The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.

Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it. They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.

It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator's/distributor's profit.

[–] tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Cool argument, except a huge quantity of pirated works aren't "owned" by the creator or even a group that funded it, but instead by parasitic companies that abuse capitalistic tools to actually steal value from those creators.

I have thousands of purchased games. 3 categories here:

1: obtained as part of a pack (humble gog etc)

2: purchased AFTER trying out via pirate copy to know if it is my kind of thing

3: picked up early access due to demo or general interest from being a known smaller dev/studio (hare brained for example)

With less and less access to shareware and viable demos, piracy is often the only conduit to prevent me getting ripped off of $80 for something that looks like a shiny sports car but end up being another "buy $800 in dlc for the full story!" Ford pinto.

Additionally, I now flat refuse to fund the likes of Denuvo, and wish that piracy actively hurt the bottom line of companies deploying that kind of anti-user shit.

[+] CybranM@feddit.nu -7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I dislike investors as much as anyone but someone had to fund development. At least until we get UBI

[–] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago

Eh, to an extent. If they are original funders, I agree. But when you have people or groups buying rights to music/movies/tv/etc to claim royalties in perpetuity, especially after the original creatives die, those people can fall into a pit of uncapped rusty rebar.

[–] tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

or even a group that funded it

I noted I'm ok with investors.

I'm against parasitic groups that feed on properties and prevent money getting to the actual dev folks.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Which group would that be then?

[–] tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago

Places that buy other companies to dismantle or lay off large chunks of staff and take over IP with minimal or absent quality to show from it. Just maximize that investor dollar.

Microsoft, Disney etc.

The harm performed far outweighs any investment from a "toward the artists" I see come back.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (51 replies)