, the history of rent is a history of wealth extraction. if its “perverted” today, it definitely was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. if you aren’t aware, this is a pretty basic leftist thing. if property can be held privately, those who own the property can use that ownership to extract wealth from people who need water, food, and shelter, but do not themselves own property. they can use that extracted wealth to buy more property, depriving ever more people of places in which to live their lives without paying somebody else for the privilege. and so on. thus “private property is theft”.
in any case, rent isn’t an uncontroversial example of how to fairly pay people who do things. rent is deeply political, and has been for most of modern history. it isn’t just common sense that we ought to allow people who own things to make money off that ownership, that’s a political statement, and one that should require some justification, considering its material impact on poverty, homelessness, and the accumulation of wealth.
rent doesn’t exist in principle, it exists in practice. and in practice, the history of rent is a history of wealth extraction
This is a completely useless stance when you want to figure out if rent itself is morally good or bad.
There are a lot of instances of rent today that are completely fine. For example, my parents rent 2 rooms of their appartement to university students, and they just ask for a share of the costs they have, proportional to the size of the rooms. That is rent, but free of other influences like profit maximization, and all parties seem to be very happy with the arrangement. Or if you rent a tool or car from a local company, you’ll pay mostly for a share of the acquisition and repair costs, and a bit on top so the owners and employees of the company can keep the lights on. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this form of rent.
If you’re saying that rent + limited supply + capitalistic profit maximation + corruption is a problem, then I absolutely agree with you, but it would be false to blame that on the rent part of that equation. And I would definitely not go as far as saying that private property in general is bad, expecially not very limited private ownership like a person owning the house they live in or part of the company they work for. Too much concentration of ownership is a problem, not the concept of ownership itself.
This is a completely useless stance when you want to figure out if rent itself is morally good or bad.
hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be. if we are only figuring out whether it would be good in principle, we’re failing to recognize whether that principle is actually founded on actual observable fact. and the observable facts say that rent has always been a potent tool for capitalists to extract wealth from people.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about this form of rent.
also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project. what does the necessity of rent for students do in practice? well, the extra costs involved in having to rent space on the market in order to go to school structurally disadvantages marginalized students. students whose parents can cover the rent are able to maximize their time learning, take advantage of more extracurriculars, or save the money they make from a job for themselves, while students who can’t have to live in their cars, take jobs to cover costs, or just not get the education they want. the scale of the problem is smaller, but the nature of the problem is the same. those who have not must give their money to those who have in order to have a place to live.
lets just go through this. the supply of available property will always be limited. capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. corruption implies a system not working as intended. capitalism is intended to maximize profit, capitalism requires private ownership, resources are always limited, and rent requires private ownership. you might as well just say “private property + the limitations of a finite universe + private property + the incentives of private property is a problem”. i’m kinda joking, but not really.
And I would definitely not go as far as saying that private property in general is bad, expecially not very limited private ownership like a person owning the house they live in or part of the company they work for. Too much concentration of ownership is a problem, not the concept of ownership itself.
this is a problem of terminology. generally when socialists or other lefties are talking about private property, they’re talking about land and the economic abstractions of land ownership. socialist politics makes explicit distinctions between personal property and private property. i hear this argument alot, honestly, and if you find yourself making it as an argument against criticisms of private property more than once, i’d just recommend learning a bit more about what socialists believe, because its kind of just talking past what we think the problem is, and how we propose to solve it (democratically, instead of at the whims of rich folks).
you’ve talked about corporations a couple times, so i do wanna just say that those aren’t necessarily reasonable structures in and of themselves. it isn’t a given that the owners of a corporation should earn a profit, or that owning shares in a company is something beyond critique. there are more democratic organizational structures that don’t concentrate power towards those who have the most stuff.
hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be.
I don’t get why you keep trying to spin this as some sort of fairytail. Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. If your car is broken you don’t just throw it on the scrap yard, or even declare cars in general non-functional. You look inside and figure out which part is the problem. And you can attribute the failure of the car to one part and declare the others functional, even if you’d never see those parts driving alone on the highway (although I gave you examples of that for rent). This is not a matter of facts vs fiction, this is about keeping separate things separate and not mixing things up, correlation vs causation and stuff.
also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project […]
That’s not an argument against rent, that’s an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as it’s also a thing people pay money for.
lets just go through this […]
There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin.
Resources are not always limited, not in an economic sense. If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially “unlimited”, in the sense that you’d probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. Owning a house also has costs attached to it, and you’d probably have a hard time covering those costs with earnings from rent in this case. People owning property in places no one wants to live in can attest to that.
Rent doesn’t require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and that’s actually pretty common.
The rest is a gross oversimplyfication of the matter, as well as a logical error. You argue that X is in the equation, X requires private property, ergo private property is the problem. That’s just wrong, or at least not compelling. As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.
And uhm … the universe is infinite as far as we know, but that’s another discussion entirely.
this is a problem of terminology
Ok, could be that we mean the same thing. I personally think that a certain level of private ownership is necessary in order to establish responsibilities and solve disputes. E.g. if I own my house then I get to decide what to do with it, but I also have to be the one to take care of it. That might be what you’re calling personal ownership, while I’d just say that’s private ownership within healthy limits.
Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. […]
that isn’t my point. my point is that rent has always existed within unjust systems, and is itself a tool for those systems to accumulate wealth. if we’re taking gears out of a meatgrinder and trying to identify just how much that gear contributes to the problem of grinding people into meat, we’re missing the point. in practice, the system in which rent operates is built to deprive people of resources. but even then your framing is not agreeable to me. we aren’t talking about a machine, we’re talking about a complex socio-cultural phenomenon that developed organically over generational time spans. the idea that we could even rip the word “rent” out of the context it exists in and get anything worthwhile out of analyzing it like that is not reasonable to me. like, cultures and economies don’t have parts like an engine do, they have trends and policies and outcomes, and those things can’t reasonably be reduced to cogs in a machine.
That’s not an argument against rent, that’s an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as it’s also a thing people pay money for.
you’re doing the thing again. separating rent out from the system its built into and analyzing it only as the act of exchanging currency for housing itself. i’m trying to engage in a systemic critique, not a stubbornly isolated look at a single piece of a larger whole. the problem of students “having different means” is not the point. you have to look at the larger picture. on a population scale, how does the requirement to pay your resources into the pockets of wealthier people for basic housing affect a society?
rent is, in the case of the university student, a material obstacle towards getting an education. those who do not have money or home ownership are more likely to be denied an education as a result, and will have less access to money making opportunities in the future. the money they could have been saving for themselves goes into the pockets of richer (whiter) people, so they are less likely to be able to pass on money they make during their lifetime onto their kids. non-white people are much more likely to be renting than white people, and that is historically because non-white people were restricted from home ownership in the past, and were not able to build the kind of generational wealth that comes from home ownership. rental arrangements reinforce existing social stratifications by providing the means by which the wealthy (and white) can continue to extract resources from the poor (and brown), as they have done for generations past.
like… sharecropping was rent, and its sole purpose was to explicitly ensure that freed slaves continued to provide wealth to their former masters. the actual observable impacts of rent are to transfer wealth from people who have no resources to those with resources to spare.
[…] If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially “unlimited”, in the sense that you’d probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. […]
i was being facetious. my point was more that these factors you seem to think are separable are interlinked. just as a wake up call, there are currently more houses than people wanting to live in them. there are many multiples of houses left unoccupied for each homeless person in the United States, and the price of housing hasn’t done the thing you’re saying it would. instead, homelessness is increasing as landlords continue to raise rent, and the prospect of owning a home is becoming more and more out of reach for more and more people.
Rent doesn’t require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and that’s actually pretty common.
there is a rabbit hole i could go down about this, but i don’t really wanna. my position is relatively simple. housing is a human right. putting literally any barriers up that prevent people from getting a place to stay are wrong. imposing extra financial burdens onto the people who have the least money is wrong. rent is such a burden, even for public housing. nobody outside the people who live on the land should have ownership over the land, not wealthy folks, not the state. housing co-ops, self-governance, that is what we should strive for.
As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.
i don’t really know how to respond to this. air isn’t a socioeconomic phenomenon with a proven history of driving wealth inequality? it doesn’t interact with race and class in ways that structurally disadvantage people who are poor and brown?
And uhm … the universe is infinite as far as we know, but that’s another discussion entirely.
lol. disagree, but fine, ill be less hyperbolic. “the parts of the universe we can build houses on currently are finite.” is that better?
That might be what you’re calling personal ownership, while I’d just say that’s private ownership within healthy limits.
i’m just gonna end with this: i’m not prepared to expand upon the exact shape of why i think you’re wrong, and why i think your rebuttals fail to provide a compelling challenge to the ideas i’m trying to convey. (that is not to say there aren’t compelling challenges to socialist ideas, there certainly are.) i used to hold a very similar position. the idea of doing away with private property once seemed ludicrous to me. then i actually engaged with socialist and anarchist arguments for why they believe the things they believe, and i found them compelling. i’m not saying you will too, but i am saying that the reasons i believe these things are knowable and there’s plenty of media out there that explains it better than i ever could.
Ok so, if you’re not willing or able to separate different ideas and concepts, then this discussion makes little sense imo. Drowning a very specific question in your ideology is not the way to actually get a good and truthful answer.
Thanks anyway for your time and effort, have a good one!
Eh, can’t win em all. I will say, just as a parting thought, the things you’ve been saying are also ideological. Believing clean separations between ideas and concepts are possible, appealing to existing systems as a way of validating the moral rightness of other systems, even believing that there is an objective “good and truthful answer” is an ideological position. I’d say one of the more pernicious ideological positions a person can take is to believe they do not have an ideology. It makes it very difficult to think about or discuss why you believe the things you believe.
It depends on the system. In taxes, yes. Use isn’t tied to paying. In consumer goods and services, they are not paid by taxes. So they do have a direct use/buy causation.
people make things all the time without being paid.
Less people make things without being paid than those who make things to get paid. That is a common fact we can both agree on. If you need the number of open source games compared to the number of paid games then I recommend you grab those numbers yourself.
You are equating someone’s terrible hobby project to paid games like it’s 1 to 1. You are simply arguing in bad faith. Have a good day though, hopefully, one day we can converse properly.
Yes, because there is a basic assumption. Those projects aren’t consumer-facing games. Those are hobbies. You know it and you are simply arguing in bad faith. I know actual game developers who released their games for free or under a pay-what-you-want model. They refuse to do so again because they can’t support themselves by doing it. I am a game developer and I won’t release my games for free because I need to support myself. There is all the data you need. Find me other data saying otherwise.
I know actual game developers who released their games for free or under a pay-what-you-want model. They refuse to do so again because they can’t support themselves by doing it. I am a game developer and I won’t release my games for free because I need to support myself. There is all the data you need.
It’s like going to a concert without paying the entrance fee. Sure it’s not a big deal if only one person does it, but the concert couldn’t even happen if everyone acted like this
That’s a systemic problem, something I wouldn’t personally care about. The “system” is just so horribly screwed up and skewed against us that I just no longer care if it works or not.
If you want to morally justify piracy then start with the ridiculous earnings and monopolies of big media companies, or the fact that they will just remove your access to media you “bought”. Piracy is like stealing, but sometimes stealing is the right thing to do.
This rubs me the wrong way too, yes. Though I’m really beyond moral justifications, I just stopped caring.
This points out to me that I don’t think I understand how Lemmy works. Why aren’t comments on this exact post on a different server coming through to this comment section?
I don’t. Bezos and Musk are both terrible, even if I would say Bezos is worse. For just tech it would probably be Musk? But who knows, Altman and his shenanigans are also a frontrunner for me.
Just tech, clearly Musk. I’d argue Peter Thiel is the worst among the others for direct political influence, but that wasn’t the question and name recognition is everything.
I just know Thiel as an influence for major tech companies, and some of his opinions on eg monopolies. Outside of those companies I don’t know any example of political influence. Do you have some?
Old news, but this is what I’m thinking of: “By February 2022, Thiel was one of the largest donors to Republican candidates in the 2022 election campaign with more than $20.4 million in contributions. He supported 16 senatorial and congressional candidates, several of whom were proponents of the falsehood that there was significant voter fraud in the 2020 election. Two of said senatorial candidates (Blake Masters and J. D. Vance) were also tech investors who had previously worked for Thiel.” – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Political_views…
technology
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.