Friend of mine published her own graphic novel basically living in her parents attic and a day after it was out someone had ripped it and thrown it on a comic piracy site. That's not ethical.
If you live on a 12-15/hour salary which I have too you still can afford the occassional book here and there, you can't tell me you spend zero on recreational stuff. I don't care if anyone fleeces Marvel studios but if people start pirating independent works from people no better off, often worse, that's iffy.
Sorry.
There are lots of things I want that I can't afford, either.
There's a whole lot of words to be said about that, but it's hardly worth discussion because ultimately the result would be wasted breath.
Anyway, the sphere of economics is the least ethical domain of humanity there is. My dollar is not equal to your dollar, and our dollars aren't equal to Musk or Bezos. We pretend that is the case. There never were and never will be equivocality in exchange unless it's one idea for another.
That is absurd.
I really doubt the sales of the graphic novel that friend of yours were impacted in any non-negligible way by it being ended up on a piracy site. If anything, it might as well have worked as an advertisement.
Moreover, making stuff easily accessible (e.g. Steam, Nerflix) reduces piracy by orders of magnitude.
> making stuff easily accessible (e.g. Steam, Nerflix) reduces piracy by orders of magnitude.
So it's rarely done by people who would've paid for the stuff but it's mostly done by people who would have paid (just not as much)?
Schrödinger's pirates: none of them would pay - but all of them would.
No. People who would pay actually pay for stuff, and very few of those people pirate.
People who pirate would not pay for that stuff anyway.
The "omg pirating makes it impossible for people to sell their works" has been proven to he false many times over.
How can then Steam, Nerflix, etc. reduce piracy by orders of magnitude? That means that at least 99% of the people getting stuff without paying would instead... pay?
Now, with a gazillion streaming services we'll see piracy ruse again because of friction and cost.
Or, simply, these services brought in the otherwise non-paying crowd.
We already had this discussed and explained many times over. Why are we at it again?
There was a study commissioned by the EU in 2013 that additionally confirmed this and previous studies. But it was withheld https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-s...
Quote: "In 2013, the European Commission ordered a €360,000 ($430,000) study on how piracy affects sales of music, books, movies and games in the EU. However, it never ended up showing it to the public except for one cherry-picked section. That's possibly because the study concluded that there was no evidence that piracy affects copyrighted sales, and in the case of video games, might actually help them."
Overall the question is complex, and this is a good study: https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Global-Online-Pirac... which shows that it's not clear-cut, depends on income and availability etc. And that piracy may have both negative impacts (4% fewer visits to cinema) and positive impacts (increased visits to life concerts etc.)
However, quote, "an increase in illegal consumption over time is found to correlate with an increase in legal consumption and vice versa". The reason is: most decisions are done on the spot, and consumers chose the path of least resistance.
Also, you wrote: <<None of these options pay the original author>> Libraries buy millions of books per year in the US -- expensive hardbacks. They must be the single largest buying group. That money pays authors. Also, I never once saw an author upset that a library was lending their book. The same is true for second hand book selling.
- living wages in the US are something most of the rest of world only dreams about. And most can afford to buy a book once in a while, even new (of course it depends on the book). Source: eastern Europe.
- second hand and library books have generated revenue for the author already. Going full piracy and decreasing demand for the those two hurts the author, hurts the second book stores and hurts the libraries.
I pirate books as well but at least I'm honest about the consequences of my actions.
Programmers from poor countries and poor backgrounds are were they are today making a good living from this career probably because of torrents with collections of programming books back from 10 years ago or more when free video learning on YouTube wasn't as developed as it is today.
I made some sweeping generalizations but I hope I got my point across at least. This criminal avenue of pirating books and stealing potential revenue from authors is what allows some people to enjoy a better living.
The distinction is important. Stealing is taking something from someone else. Infringing copyright is a legal construct.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/removing-oligarchs-from-per-...
I wonder what would happen if you removed the top 10%, other than that 99% of the people posting on HN wouldn't be counted.
B. Median: the value separating the higher half from the lower half of a data sample, a population, or a probability distribution. It's not an average, there are no outliers dragging the median up. It's just an ordered listing and then looking at the one in the middle and seeing how much they make per year. If you removed all the billionaires and their income from the chart it wouldn't change the median income at all because the position of the median would only move 350 places. If you took away the top ten percent the median position would shift to the left 5% and the median annual income decreases a few thousand dollars per year. But in no way is the typical American living in poverty and desperation. (Turns out that only 11% of the US live in poverty.)
We have could have learned from the sample that the majority live in areas where wages are higher but so are costs of living and the median value is 70k which seems like a lot of money until we figure out that rent alone costs most of this money and all parties are on food stamps. This also ignores just how far below that median value many of the bottom half actually are. The bottom half lest we forget is 169 million Americans many just getting by as their entire segment of the population shares about 10% of the total income and virtually none of its wealth. None of these facts about the actual distribution of wealth and income is captured by looking at a median income and making up a fiction about what an imaginary American can afford.
Funny you would end by writing of making up a fiction about what an imaginary American can afford when both this comment and your other one are imaginary realities. You say rent takes up most of some $70k, it doesn't. You say "all parties" at that income level are on food stamps, they're not, the percentage of Americans using food stamps varies by year but is 13-15%. You say 169 million Americans are below the median income, no, because we're talking about household income. And, you know, why would you put the 72 million children into this as they generally have $0 income and their expenses are paid by their parents. As well, I'm quite aware of what the distribution of income as I've looked it up in the past. The Congressional Budget Office does a regular report on the distribution of household income and taxes. In the last such report, 2018, the average pretax household income for the bottom quintile before taxes is $22k, after taxes and means tested transfers their income is $38k (yes, they do have a negative net tax rate.) Which is sufficient to live in most big cities in the US.
These [0] people did an analysis of the cost of living in the largest 74 cities in the US. The most expensive among these cities was Irvine, CA with a monthly cost of living of $3062 and a median individual income of $55k. Americans don't have to fight rats for scraps of food from the trash.
Before I get to some numbers nobody will read the fact is I doubt very much that most readers here have anything but a passing understanding of what its like to actually be at the bottom.
Lets zoom on down to irving and imagine we are dealing with a parent or 2 and 1 kid and need a 2 bedroom apartment. Going on a brief peruse of apartments.com I'm seeing a 2 br apartment starts at about 2600 USDA thrifty food plan would suggest about 780 per month for 3 people depending on age and sex.
If we can't actually deal with both people working while using just public transit we will have to probably burn 800 a month for car payment, insurance, upkeep and gas.
Electricity/water another 300-350
Phones another 60 minimum, internet 80
Now lets talk about health insurance we are probably going to pay about $500 and easily more like 750 for something that isn't a complete joke.
Now lets talk about savings because if we don't have any the first time the car needs to be repaired we're all going to lose our jobs and end up homeless plus at some point we will have to retire so allocate $500 for that.
We are at about 6000 a month while still only sketching out the outline of a life. I'm assuming our fictional family would also like to wear cloths, by toilet paper, wash their clothes, have some form of entertainment and enlightenment, maybe even engage in the normal family activity of having a pet animal of some sort bigger than a hamster.
We would probably be able to live a reasonable life for more like 7000 a month or 84,000. This means Joe median+ is probably OK but again ONE HALF OF PEOPLE ARE BELOW THE MEDIAN BY DEFINITION AND THEY ARE NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED IN TOTAL OR DISPOSABLE INCOME. Most of the poor folks are seeing their already insufficient wages and the cost of health insurance and rent going up and wondering if they can afford to pay rent and health care in 5 years while you insist they have plenty of money to spare. You don't live in the same universe. Going to move.org gives you an incredibly shitty approximation of what it actually costs to live your life. You know less by far than you think you do.