They are paid. If they're not paid enough then that's on the companies behind the production of those shows and movies.
These corporations make billions. Piracy isn't hurting them. However, these corporations are causing harm to society. It doesn't make sense to white knight for them.
I'll add, since I'm not the person you were replying to, I don't care about who gets paid what. I don't care if the actors get paid or not. All I care about is some basic consistency if we're going to have morals about anything. Is it wrong to steal? Yes? Then piracy is wrong. (Or, no? Then let's skip this conversation entirely, you are my enemy.) Yeah, piracy is pretty easy. Yeah, it feels harmless when we do it. Should individuals get fined tens of thousands of dollars for infractions? No. But I'd say it's about as wrong as stealing a loaf of bread from a grocery store. To pretend it's a noble cause is transparent garbage, and unless you can pose an argument that doesn't complain about how much corporations make, I'm not interested.
There appears to be nothing underpinning your worldview for why the industry you work in ought not allow open thievery, but this one should. Yes, their corporations make billions of dollars, just like in every other industry where theft is not tolerated. Or perhaps you support open thievery everywhere at any time, in which case, like I said, you are my enemy.
On the flip side, these corporations take from society and refuse to give back thanks to ridiculously long copyright protection terms.
They take advantage of their workers, paying a fraction of a penny to them that they make.
They screw artists over with bad contracts or lousy residuals.
They defraud investors by purposely producing works they know won't perform well.
They use things like the DMCA to bankrupt anyone that tries to write software that gets around DRM.
They threaten to sue people into oblivion that use P2P software to download something they "own."
They cover up the crimes of pedophiles and other sexual predators because they make them money.
So, again, I don't care about the pocketbooks of these corporations. I don't care that someone can download a movie without paying for it. I don't care that groups like rarbg or TPB exist.
> you are my enemy
This is exactly the type of thing an internet white knight would write. You're ridiculous.
> This is exactly the type of thing an internet white knight would write. You're ridiculous.
I'm responding to a comment that is defending another comment that said:
> o7 thank you for your service
> Where one piracy site dies, a thousand spawn from its corpse.
Et cetera. Have a nice day, enemy.
Cool. Brushing off what I wrote instead of addressing it. Good job.
> I'm responding to a comment that is defending another comment
Then perhaps you should respond to that comment instead.
> Have a nice day, enemy.
Ah, never mind, you were in fact responding to me.
Farewell, Ser White Knight.
Ridiculous.
Sorry to be picky, but I think it's important to remember that intellectual "property" rights are a legal construct that societies create in an attempt to make society as a whole richer by encouraging creativity. I worry that overuse of metaphors like "property" and "theft" elevate IP to a god-given commandment (thou shalt not steal), obscuring the fact that we should design our intellectually property rights to ensure they're doing what we want. Enriching creators is not an end goal in itself.
And I find it hard to believe that the spirit of these laws was intended to target end-users who copy something to watch for their own personal enjoyment, rather than to target people who copied works in an attempt to earn a profit personally. The only way the punishment fits the crime is in the latter situation, IMO. Yet I assume the laws are applied more frequently to the former situation.
Using open source software is stealing because in fairness somebody has to pay software developers.
Also watching ads and not buying the product is stealing because somebody has to pay the actors in those ads and people who make those ads.