• dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m willing to pay for it, but I’m not allowed to do so

    For example, Amazon/MGM still don’t allow me to pay to watch Stargate

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Then you don’t get to ingest it. “I want it” isn’t any more of an argument than if it was a physical item.

      For me, personally, piracy in this case is justified and can even serve as preservation of art. But to pretend that people are somehow entitled to it is childish.

      Edit: If Stargate was the only thing you were pirating, you might have a point but let’s be honest… it’s not. People don’t pirate one show because they can’t watch and the subscribe to a piracy forum.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Says the “free market a-holes” I mentioned in the comment you replied to… In this case, they’re also right if we’re being honest and acknowledging that piracy is depriving the creator of income for their work.

          • TheSaneWriter@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In most cases the creator doesn’t hold the IP anymore, they signed it over to the platform. I don’t think it’s cool to pirate indy games when you can afford them because in that case the money is genuinely being withheld from the content creator, but in a lot of cases depriving Amazon of $5 for a TV show isn’t going to impact anyone.

            • FactorSD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s more complex than that - You aren’t wrong, but there’s a lot more going on. Almost anything made by an employee as part of their job belongs to the company. If Amazon licences your work to make something based on it, that’s one thing, but if you are a jobbing writer who gets assigned to develop a new series, Amazon will own everything. You get paid in your salary, not in royalties. And, frankly, a lot of creatives are quite happy with that arrangement (since it’s so rare to make money at all).

              And that’s why it’s… Odd. Because the “creator” is some dude who has already been paid; literally has received his salary. But the performance of his show does impact him, at least to some degree. Low ratings don’t mean he gets paid less, but it means he’s unlikely to earn more in future.

              • dustojnikhummer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                who has already been paid; literally has received his salary. Not if they are paid royalties based on how much income that thing generates