Devil's Advocate: Many pirates would have not paid for access to that media so to say it takes away from the creators profit isn't exactly true since one act of piracy does not equal one lost sale.

Devil's Advocate Part II: There is s significant amount of research that supports the notion that pirates actually spend more money on media than the average person.

I personally am an example of part II. I pirate a lot of music but I refuse to use Spotify because of how little it pays artists and I have also spent significant amounts of money buying music from artists I enjoy via Bandcamp or buying from the artist directly because I know they get a bigger cut of the profits that way.

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.

Piracy is somewhat similar to vigilantism to me. My ability to consider it a negative is directly related to how fair I consider the legitimate methods available to be.

If similar efforts were focused on consumer protection laws as we do IP protection, I don't think pirates would have much leg to stand on, and they'd be seen in more of a negative light.

But since consumers are regularly fucked by corporations, all I see is two sides both doing bad shit and I'm not feeling all that charitable for the faceless megacorp. I also dislike pirates who pirate from small time creators. But that's about as far as I can care given the state of things.

We should be focusing on stronger consumer rights to truly fix the problem for all sides.

having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data.

According to who?

This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.

It does though, since no harm is being done.

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.

They also don't receive profit from not copying, unless there's a purchase made. By your logic, watching something on Netflix or listening to it on the radio is actively harmful to creators, which I think most people can admit is absurd.

but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data.

You made this assertion, but don't really back it up. If you were correct here, being able to copy cassette tapes or burn cds would have killed the music industry decades ago. Piracy is the original grassroots promotional method.

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.

That's a separate argument and doesn't relate at all to the supposed financial harm.

They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.

That's a loaded assertion. If I sing a song right now, what am I entitled to be paid for it? And you're ignoring that most of the "work" of being a musician (in most genres at least) is playing live performances, the experience of which cannot be pirated.

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

I don't think it's definite at all. Most of what musicians make these days is from merch and ticket sales, which piracy contributes to by bringing in new fans.

Adding on to say: no. It doesn't cost the creator anything when a pirated copy is made. They potentially miss a sale, but if their item wasn't in a store where someone may have made a purchase you wouldn't call that actively harmful, right?

In addition, most media the creators don't actually make money from the profit. Most of the time they're paid a salary, maybe with a bonus if it does particularly well. The company that owns the product takes the profit (or loss), not the actual creators.

Also, a lot of media isn't even controlled by the same people as when it was made. For example, buying the Dune books doesn't give money to Frank Herbert. It goes to his estate.

Corporations profiting from copyright laws they helped write deserve to have their profits stolen in any case. Not gonna lose any sleep over it.

So a little more in depth:

So, a little more in depth:

Im poor as fuck. So the option isnt 'buy/pirate' its 'pirate or get nothing'. Fuck you if you think i should live without art.

The artists generally do not recieve profit when a copy is streamed/sold. It simply is not done; their unions are too weak. This is blatant corporate propaganda.

The entire mechanism to do that is fucked anyway, even if it were hooked up to something. I'm sorry, but i wouldnt deal with that shit show for free. Even new releases or classics have to be hunted down like cult films, and then even if i buy them, i lose them at some arbitrary later date. Music was the last thing i tried to pay on, and i just could not keep a cohesive collection together-at this point, if it's not on bandcamp, i assume the artist doesn't want money. And even bandcamp has disappeared tracks i paid for, reducing me to local backups. So fuck em.

I'm sorry. I really would love to support art and artists, but it simply isn't possible to do that systemically within capitalism. There is no clear systemic option. Just ways to lick corporate boot and waste your fucking time.

although

I bet i do actually pay artists-cast crew and musicians at least-more than you do. When i dine out, rare as that is, in los angeles, i tip ~30% in cash. So i am actually supporting the arts, while you, my boot licking friend, are not. Youre supporting the corporate ghouls who feast upon them.

The people who make shit normally dont get paid anyway.

The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied.

No, they're not. Not earning more is not the same as losing what you already have.

Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways,

Yet studies have shown the opposite happens.

content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies

Does your granny know what a torrent is?

not to pay for the data, which is not what the ~~creator~~distributor wanted in creating it.

There, FTFY

it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.

Oh no! Not the distributor's profit!! Oh holy Supply Side Jesus, I pray in your name- protect the profits of the Capitalists. Take the money I worked hard for and give it to the do-nothing rich, they clearly deserve it more than me. Amen

This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.

"Financial harm" is a loaded term. People expected to make money and then didn't, but is that a bad thing?

What if the US president declared that it is now a legal requirement that every American subscribe to a new paid tier of Facebook, and that declaration was rubber stamped by the lawmakers. Anybody who didn't capitulate would be doing "financial harm" to Meta, but is that really a fair way to frame that? If a bully wants your lunch money and you resist, are you doing "financial harm" to the bully?

The way I see things, the initial copyright laws were a relatively fair trade: a 14 year monopoly on something, that could be renewed for another 14 years if the author was still alive. In exchange, everything after that term became part of the public domain. So, it would encourage people to produce writing, and the public would benefit because a reasonable amount of time later what was produced would be available to everybody at no cost. Modern copyright terms are a massive give-away to Hollywood, the record labels, etc. So, while it's true that infringing copyright does reduce the potential amount of money a copyright holder might hope to receive, morally it's closer to fighting off a bully than it is to theft.

It's not my fault if somebody makes content at a loss and isn't able to recuperate their losses. It happens all the time, sucks for them. I mean that earnestly by the way, though it sounds callous -- it really does suck for them, and I feel bad for artists who can't turn a profit.

However, I just don't agree with you that "objective harm" is done when one pirates media. If this were true, you must admit that it's equally objectively harmful to the IP holder for one to not consume media at all. I just don't see how you can square that.

the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire

Also, the person deciding whether or not they "would have" paid for it, has a strong incentive to kid themselves that they wouldn't. Imagine if cinemas worked that way, and you could just walk in and announce that you weren't going to buy a ticket anyway and since there's a seat over there still empty it's not going to cost them anything for you to sit in it. They'd go out of business by the end of the week.

Also also, either the thing you're copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn't. If it's of value, then it's reasonable to expect payment for it. It's it's not of value, then you shouldn't miss not having it.