What are /g/'s views on piracy? When do you think it's acceptable and when do you think it's wrong? Don't give a fuck? Use free software instead?
I think piracy is fine if the software isn't available to purchase anywhere/in your country.
Post any pictures related to piracy if you have them.
If you put DRM in your software, it will be cracked anyway and you had it coming.
I have no moral problem with pirating something that would be prohibitively difficult to acquire or play in its real form, like games for depreciated game consoles.
When it comes to pirating media that's readily available, I think it's less justifiable. And if you're pirating something that's in a pretty small/niche field where individual sales can be important, you're pretty much a dick.
How about consumer B just decides to forego the game for once or actually, gasp shock horror, wait until the price goes down
It depends how many of the "would have bought it if I couldn't pirate it" guy there actually are. If they are the majority of pirates, then revenue is being lost. If they are very few, it isn't.
This makes a great point about the state of game distribution, but see my first point. If the consumer is unhappy with the terms of the sale, they can refuse and buy something else. Also, OpenBread is probably a shitty half-cooked amateur piece of shit that tastes terrible. Fine if you have absolutely nothing else to eat, but not anything anyone would deliberately buy.
Well the manufacturer isn't completely wrong. People WILL steal(/copy) the bread, and if the protection is effective and unintrusive (as Denuvo seems to be), it might be for the best. (Good point about the DRM though.)
If angry unibrow kid really couldn't have paid the $79, he has a point- no sale was lost. That still doesn't give him the right to clone the object and benefit from the RnD for free, though.
This is incoherent but it sounds like it's basically saying that fan works or other derivatives from established copyrighted franchises should be okay. I agree for the most part but only if they're clearly labelled as such and 100% non-profit.
My points above are not completely consistent because I haven't fully decided my own view yet. Just wanted to point out the issues where I saw them.
I don't pirate much software anymore, as free alternatives can be as good most of the time. But I do pirate media. I'm indifferent to the "moral" aspect of it, and think the guvment should take a more laissez faire approach to it too.
This picture pretty much sums up copyright.
Information is not a commodity. People just can't accept the fact that their "product" has no value, since distributing information is practically free over the Internet, and they don't like the idea that other people can compete providing the same thing for free, and they feel like they're losing something even though they literally aren't in any way whatsoever.
>Also, OpenBread is probably a shitty half-cooked amateur piece of shit that tastes terrible. Fine if you have absolutely nothing else to eat, but not anything anyone would deliberately buy.
more importantly "OpenBread" is not the exact same recipe and production as his bread. They're not taking advantage of work he has done, appropriating nothing but using an alternative.
People devoped/generated that information at a price, with the prospect of generating a profit from that initial investment. If you allow people to distribute said information for free, you are removing the incentive that lead to the delevelopment of the info in the first place.
So why would people waste their time and money financing the development of information if they aren't going to receive anything for it? They'll just invest in developing physical goods instead and so technology as well as intelectual work development will slow to a crawl.
That's a societally unfavourable outcome, and so intellectual property laws exist to induce development, and a societally favourable outcome.
if it has no value, why even pirate it? It's true that there is no economic value for limitless products but it can still have a value for your life/work, hence why the creation of valuable products should be compensated.
But only some information is valuable. 5GiB of my /dev/urandom is not interesting at all, but 5GiB arranged in the shape of Star Wars: TFA in Matroska format would be very interesting.
Those interesting 5GiB can only exist because investors spent hundreds of millions of dollars employing hundreds of skilled people to make a good movie. If everyone had your attitude, they could only sell one copy of the bluray for $20 and everyone else would just copy it. If that happened, investors would stop spending their hundreds of millions, and we'd stop getting these huge very popular movies.
Here's why it all doesnt matter:
[spoiler]Devs got paid salary or on the hour during the making of the game, the only people losing money because of piracy are the publishers.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]And indie games have shown us that publishers are not necessary[/spoiler]
there is software that u cant buy in your country while having an internet connection?
Piracy is stupid because its usually (i mean when u dont know the right sources so in around 90% of normie population) downloading modiified supah cracked haxxor key gen malwared software, its just bad for security reasons. Its also affecting people buying the software because developers do stupid bloated as fuck (and usually not working) security measures agains piracy. Also pirating photoshop to edit sweet selfies for FB is literally triggering me. Aside from that i have no problem with it, artists get barely any cash from music cds , same goes for movies (i believe thatmost gain is from theater and selling rights for TV anyway)
Correct, but current IP laws do nothing for a better soceital outcome because it aims to benefit the public but the creators, and as such are invalid as a justification as to why they should be followed.
Until IP laws actually follow their purpose, they are nothing but unconstitutional ursurpation of the rights of the public.
Wtf? How retarded can you be? If we could copy bread at no or insignificant cost, we could surely copy a bunch of other basic necessities too. There would be no need such a thing as $4.99.
Gonna critique/rate these.
Disclosure: I pirate.
>takes a short amount of time to cook
>is the staple of life
Apples and oranges, friend. Also there is no assertion by SKIDROW that it's "not stolen, just copies" - they openly proclaim they support the artists and ask people who download to do the same.
Great Salo movie reference.
That's quite a magical man. Creating clones of tangible things is a difficult thing to do unless you're Chinese and know the process of how it's made. Then again, not all "piracy" is digital.
I'm not sure if this is an attempt to make exact copies or remixes/derivative works. It does show how ridiculously protective some creators/publishers are. The author of the GoT book series considers fan-fiction copyright infringement.
sup /v/ bro
>is piracy theft
>is piracy ethical?
I don't think so, but I still pirate anyways.
>but it isn't ethical to tell people what they can do with the software/media they bought!
I agree to a certain extent, but you have to recognize that software/media companies are in a strange position. They work in a time where anyone with access to a computer can reproduce stuff that they spent millions at almost no cost at all. I can't really blame them for getting mad when people do the stuff in my pic here. I believe it is necessary for the state to step in and help, but mainly for the purpose of taking down big fish, like a company that might upload their content to a streaming service without their permission and use the pirated media for monetary gain.
>but they're evil!
That's true, many companies are run by fucking assholes who often sue little guys just to try to scare others. That doesn't change the fact that the people they employ (Read: The guys who actually make the stuff) are the ones who ultimately end up getting shafted if the company doesn't get a significant return on their investments. The guys at the top just have to buy a slightly smaller yacht that year. The code monkeys end up getting fired and replaced by Indians/Chinks.
It's ludicrous that the MPAA etc. go after random dudes and try to extort hundreds of thousands from them. At the absolute maximum I would say that the copyright holder should be able to demand payment equal to the cost of the number of copies the accused distributed. Obviously the value would have to be determined looking at financial records and gleaning the real wholesale price so the company wouldn't be able to suddenly jack the price up to a million dollars a copy for one day during the trial.
That would make it totally pointless to sue random torrenters, but would still pose a threat to larger offenders.
If you do not want to pay for something, do not buy it.
This does not entitle you to steal it. It means you have chosen to abstain from a product because the cost/benefit ratio for you is too low.
Theft is theft.
A game is not just an idea. It is the implementation of that idea. Doing so takes man hours and skill. This particular implementation is a product and the creator has the right to charge you for it. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.
The relationship between developers and publishers is not important to this. When developers decide that it's better to produce independently of a publisher, they will. You cannot use this relationship to justify stealing.
I fully agree with this and would never steal a game. Acquiring the same game from a different supplier who can willingly provide me with the product at zero cost is another matter, of course. After all, the great thing of digital media is that once a product exists, a free-of-cost version of that product can be developed very very cheaply by arbitrary third parties.
Do you find pirating indie games any less ethical than AAA titles?
I'd say yes, simply because they're published directly by the creator, profits don't go towards making pachinko machines or whatever nonsense the publisher would have done otherwise, and they're usually priced at a fair and competitive price point.
Copyright infringement is unlawful.
Consuming caniboids is unlawful
Having consensual intercourse with a person in a fashion not conducive to reproduction is (in many places) unlawful.
Denying the occurrence known as the holocaust is unlawful
Being homosexually inclined used to be unlawful
Holding the opinion that communism is a legitimate and acceptable form of governance used to be unlawful
Believing in a religion was unlawful
Believing in a god other than the divine emperor was unlawful
Holding a critical opinion of the government or its agents is unlawful (in some places)
Laws do not define ethics, and obviously ethics rarely define laws. Any issue a modern company has with copyright infringement can be trivially attributed to said company failing to provide a product the market will purchase at a price the market will sustain.
Any attempt to defend that failure can be trivially defeated without resorting to morals or legality with the 3 examples of Netflix, Steam, and iTunes.
>inb4 those are shit
It doesn't matter, they are profitable and successful while providing exactly what modern PAYING consumers want, and each very effectively competes with free infringing copies.
DRM was supposed to be a compromise, but look what it did to PC gaming. PC gaming is essentially just a locked platform. Almost every new game out there now requires Steam. The way things are going now, PC gaming will become an even worse because AMD and Nvidia are going to split the entire platform.
People who got pissed off at Steam for leaking all their personal info this Christmas learned the hard way that you literally have no other choice if you want to run your games on the PC. If you try to buy PC games on Amazon, all you get is a Steam key.
>but there's still gog.com which is DRM-free
Yeah, and its library is even more limited than Steam for Linux. The vast majority of it is old games.
Honestly it's just another example of
>Stallman was right
>The author of the GoT book series considers fan-fiction copyright infringement.
This is literally because people have accurately guessed future plot lines and produced work superior to what he would have.
It's valuable to have that information. It is worthwhile to pay someone to write some software for you if you need it because that work has value. But after that, the only work there is to pay for is the work of distributing it to you, which is normally worth very little. Nobody's forcing anyone to produce information. If you do some work which is of value to people, that doesn't mean you're entitled to money, if nobody has agreed beforehand to pay you for it.
Perhaps, but I'm not a socialist. And there are business models involving producing information which don't rely on intellectual property, such as paid support for / bespoke software, or commissioning art. It's not like society would collapse without intellectual property, though I would agree it would be very impractical in the short term for all those who rely on it to make money already.
Those movies aren't entitled to exist unless someone's willing to pay someone to make them. It's like giant pyramids built by slaves. Sure it would be a shame to not have some nice pyramids to look at, but at the end of the day, we don't need them and why should someone be entitled to force a bunch of people to contribute towards creating that?
>they really make a pretty penny by performing, selling rights and all that cool stuff.
note where i mentioned local bands
The kinda shit where you go see a DIY band at a divebar in LA, they make zero money
i usually donate a couple bucks and download their shit off bandcamp
>AMD and Nvidia are going to split the entire platform.
Given AMD and Nvidia typically do the complete opposite of each other you are going need to explain this claim.
i pirated 2 albums of an almost unknown rapper, for the first time i felt like shit since he isn't drowning in money, once he came for an event in my town and i was about to buy his last album but
>15€ (fuck, a lot)
>they hadn't change
since i'm not drowning in money too and at the time 15€ was a lot for me too i stepped back and decided to avoid the buy. i still feel like shit when i think about it.
>note where i mentioned local bands
Yeah they still profit mostly from local gigs. They even give out their music for free with the intent of curating a fanbase.
Yet I do buy shit form bandcamp, but I don't even think for a second that a band can subsist from sales alone though
i don't have views on piracy
i have views on anti-piracy though
anti-piracy has never, ever forced me into buying a game
anti-piracy has also prevented me from buying a game i was considering buying otherwise
I guess I wouldn't feel guilty about pirating a local album if it was overpriced. I'm guilty of it. Usually though I throw like 10 bucks away for their stuff if I like it.
>Yeah they still profit mostly from local gigs.
as a guy who books shows for musicians I can tell you that is completely not true
On some scales yeah there are musicians who profit from shows, but typically when bands go on tour and have to buy gear, cover damage fees and printing costs for CDs/vinyls it, at best, breaks even
it's not a business model for sure and definitely does not reimburse them for the time investment, it's a labor of love ideology
>AMD and Nvidia are going to split the entire platform.
>Given AMD and Nvidia typically do the complete opposite of each other
Nice work answering your own question so succintly yourself.
>Those movies aren't entitled to exist unless someone's willing to pay someone to make them.
Millions and millions of people seem to be very happy to pay. Pirates, however, seem to think that they're "entitled" to watch the movie even if they haven't paid.
>It's like giant pyramids built by slaves. Sure it would be a shame to not have some nice pyramids to look at, but at the end of the day, we don't need them and why should someone be entitled to force a bunch of people to contribute towards creating that?
No-one is being forced to do anything. The default state is that you don't pay and you don't watch the movie. The alternative state is that you pay, entitling you to watch the movie. What you seem to want to do is to not pay, but then still watch the movie anyway.
That is not justifiable.
>Millions and millions of people seem to be very happy to pay.
I don't think he means it that way. I think he's saying that end consumers don't explicitly request a movie or a video game to be made, thus the intended recipient is blurry and so is the payment for producing it. The only reason why such enterprises exist, is because they are easy to distribute and thus can reach a large potential audience, but at the end of the day, it's potential. No one asks for a specific movie, some studio just thinks it'd be a good idea to do it. If nobody wants to see it, you're not going to recieve shit for it. It's hard to see for big budgeted movies, but if you film a thing yourself with your cellphone camera, put it in a pretty case and expect to be paid, you're dumb in the head.
It's different from a work made per request. When some cultural institution asks you to make a symphony for strings, or maybe a weird fetishists asks for inflation porn to be made, there's a solid guarantee that your work is going to be remunerated. It has a monetary reason to exist.
That doesn't mean split the platform given both have to ultimately dance to MS's tune as DX dictates vidya right now. Even if vulkan takes off both companies are compliant with all modern hardware.
>Millions and millions of people seem to be very happy to pay.
They aren't paying them to make the movie; they are paying them to be allowed to watch the movie. That's quite an important difference. That movie has already been made and any contract of who pays them to make the movie is out of the way and nothing to do with someone who might watch it.
A way in which millions of people would be paying someone to make a movie would instead be something like Kickstarter or whatever the hip thing is nowadays.
>The default state is that you don't pay and you don't watch the movie
The default is to be able to watch any movie, assuming you physically have access to a television / cinema / DVD player + the video. The only entitlement is from the people who make those movies who think they are entitled to say people can't watch them, when it is literally nothing to do with them in any way whatsoever.
This guy gets it. Normal people don't steal things. For example, a couple years ago my English teacher asked:
>Is it okay to steal if it means you'll save someones life
>be me, poor 10th grader with divorced parents
>being me, I raise my had and say "Well, yeah duh."
>"Even though it's stealing?"
>"But it's stealing"
>And then I realised something. Normal people don't steal things.
Normal people don't now how to torrent. It's honestly kinda a niche thing when compared to the general population.
They steal shit all the time, and then subject themselves to rationalizations. People's moral compass is all kinds of fucked, if they find a hypothetical to justify it, they'll commit all sorts of petty crimes.
You'll never find someone who asks himself "hmm, I wonder if the maxim of my forthcoming actions could be willed as a universal law".
It's funny. When I was a kid I used to be totally against piracy. "Support the devs! The game is so good, why would you not buy it?"
As I became an adult my view has become more jaded. I beat games that I only play once now. A ton of games are rushed and shit. I'd rather pirate than pay for it. Then this has changed to music, tv, movies, etc.
And then I found out the passion pirates have for content. Fucking lossless audio and crystal clear quality? No bloatware? It's exactly what I ask for
I do think there's little to justify it, but when the content pirate's distribute is so much more convenient and presentable, I don't hesitate that much on ethical conundrums. Heh.
>Intel is not even remotely a monopoly.
By most accounts they have over 90% of the x86 cpu marketshare AND have been accused, tried and found guilty of essentially bribing OEMs to prevent the sale of competing products.
>i'm interested in you're meat
>but i don't think it's worth the money
>i'll just steal it.
No, that's society's opinion. The fact that such laws are enacted with ample social support is proof enough.
dev mite earn the same shit but the company wont. and so the company might have to tell dev bye-bye when they gotta go out of business cause of poor pieces of dirt like you. cant wait til they finally do the final crackdown on you bunch of ugly faggots. rot in your stank-ass computer chair, sedentary loser.
Wooooooosh you fucking autist
IP laws are trying to enforce scarcity in a post-scarcity world so that corporations and financial institutions can maintain and expand their capital to compensate for their tiny penises.
This is the kind of capitalist misanthropist that supports IP laws.
>we can make copies of food for free and eliminate world hunger
>fuck you I'm entitled to the money that belongs to be before I've even been paid, I'm losing money I haven't even earned yet, go starve you poor fuck, why isn't anyone paying me?
>An opinion is an opinion
No shit, Sherlock. You get off on tautologies or something?
>An opinion is an opinion
right. so did you bring up society's opinion, as if that is any more of an argument than your own personal opinion? or are you just here to explain why copyright law exists? because i think we all understand that.
>If you do some work which is of value to people, that doesn't mean you're entitled to money, if nobody has agreed beforehand to pay you for it.
yeah and these people aren't entitled to the software. simple concept
Of course they are entitled to use the software in the same way they are entitled to any kind of everyday free will activities. It's nothing to do with anyone else if they do that. It's asking nothing from anyone else.
Such a threat as "steal something or x dies" can't be credible. There's no guarantee X will die, and no guarantee stealing something will prevent them from dying. Even if you steal something, you may just be ordered to commit another crime under duress. Why not simply go to the police?
You should have retorted "If you had a choice between teaching English, or being a brainless mong, which would you choose- oh wait, you seem to have already made a choice. You're not teaching English, right now, but you're entertaining some pseudo-philosophical trite you heard a child ask, so it would seem that you've chosen the path of a brainless mong."
Perhaps that's overly verbose and reasoned for a 10th grader.
>That's quite an important difference. That movie has already been made and any contract of who pays them to make the movie is out of the way and nothing to do with someone who might watch it.
wrong. the income from sales is the crucial thing for ever making a contract for the creation of the movie, the main motivation for the operation. It just makes much more sense for people to pay for a finished product, rather than having to speculate and plan the creation, and wait before any result is there. that's why the current model is well established and there is no real issue with this for regular customers.
Because society's opinion is effectively what determines what is and isn't a societally fabourable outcome.
It would have been nice for you to establish some context to the question then. I had figured that you would have simply had some knowledge that you must steal something to save someone.
Obviously then you have to consider the context and various other factors that you would simply have to consider yourself, same with the solution to the problem.
Now, if you don't steal me the mona lisa and deliver it to me by tommorow i'm going to kill someone very close to you. Meet me in front of Trump tower.
>Of course they are entitled to use the software in the same way they are entitled to any kind of everyday free will activities.
no of course they aren't because they required someone else's work for this. they can't be entitled to the products/results of someone else's work without any valid contract between them whatsoever.
Not him but
>Such a threat as "steal something or x dies" can't be credible. There's no guarantee X will die, and no guarantee stealing something will prevent them from dying. Even if you steal something, you may just be ordered to commit another crime under duress. Why not simply go to the police?
I think it was meant as in stealing food for a starving person, or stealing a car to escape a disaster.
It literally is different though. You aren't paying them to make a movie. You never agreed to pay them to make a movie. If they have no motivation to make a movie, then they should just not make the movie, or find someone willing to pay for it.
Nope. You aren't requiring any work from anyone. And you aren't requiring anything else from them either. The service of providing that information to you is irrelevant since you can get that same service from anyone, and may already have access to it. It's not for them to say you can't do something with that information.
>If they have no motivation to make a movie, then they should just not make the movie, or find someone willing to pay for it.
this is your opinion. the general population disagrees. they don't want the movie business to suffer and be destroyed only because some people feel violated when paying for entering a movie.
I'm not the guy who posed the question, I was simply replying.
>Now, if you don't steal me the mona lisa and deliver it to me by tommorow i'm going to kill someone very close to you. Meet me in front of Trump tower.
As earlier, the only rational thing to do is to phone the police.
If his teacher's goofy question exists outside of reason, then of course everyone would steal to save someone's life. In the real world, though, there's no way to pose that question in a context that stealing would be the rational decision, without extreme hoop jumping.
>I think it was meant as in stealing food for a starving person, or stealing a car to escape a disaster.
This is just silly. Why not buy some food for a starving person? I buy food for homeless people.
Stealing a car to escape a disaster will deprive someone else of a vehicle to escape. You could be saving one life only to damn another, perhaps even a family. Could you live with that on your conscience? What if you stole the car of a doctor? The only doctor on the island?
These "moral" questions are interesting on the face but trite when you think about them for longer than a second. I'm reminded strongly of first year law students.
The argument is that copyright protection produces a societally favourable outcome. Read up the whole convo...
Furthermore, what disaster would require you to steal a car?
For most natural disasters, you have enough notice that stealing a car would be asinine and rather extreme. For the few that you haven't notice for, stealing a car will not save you.
>for entering a movie
Do you mean going to a cinema when you say this? There's nothing wrong with paying to sit in someone's cinema under their terms, since that is a very real service. Not saying that would be much of a good way for someone making a movie to earn money though.
Yes it is an opinion. I'm just not very socialist so I don't think people are entitled to money just for some greater good. But yes there is nothing wrong with not following that view.
>You aren't requiring any work from anyone.
you are: indirectly. If they never worked, the ifnormation would not exist. So by getting the information, you indirectly have the requirement that he had done work on it in the past.
>And you aren't requiring anything else from them either.
you are further requiring they will not get any compensation for the information, even though they had to work for it and you benefit from it.
>The service of providing that information to you is irrelevant since you can get that same service from anyone
yes, but only after the creator has created the thing. before that - anyone can't give it to you, either
if it actually was a case that anyone can offer the service ON HIS OWN, there wouldn't be any issue.
>The argument is that copyright protection produces a societally favourable outcome
i feel we're going in circles here, but... that just your opinion. it is in no way an argument for why copyright infringement is immoral.
>I'm interested in money, but I think it's not worth my time and effort to work to get it
>Yeah ok, fuck off then
>I'm interested in money, but I think it's not worth my time and effort to work to get it. I'll just manufacture copies.
>Why not buy some food for a starving person?
Okay, then let's say you and your family are the ones starving. You wouldn't steal some food for you/them?
>Stealing a car to escape a disaster will deprive someone else of a vehicle to escape. You could be saving one life only to damn another, perhaps even a family. Could you live with that on your conscience? What if you stole the car of a doctor? The only doctor on the island?
It's a hypothetical. You can assume whatever makes it convenient, like it's a showroom test drive car or something.
In both cases you are missing the point: It is sometimes morally justified to steal things because it's better than the alternative.
Still missing the point but okay I'll play along: You live in coastal Japan and there's just been a strong earthquake. Every tsunami alert ever is loudly blazing and you can safely assume you and your family are going to die if you aren't on higher ground in a matter of <5 minutes. You still wouldn't steal a car?
>Do you mean going to a cinema when you say this? There's nothing wrong with paying to sit in someone's cinema under their terms, since that is a very real service.
the cost for the movie hall is negligible. The lion's share is licensing. so you should be upset that you're paying almost double of what it's "really worth".
>Not saying that would be much of a good way for someone making a movie to earn money though.
why not? it serves the audience/the consumers very well.
> I'm just not very socialist
you are very socialist in a way: you insist that it is ok for useful work to have no personal financial benefits (licensing issues), and that it is all "common good" once it is created, no matter how hard the individual had to work for its creation. in other words, one does the work, all benefit the same - very socialist concept.
>you are: indirectly
No you're not. Even if that person died you'd still be able to use the information with no involvement from them at all. It is irrelevant what work they have done in the past. They're not entitled to anything just because they did some work.
>you are further requiring they will not get any compensation
Nobody's obliged to randomly pay money to someone for nothing in return.
>anyone can offer the service ON HIS OWN
The entirety of the service which can be provided to enable you to watch a movie would be distributing / providing a download / providing a DVD of it. And that can be done by anyone. The only other thing would be to pay someone to make a movie for you, which of course people don't do since that's too expensive, unless you do one of those Kikestarter things.
>Nobody's obliged to randomly pay money to someone for nothing in return.
nothing in return? you got software from them, the only reason this is a discussion. so you got something from them, and if you paid them, you would indeed get something "in return".
>The only other thing would be to pay someone to make a movie for you, which of course people don't do since that's too expensive, unless you do one of those Kikestarter things.
but this is a requirement for the distribution of entertainment to happen. you can't be enabled to watch something that doesn't exist. so you rely on the creator.
>They're not entitled to anything just because they did some work.
also, let's consider someone does collect rare earths that he doesn't need himself. He did some work and has them stacked next to him. According to you it's okay to take them away, because past work doesn't count (and he also doesn't need them). Additionally, nobody paid him beforehand so it's basically his own fault.
>you are very socialist in a way
Nope. I support having a free market. Intellectual property goes against that. I have yet to hear any rationalization for intellectual property which doesn't just boil down to "people need money to feed their families" or "We wouldn't [be as easily able to] have (movies|video games|certain software|music)".
>it is all "common good" once it is created
Not necessarily. It's just something which naturally has no value since it's not even a real thing. Nobody's obliged to do work for free.
>why not? it serves the audience/the consumers very well.
What I meant by what I said is that assuming that people aren't disallowed from using information with intellectual property laws and things like that, a cinema might feasibly be able to earn money, but someone making a movie probably wouldn't be able to make money from the cinema doing this. I was just preemptively agreeing with the fact that unfortunately a world without intellectual property may be harder for some people.
>you got software from them
No you didn't get software from them. You may have got it from some stranger on the internet using a torrent or whatever.
>but this is a requirement for the distribution of entertainment to happen
It's irrelevant how that information came to be. It could have been made by someone for some other reason who may have been paid by someone else or even done it charitably for free for some reason. The only reason people rely on being paid for people to watch their movie is because intellectual property exists. If people weren't placed under these restrictions, they wouldn't bother.
No that's not okay. That person is at a loss. You took something away from them. Things have a value in themselves if only one person can possess it.
Seeing games or software as a product is a major logical fallacy.
They are services and therefore should be treated like such. Rather then bread or any other physical object it software is comparable to using a train or going to the circus.
Of course if you don't buy a ticket and use the train you won't "hurt" anyone. You don't remove any value from the train ride for other passengers nor does it produce any additional cost to the train company. Still anyone with a half-working brain can see that this is morally corrupt and if the people who subscribe to such reasoning reach critical mass, it will hurt anyone as the train can no longer operate.
Also the argument that DRM is unacceptable is laughable at best. It's like saying the train conductor checking your ticket makes the train ride unbearable. I mean if you don't want to pay or are just too poor just be honest. This is an anonymous board you have to prove to none that you are on some moral high-ground.
>No you didn't get software from them. You may have got it from some stranger on the internet using a torrent or whatever.
yes but they got it from someone, who got it from the creator. In the end it's not so much of a stretch to say you got it from the creator, over middle-men. We also say "imported from Japan", even though it was brought to you from the closest reloading point, or port.
on the other accounts I actually agree with this libertarian view, but it has not much to do with the society we live in.
The library receives funding to purchase those books. Author has made some money.
The total number of people reading a given book in the library hardly affects profit, as books are generally purchased past peak popularity. It's somewhat reasonable to complain about profit losses on a recent release, but the same cannot be said about a flavor-of-the-month title that was released 8 years ago, but purchased by the library 3 years ago.
Most books in a library are of an educational nature, which reduces the risk of piracy. Pirates are less likely to pirate educational media that they already have no interest in before even starting, and the library wouldn't give much of a fuck if it did happen anyway because they operate on the principle that information should be accessible to all walks of life.
So, if most profit losses are on entertainment rather than education, the library contains more education than entertainment, what little entertainment that's available it past its prime, and the original authors were already paid to begin with, how the fuck is a library a good comparison to piracy?
Nigger I have free books to read, do you expect me to read all that shit on top of it?
Software isn't a service. It's information. Writing and supporting and distributing software is a service, but other than that it's nothing more than you using your own computer. If you were using someone else's computer, such as if you use an email service, or a video game server, then yes it is a service, and most of what you're saying applies, since they're not obliged to run a server and respond to your requests, except that the equivalent to a train conductor would be you entering your login details for the service.
If you buy a product from a shop which says "Imported from Japan" on it, it's nothing to do with that Japanese manufacturing company what you do with it or who you hand over the product to. And the point is you never engage in a contract with the Japanese dudes. You only shop, and it's they who decide under what terms they provide you the service of giving you the product. Of course, the people who made a movie may initially be the only ones who offer the service of giving you the movie, so you'd be under their terms, but that doesn't mean that people who download the movie from the people who got it directly are violating some contract. It was just the people who got the movie directly who are breaching a contract and shouldn't have distributed it to them.
>people have accurately guessed future plot lines and produced work superior to what he would have.
Oh shit. Imagine how bad it would feel to be a creator and your fanbase easily surpasses you in skill. Even with regards to your OWN work and creations. IF I was doing that to pay the bills I would be pissed too.
I didn't mean that you have an actual contract with the original creators, but they are still the source of the information and you are the recipient. so saying you got nothing from them (even if indirectly) ignores the origination of the information completely, even though it is essential.
I think copyright is important in order to keep the creative content flowing and rewarding creators. However, the term should be limited to strictly 20 years. That way:
* An author who creates a huge smash hit in their 20s can profit from it enough to set themselves up for a bright future, but can't get lazy and rely on it to see them through to retirement
* An author who creates many works throughout their life will receive a steady stream of royalties from newer works while their older works enter the public domain while they're still around to see what people do with them
* An author who creates a hit later in life and dies 10 years afterwards knows that their work will still provide income for their family for another decade
This seems very reasonable to me and I think it was the intent of the earliest copyright laws, before corporate meddling ruined everything. We should go back to them.
Also, as an aside, I have no moral qualms about pirating things that would be unreasonably difficult or expensive to acquire normally. (A video game that only runs on a rare obsolete console, or an anime series that is unlikely to be localised and can only be imported at great expense.)
>And then I found out the passion pirates have for content. Fucking lossless audio and crystal clear quality? No bloatware?
Yep, this. Let me know when my obscure artists start offering high-quality downloads, as I'd rather not spend $10 for 128kbps iTunes tracks. And this is a real thing too, I went to download Sterling - Brave New World and there were no FLAC torrents so I had to buy off iTunes at pitiful quality.
>produce any additional cost to the train company.
Why do stamps exist? To fund the gas and pay drivers. Riding on the train increases it's weight slightly and technically costs gas.
>train conductor checking your ticket makes the train ride unbearable.
No, it's more like getting raped at an airport to make sure you bought tickets and aren't carrying anything they don't approve of. DRM is harmful to the user in that they often are limited on how they can install it, how many times they can install it, and how they play it.
Well of course it originated from them, and wouldn't exist without them, but it's still you getting nothing in the sense of they're doing nothing for you, which is kind of what's important here, since you wouldn't say the manufacturing company in Japan is doing anything for you when you buy a product made by them from a shop, since the fact they originally manufactured it or designed it is irrelevant to the terms of the transaction of you getting that product.
>Riding on the train increases it's weight slightly and technically costs gas.
Yes but that is only a tiny fraction of the cost. The main cost is paying the drivers, the infrastructure including trains and rails (depends on how much subsidy is available).
so most of the work has already been done; you could insist that if the train has enough space, you only have to pay that additional gas. But they want you to also pay a share of the driver (which would drive anyways!), the infrastructure (no real difference from your weight) and so on.
>Don't give a fuck?
No I do not. I use Linux, and the entertainment industry simply doesn't package things for us. To play a DVD on Linux requires the system to circumvent CSS, and to play a blu-ray on Linux requires the software to use a continuously-updated database of leaked keys. So I figure if the software has to break the protections anyway, I might as well just get pre-ripped MKV files straight from bittorrent.
> Use free software instead?
Yes. I couldn't stand Microsoft's activation crap -- so I switched to Linux about 8 years ago and I am much happier. Almost every piece of software I could ever want is just sitting in one massive repository that I can grab for free. Once you see the beauty of that system, it's really hard to go back to anything less.
I'm tired and slightly confused as to what my point originally was, but anyway;
If everybody payed only for the gas, and not the driver, there would be no driver and therefore no train.
And if everybody was weightless, would that make a significant difference in how much gas was used?
Even if you call software information instead of a service the logic still applies.
Just replace riding a train with going to the circus. The entertainment you gain from the circus is essentially information. If you don't buy a ticket to the circus and still sneak into a performance you end up with the exact same situation as riding a train without a ticket.
Stamps exist to keep the train rolling. The amount of extra energy required to propel the train due to your weight is absolutely negligible. Most of your money goes to the train driver, the promotion of the service, the maintenance of the vehicle, the organizational work, etc..
If you say the fraction of extra energy cost you produce by dodging fare is significant you could also say that you hurt the software company because they still have to pay for server and promotional costs you have used but not payed for.
The point that DRM is necessarily harmful to the user is a moot point at best. If you provide a service then you should be able to enforce how it is used. If you are not allowed to take your cat on the train and you still do it cause "muh freedum" the train conductor has the right to throw you out. Of course you also have to freedom to just not use the service. Which is the right thing to do. Anything else is just moral relativism.
My pirate from another wench.
20 is way too long. 5 years is fair.
Beside that, false advertisement should be redefined to included failure to describe limitations and conditions of use as well as misleading and vague statements.
1h of your time may be worth $X whereas you are asked for an average $Y/h investment. If Y > X, then even though it's not worth the price, it can be worth the time.
Moreover, notice that you will have to waste the time either way, so it's not $Y v.s. $X but rather $Y+X v.s. $X.
Finally, if your expected time to end of play is much smaller than the expected time of completion, because you can't pay as you go, you lose a fuckload of money from buying.
You know... I've been using bit torrent and utorrent since pretty much when they first came out. If there's a small company making things I'll pay to support the devs but anything made by like Bethesda or *for example* EA, I would pirate. I like not having to pay and not having to listen to adds between songs, or seeing a movie before it comes out in some cases without having to go some shitty theatre with noisy fucks.
>The library receives funding to purchase those books. Author has made some money.
The pirate buys the software or receives it from someone who has. The author has made some money.
>When do you think it's acceptable?
When you don't give a fuck and you can get away with it
>When do you think it's wrong?
>I think piracy is fine if the software isn't available to purchase anywhere/in your country.
Order it abroad. They deliver this shit to your doorstep, you know.
Piracy is theft. Maybe not in a literal sense, but that what it comes down to.
If you can't buy it - don't buy it untill you have the money. Your inability to afford something justifies shit. Shitty corporate practices justifies shit. If you truly are believer in corporate fuckery you ignore the product alltogether.
When stores took returns people would rip the game and then return it.
Some game are leaked online before release. Some games are leaked by store staff who get their hands on a copy before sale and rip it.
Also like the post you quoted says, most libraries get their hands on popular books after the hype dies down a bit, after the peak sales, which is different to when games tend to start getting pirated.
Is it wrong to pirate content you paid for because the paid-for version has ads every 15 minutes over 2 hours, or desyncs like shit, or can't be played when the servers are down and they're down several days a week?
What motivates someone to do that?
I have never purchased something and thought to myself "Man, I want to make illegal copies of what I just paid for with my hard-earned cash so thousands of strangers can have it for free."
>Order it abroad. They deliver this shit to your doorstep, you know.
What if you live in some fucked up country where imports are heavily restricted, but copyright infringement isn't
Why wouldn't it be acceptable? I don't believe in restricting information to only people who are willing to pay for it. That way, only people with money get to enjoy the produce of society. That's not fair in my opinion.
We're too far behind with this shit. If 3D printers ever get to the point where they can print anything with sufficient materials, then everything will be fucked up.
>y-you can't c-copy my d-design and not p-pay
Fuck you I will download your car and then print it.
I try to use free software as much as possible and donate a little to those who nail it. I rarely use software that costs and pirate it all the time, buying it is very rare for me. On the topic of games, pirating is convenient since I don't need a dedicated client, but I buy those if I'm at least entertained. As an extra for media, animu and mango is almost possible to buy moreover when importing is so expensive.
>game costs $19.99 on steam
>ill pay for it if i like it
>60 hours logged to finish the single player campaign all the way to the end.
>man it took me 60 hours and i completed the game yet somehow ill tell myself it was shit
if its a good service, people with money will buy it.
People without money won't buy it, but will go through all the hassle of pirating, difficulty and time of which depends on the product, but you get the ideaim fine with piracy as long as people are fine with always online.
Just because you complete the game doesn't mean it's good, though, even if it takes 60 hours. It's the "I have to finish what I started", a.k.a. autism, effect. As long as it's not outright worth negative amounts of money, it's going to happen.
> Order it abroad
That's ridiculous. Do you even realize how economy works. Different wages across the world vary from every range. Try to get a Ukrainian to pay 59.99€ for a game. Sure, he now has a game. And no food. Or warm bed.
This is so typical of you lardasses. You live in suburban San Fuckyou with your middle class conditions and benefits and think you can just apply your ideologies on a global scale.
Just think of the entertainment you literally deny BILLIONS by bringing a lockdown on content. You're an asshole of the highest caliber.
And considering you let corporations redefine the meaning of words in the English language, a corporate bootlicker as well.
The horseautists have done this several times over too. Pretty much every fandom with fanfiction has. It's hilarious.
Piracy is wrong. Looting and pillaging on the high seas is a bad thing.
As far as copyright infringement through downloading music/movies, I don't consider that morally wrong. That said, one has to recognize that if we want to see more of that stuff, its creation has to be supported. If you think buying a CD or movie is a good way to do it, go for it.
Its a dumb thing to say that "you were not going to buy it anyway" because the reason for that is because you can just pirate it. Plus that does not give you the right to use someones product for free. Ask anyone if they would rather pay for someone or get it for free, 99% of those people are going to say they want it for free, so pirating can become a pretty big problem for devs. I mean just look at it this way, if everyone who wanted a game bought it, it would be fine, but if everyone pirated the game instead, this would be bad, because then no money would be made and then they would not make that game anymore, so in principle pirating is harmful to the industry. But I know that not everyone pirates and a lot of people do buy games (aleast for big AAA games) but it could be a huge problem if left unchecked because if it reaches a point were more people are pirating than buying and they are not making a profit then whats the point.
Just think of it this way, you open of a shop selling your book and people come in and buy it everyday. Then one day someone copies you book and starts giving it away across the street for free. So when people who are interested in you book come to get it, they see that they could either pay money for it (your shop) or get it for free (pirates shop). Which one do you think most people are going to choose? This is the "lost sales" thing people talk about.
>Games are made and budgeted for with the knowledge that they will be pirated.
anime and manga (at least until a few years ago) is made and budgeted for with the knowledge most of the profit will come from japan only.
People have to literally do all the marketing for the anime companies, sign petitions and prove there's a bunch of people begging to buy the DVDs they already watched online only to "support the creators". And fandubs are made by voluntaries.
Creating and maintaining communities is hard work, it has a price. Consumers nowadays are supposed to work for the companies by building the community themselves so the companies can profit easily, and yet the consumers are blamed every time that some shitty company makes wrong decisions and goes bankrupt.
Creating and maintaining communities is a job, a marketing job. People should get payed for that sort of job.
My view is very simple: the entire business model is flawed.
Copying has always been possible, anyone thinking he could be making money forever off the sale of copies is either a fucking retard, or full aware of the problem but hoping to benefit from it as long as possible. The latter tends to be the truth, they're not complete idiots. They're well aware of it, they just continue to bitch about piracy knowing full well their business model is wonky.
Here's another wonky one: advertisement.
Now that more and more people block ads, countless businesses start to complain they don't get revenue anymore, and either block people who block ads, or try to push for laws outlawing ad blocking.
They're all fucking jews, and no ad-blocking pirate can possibly we worse than them.
I think it's acceptable when there is literally no way to get the game legally where you live, or if the only legal way is ridiculous, like having to import a physical CD at five times the price of a normal game. Some Japanese virtual novels come to mind.
However when the game is readily available legally, piracy is a dick move. Especially if the game is not $40+, I mean there are plenty of people who even pirate games that cost like $10. Then you are just a greedy fucker.
people should simply stop trying to make profit with information. There are already enough areas to work with and if there arent blame the big monopolies then, it's their fault for shutting down the industries because they didnt want to pay their workers decently.
Also, people shouldnt be expected to do marketing job for free unless they do it for people that also give away stuff or sell it to the lowest possible price.
I mean, corporate greed is nothing new under the sun but the way everyone seems to be brainwashed about justifying it really ticks me off
>people should simply stop trying to make profit with information
>there goes 50% of every job in existence
reduce working hours by half without reducing the wages. There, you have 50% more jobs than you have now.
Too good to be true? This is what happened with the 8 hour work day and the world's economy, overall life expectancy, quality of life and basically everything experienced a huge boost afterwards.
Learn some history first.
I don't understand this shitty logic, that if you buy the game, then you have no money for food. That person should really get his priorities straight, maybe he should try playing free to play games, no? oh, you really want this new game which costs 59 euros? oh poor you, now you have no money for food...
To believe you should be allowed to have something for free that the creators did not give you for free, is believing in slavery, you socialist pig.
>50% of every job in existence
Which produces zero fucking value.
Piracy is what happens when void looks at itself in a mirror. There's nothing, and there goes a copy of nothing. That'll be nothing plus tip, please enjoy your nothing as I throw empty words at you to criticize you copying my nothing.
>Those comes with a cash shop and ads.
you said "and", not "or", so you are incorrect, Dota 2 has no adds, and what you buy does not impact the gameplay, so you can play forever without paying for shit, there are so many free to play games with no adds, and there are so many old games that are now free that have neither a shop or adds.
But then you're playing the game yet aren't giving any money
How is pirating a game any different from playing a "free-to-play", which we all know aren't exactly free, but not giving them any money?
i don't think you understand how those games work, all the in-game items are advertisements, people using the different items you get are advertisements, people talking about trading items in chat is an advertisement, the entire in-game economy is an advertisement. this is how they make the $$$, no free to play game is ad-free
>people should simply stop trying to make profit with information
Yeah, I understand that you're dirty commie.
But consider this.
Lanier says that the phone companies has lot's of data about their customers. And whenever someone goofs the lazy-ass faggot police just snap their fingers and demands that the phone companies should just hand over the data.
Now, what if the police had to pay for the data? They can still cast the same wide nets, but not for free. That would cool the police down.
So thanks a lot "freedom must be free as in free AIDS"-retards. You really opened the floodgates to the unfettered state power.
>people actually defending intellectual property, the current state of copyright law and paying to support this shit
Piracy is wrong, honestly it is. But I don't have the money to pay for ~33GB of music through iTunes, or every game through Steam. So I pirate. And I think most people who download are similar in this way. Piracy isn't right, but with no consequences (if you do it correctly) why not? Its like being hungry and going to a store that doesn't have a policy or a security system set up for shoplifters. Is the stealing wrong? Definitely. Am I hungry though? Yeah.
Piracy in a nutshell.
Also, I realize not everyone is like this, and some people do have a strong moral compass. Piracy IS wrong, but I think for people to actually stop, the illegality needs to be enforced more.
>But I don't have the money to pay for ~33GB of music through iTunes, or every game through Steam
then you don't deserve to listen to those songs or play those games
you entitled cunt
Because the ones who make the content decided it is free, it's just like when you make something free, put it on the internet, then accept donations. It's not pirating to accept something that is free and not paying.
I believe the only moral thing to do about piracy is to literally shut your goddamn mouths if you're a pirate.
Stop helping people pirate. Stop discussing piracy. Stop talking about how to pirate. Stop suggesting to pirate. Stop justifying piracy with the technical loopholes. Don't profit from piracy. Don't even bother seeding, leave it to the members of those warez groups and those too stupid to manage a torrent client.
Let pirated software be a little perk for those with the computer know-how. If you have to pirate, do it and shut the hell up. If you want to buy it, then by all means take out your wallet and shut the hell up while you're at it.
Everyone is ruining everything.
>excluding the third option
>But I don't have the money to pay for ~33GB of music through iTunes, or every game through Steam. So I pirate
Because you feel entitled to it.
pirating games is meh, if the dev/HQ is a gigantic pile of shit (EA, activision, ubisoft etc.) then I think it's okay, but honestly, you are not entitled to play a game for 200+ hours and not pay for it
pirating music is absolutely fine imo, who in their right mind would pay $20 for 40 minutes of mediocre shit and 2-3 decent songs?
>ITT People trying to make me feel bad for pirating
You can call me a faggot all you like, I'm still gonna pirate shit. There is no ethics or morals involved. I want shit, but I don't feel like inputting my credit card credentials and purchasing that shit. Therefore, I go with the path of least resistance, and just download it.
I usually only pirate stuff that is absolutely exorbitantly priced *cough*Abobe*cough* or stuff that I want to try before I buy, which in the end, I usually do (see: paid 'beta' tests on Steam, fuck that shit).
I also pirate stuff taht could be lost, i.e, old software. Let's face it, in this day and age, companies don't give a shit about history, and sites fall off the internet at an exponential rate.
>hope you put your heart and soul into something only for people to forcibly take it for free
>you put your heart and soul into something only for people to forcibly take it
>you put your heart and soul into something
Where do you think you are? This is /g/. The only slightly productive thing we ever do is when we attach computer components to the ceiling.
>Cunts, hope you put your heart and soul into something only for people to forcibly take it for free because "it's probably shit or at least not worth the money".
I fucking hate you people. You're defending literally immoral laws like intellectual property and the current state of copyright because "muh morality"
Iranian State TV Broadcasts Movie From Pirate Site:
>While this blatant unauthorized use is quite a shocker in the west, in Iran it’s less of a problem. The country’s copyright law is set up to protect all copyrighted works produced by Iranians, but not necessarily those by creators from other countries.
>Since 2001 Iran has been a member of the WIPO, and has acceded to several WIPO treaties. However, the Iranian Government never signed the WIPO copyright treaty and other international copyright agreements that would make copying of foreign products unlawful.
MAFIAA get rekt.
>pirates digital copy because poor
>spreads the knowledge about the game
>doesn't even look at the game because poor
At least if the thing is good and someone pirates it, that guy is free advertisement
> How about consumer B just decides
> to forego the game for once or
> actually, gasp shock horror,
> wait until the price goes down
That's what I've been doing for nearly 10 years with video games and movies now. The end result is that I'm just not interested in these media anymore.
That certainly has worked out great for me, since I'm not wasting my time on stupid shit as much anymore. But for those publishers and distributors it means tons of lost sales, especially now that I have a job with stable income and could easily pay everything I wanted to consume.
I see those statistics saying that pirates end up being the better customers make sense to be honest.
Just don't buy a game if they are trying to sell you shitty product.
>What if you live in some fucked up country where imports are heavily restricted
Than find a way to pay developer and torrent a game. You can always adress dev directly and ask them if they are ok with it.
Fucking Christ! Pirate your shit but don't make it like there is a justifiable reason to do that, like you are some sort of a freedom fighter.
Either buy all your shit or shut the fuck up and pirate while you can. Don't be a nigger.
>Implying Star Wars: TFA is a good movie.
>Implying huge very popular movies are good.
Nope. Honestly, I would rather watch some cell phone video of a bum sleeping on the sidewalk at this point than these tent-pole blockbusters that are all generic as fuck when it comes down to it (the Marvel movies are the worst at this, but they are not alone in being bad). I *hope* they only sell one ticket/blu-ray to these, and they are all massive failures, so that the movie industry can again realize the utility of having some pictures that don't cost hundreds of millions and try to appeal to the largest possible demographic. The same is true for vidya gayms too at this point.
>The point that DRM is necessarily harmful to the user is a moot point at best. If you provide a service then you should be able to enforce how it is used.
Information is a good, not a service.
The cat is out of the bag, anon. There is no way to put it back inside.
There's a pretty big flaw here
the dude is saying "I should learn how to make it myself"
If you rewrite someone else's software line by line, being able to prove you didn't copy code from the original author, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. See the OpenMW project, it's a bunch of guys rewriting Morrowind to be open-source, and since they write all the code themselves, Bethesda can only sit and watch.
What pirates do is just copy the code and break the lock on it, not "making" anything themselves.
Open MW is pretty cool because the engine hasn't really improved too much from back then. as soon as they are finished i think they can do the same for newer bethesda games fairly quickly.
I don't think im a freedom warrior. Piracy is meh. If can't pirate i use something else or dont use at all. For proffesional use you need to by and that will always stay as a income for dev's.
If piracy really hurt companies, wouldn't the consumption have gone down?
So when people buy more and more, wouldn't that be a good thing?
The biggest tech companies right now all give their "product" away for "free" and they seem to do fine any way.
People who use alternatives barely impact these companies.
To give my legitimate, honest answer:
I only pirate that which I cannot reasonably obtain in the format I desire, but I can legally obtain in a format I do not desire. That is to say:
Since I can Stream all the music I want on Spotify, without paying a dime, I don't feel bad torrenting the FLAC versions. Either way the content creator isn't missing any more money than the other, or only by small margins. And I can't by any means afford nor want to buy about 10k songs at $1.29 each and then still only get them in 256kbps AAC. It's kinda like how if I wanted to purchase everything that's "free on demand" on Comcast cable. Their library might cost me millions to obtain. It's a media where you have to choose a few movies and love them, or where you have variety at somebody's expense.
As for video games, it's less of an issue for me in the first place. The majority of AAA titles don't interest me, but a large amount of the games I like are independent games and I try to purchase them through platforms that give the developers a decent amount of the money. Alternatively, I try to purchase them through humble bundles as a way of paying them and donating to charity. On top of that, I don't need to have 1000 video games, I only need a few dozen that are legitimately good and I will play them start to finish, or until such time that I'm not entertained by them or think they're not as good as I thought. As I have no desire to play every video game out there or every game in a certain genre, I can legitimately afford to pay for all the video games I want.
As for movies, I torrent those, mostly for the same reason as music. I want to watch a movie in high quality HD, I want to watch it on my equipment, I don't want to have to have a blu-ray player with matching dolby-decoding surround receiver, etc. Additionally, the actors in a good movie have already been paid the majority of what they're going to get. Anything indie I pay for.
Point being, i will never buy them. If by some magical way I can't pirate them i'll just don't play anymore. But now I pirete them and discuss (and praise if good) them on the internet. So the free ad thing is right.
>You really opened the floodgates to the unfettered state power.
The current state of things bashes your hypothetical situation. It's possible that companies charge users for data but not the government (current situation), whereas there's no solid evidence that in a world where big corps can't profit from data they'll even have an incentive to collect as much as they do now because they won't be able to sell it neither to private entities nor to governments.
I don't say the power of data will be gone in that situation, it's just going to be more expensive to collect it. If the gov wants it, they'll have to pay for every part of the process like a totalitarian state instead of just relying on data already collected by corps as their everyday business.