No, it’s like saying that seeking a network with less moderation where everyone can set up their own instance, will lead to less moderated content

Slow down

It’s the same Union that wants to ban cryptography in instant messaging apps. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes…well

Infine this statement quite contradictory considering it’s on a decentralized social network whose main selling point is giving companies LESS control on what actually get on platforms

This is a very dangerous argument because it infringes the democratic base itself.

It’s not necessary wrong, but be careful because with the very same logic you could argue the people don’t really know what they want, they aren’t able to govern themselves, we, enlightened creatures, should decide the way forward.

Again, it’s not necessary false, but it leads to authoritarian and paternalistic consequences

Forums have existed on the internet forever and and have already dealt with this thousands of times previously

The main difference is that forums aren’t federated. On Lemmy you not only need to keep in check internal users, but also external instances, and as everyone can host one, federation ads extra complexity

if an admin of an instance marks a post as potentially illegal, it gets replicated to other instances automatically and gets in queu for deletion.

This opens at some terrible abuse, just open a malevolent instant and start flagging all the content you don’t like as illegal

At the same time I hate to see the promised federated network revert to what commercial platforms have become, karma and account age requirement, phone and identity verification , forced 2fa and what not.

While I share this very same feeling, I also recognize there are reasons why commercial platforms have done what they’ve done, I don’t think they’re inherently evil, they just had to face the very same problems we have

Italy finally got Corsica back?

The only objection I have with that is redundancy is useless because if the main server who “host” the community goes down then all the other copies will die too as content can’t be added anymore.

There’s no mechanic for orphan communities

Because it’s bad only if someone I don’t like does it

This is practically impossible because piracy is easy and convenient.

Ads emerged right because they are a simpler way of monetization

your comment has been reported to the competent authority of the Interplanetary European Empire, an IEE official will contact you soon for reprisal

don’t try to tell me that Disney is going to go out of business because I pirated their latest movie

The problem is the antisocial behavior and externalities. Piracy has a negative externality on society, it lets you consume a product you didn’t contribute to production whatsoever. If it becomes commonplace then yes, Disney will go bankrupt, but will every producer, small or big or anything in between.

Rules shouldn’t be arbitrary. People work at Disney too, and you’ll have less artist, animator and stuff, all paid less, it the market shrinks because of piracy

People who will pay as long as they get their money’s worth, who may also be open to supporting the creator directly

The point is, isn’t the producer right to make the price? You can always not consume what they produce. This category is the most obnoxious; would you ever go to a restaurant and expect to decide the prices?

It’s the very same argument for producers that willingly release their contently freely and let you support them, eventually. It’s their choice.

Of the three you quoted preservation is the only one I find acceptable. If the producer no longer care to distribute their product, then they probably don’t care to what it happens to it either.

I think It is illegal and immoral to sell consumers a license to use a product, under the guise of them owning it

For me the main difference is that nobody is forcing you to accept the transaction. I could accept this kind of argument for drugs for example, where you either take it or die/have serious repercussions. But pirating a movie you would have very much lived without just because is easy to do so it’s particularly problematic.

they are going to get paid regardless of whether you as an individual decide to purchase or pass on a product

Except they aren’t. Or at least, of course they’re payed the same, at the moment. But in our economy prices are signals. If a market will appear smaller then it is because of piracy then after some timesfewer developers will be hired, and each of them will be payed less because you’re “falsifying” the signals. Or even worst, the producers will start to use alternative form of monetization. That’s one of the reason the modern web is based off ads or free-to-play games with microtransanctions are so damn common.

IMO the people in the first camp probably aren’t interested in money if they have chosen not to purchase their media to begin with

The people in the first category should also think about the allocation problem. Those products which they like to consume but not pay for, still had a cost of production. The problem is they want ti consume, without supporting production, and that’s not gonna work for a society.

Probably might be worth a pirate

But here comes a problem of fairness.

You not only want to play the game, you also want to decide how much is worthed for the producer. If the price is too high, don’t play it. Imagine going to a restaurant and saying “sure, cook for me, I’ll later pay you if and how much I think it will worthed”

Not only this but:

Or I might not, since Ubisoft are a bunch of utter cunts.

Because you acknowledge the damaging nature of piracy, not only that, you also decide that rules are applied arbitrarily, which is a terrible thing to base your system on.

Ok but then you create a production problem.

You download it, but that piece of media still had a cost of production. If you don’t pay for it then the producers must find other monetization methods.

It’s one of the reasons the modern web is based off ads, or why free-to-play with microtransanction is so common.

While on a side I agree with you, on the other I see everytime people complaining about subscription fatigue and they never, ever would pay a recurring amount for a game.

So I don’t really have a solution for this lol

I’m sorry but I find this deeply comic and I can’t stop giggle

At the same time, clickbait has always existed. There’s a reason trash emerged from tv to become his own subgenre

Yes And the only reason we had sync for Lemmy so rapidly is that he worked full time on sync for reddit too but he found himself without a stable income from night to day when the API stuff happened.

The big difference with physical goods is that it’s much harder to steal a McDonald’s burger that it is to crack a single player, offline game. Furthermore, once you ate your burger, if you want more, you have to buy another because it’s a consumables.

On the other hand games are prone to piracy, expecially on pc, you pay once but can play anytime while patched and updates require prolonged work after you purchase.

It isn’t strange that developers look at dlc, microtransanction or game as a service with subscription, because they allow a stable flow of income that can support development, and it’s harder to avoid paying when the game is always online and stuff like that.

You pay for internet connection, not internet content.

Services don’t get a penny out of what you pay your ISP