Thank you for actual POV

Then I would steer away from arguments which are more debatable and stick to ones that are more robust and focus on the present and future than the past, and avoid anything that can get mired in debate. I’d focus on what the specific problem is (we will have fewer artists due to competition with AI) why it’s a problem (cultural stagnation, lack of new inspiration for new ideas) and why alternative solutions to regulation wouldn’t work (would socializing artistic fields work as they’d no longer be subject to market forces).

Cloudflare Zero Trust is also great for that (and free for less than 50 users)

I’ve heard the sentiment that change and convenience are killing society before, and I’m sure I’ll hear it again. I prefer to shop online. I get no sense of community from stores where every interaction has a hanging financial incentive around it, I get it from local organized runs, other frequent visitors of the dog park, etc. To me, that line of reasoning feels almost like lamenting how good the pipes in your house are, because you don’t need to call a plumber and get to interact with them.

Shopping online gives me more options, more reviews, easier ways to look up additional technical details without feeling weird taking space in an aisle while researching on my phone. It’s also more efficient in terms of total driving; one person making deliveries for everyone in a neighborhood requires less total driving than all those people making individual trips to a store. And it frees up more time for me to do things I actually want with the people I enjoy.

Half the time? Either something is wrong with that store or you need to learn how to use it properly. I have issues maybe once a year.

The Brewster’s Millions genie

It is, and it does provide improved performance at the expense of complexity. Both India and the US Air Force actually used clusters of PS3s to create supercomputers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(processor) has some more details as well

Why would you suddenly add in the “hundred” when you didn’t do it for any previous ones?

Except when you do https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/apostrophes

Apostrophe when making a number plural is not uncommon.

Ah, that makes sense, like summa cum laude.

sometimes it’s a matter of means & availability, sometimes it’s a matter of controlling their paid-for content (like people who actually buy switch games but want to run them on their steam deck), and sometimes it’s basically a hobby

Very little of that justifies it to me. For means & availability, this isn’t a mother stealing baby formula. Pirated content isn’t a need (though I’d make an exception for things like school books). There’s plenty of content made to be free and available, as well as libraries. And I’m completely fine with people pirating copies of paid-for content; there’s an argument to be made that that isn’t actually piracy and is personal archiving. It probably doesn’t need to be said that “hobby” is not a justification in the least, just like people who shoplift for the thrill.

I see supporting a service hostile to users as immoral - it’s like enabling an abuser, however slight, you’re contributing to behaviors that are a detriment to others

To me the real crux is that you believe that not doing something immoral is the same thing as doing something moral. Me sitting here is moral because I’m not murdering someone. Yay me. I’m also not blackmailing, gaslighting, stealing, etc. etc. Me sitting here might be the most moral thing anyone has ever done.

To me the case for the absence of activity actually being moral is it requires some amount of sacrifice to continue to do the right thing. Avoiding going to Walmart to support a local business, even if you pay more and it’s further away. The difference between not wanting to see a movie and boycotting it. There’s nothing moral about not going to a movie you didn’t want to see. But I think it is moral to avoid going to a movie you wanted to because of labor practices; you made a sacrifice in support of your beliefs. If you then go and pirate said movie, it’s indistinguishable from selfish behavior.

As I’ve said in other spots, if it’s genuinely about not supporting hostile services and not about self-interest, donate however much you’re saving by pirating to a union or charity. That’s completely fair. But if not, all I see is people acting in their self interest and trying to justify it by saying that they are doing a bad thing to bad people so it’s okay (and maybe they’re doing a little bad to some good people as well, but that’s a price you’re willing to have them pay for you).

The problem is when people claim they were never going to buy an awful lot of content. If someone spends a significant amount of time playing, or consuming, pirated content, I call bullshit. They would have bought at least some of it if they weren’t getting so much stuff for free. Considering the rewards and lack of consequences, I doubt the vast majority of people pirating are being really honest with themselves about what they “would never have” paid for, and instead use it as a simple excuse for bad behavior.

And rejecting a service you don’t consider worth it isn’t moral. That’s just basic capitalism and self-interest. That’s the standard decision to not buy something, which is a decision people make literally dozens of times when they go in the store. And pirating that content anyways certainly doesn’t make it any more moral.

Which is my point. People do things which are cheap and convenient because it is in their self interest. They stop pirating for selfish reasons just as they were pirating for selfish reasons.

Which is why I can’t stand self-righteous pirates who try and convince themselves and everyone else that they aren’t actually doing it selfishly, they’re doing it for some fabricated moral good and we should be thanking them for their service, that they’re fighting corporations somehow, and pretending that they aren’t withholding money from the people who spent the time making the things they enjoy.

spotify basically killing services like limewire?

I thought you said that “piracy made the music industry be reasonable.” Spotify basically killing limewire is not evidence of that any more than saying radio made the music industry be reasonable since it’s just as killed.

any of the licensed content would’ve already been paid for.

Look up “residuals”

if this was the case why would we see piracy decline over the last decade, only to see it increase noticeably in the last 4-5 years or so

Because streaming services have been charging more for less content, as the content owners have come to realize how much streaming cannibalizes purchases from other revenue streams.

I’m not trying to argue that people don’t pirate less when there are cheap convenient services available. I agree with that. But that’s just people behaving in their own self-interest, not some moral good about fighting big companies or other stuff pirates say to feel better about it.

I accept that people do selfish things, just as I accept when people jump the turnstile in the subway without paying their share. What I don’t accept is the self-righteous pirates who try to act like they’re doing something good for society, like I should be thanking them for downloading the shows I helped pay for, and pretending that it has no impact whatsoever on the people who depend on that for their income.

So, in summary, their income comes from people buying their stuff. So I ask again, how do artists get paid when you pirate? Or is your stance that you want the artists to get paid, you just want other people to do it for you?

is it not the case that the more archival copies there are of something the more likely it is to survive?

No, it is not. Compare 10,000,000 copies of something that only live on some random people’s phones or 1 copy in the library of Congress where it is someone’s job to manage and preserve it. 50 years from now I think it’s way more likely that the Library of Congress one is still around than the random ones.

Am i not supposed to consume it? That’s the most effective and reliable way to determine the integrity of an archive. Sure i could use hashes or checksums, but those are only are reliable as the original creation of the hash/checksum.

No. Consuming it is neither efficient nor reliable. How would you even know when you consume it that it is the original?

And none of this justifies the piracy itself as opposed to buying it and archiving it? Or if you don’t have the capabilities or means, buying a copy and then pirating that said copy as the archive.

Source?

And more importantly, did Netflix pay the creators a greater amount for the relatively little amount of money they were charging you? Was Netflix more moral because of their treatment of employees? Is that why it allegedly killed piracy?

What’s that? No? It was just convenient and cheap? I guess it is, once again, just about you not wanting to pay money for things other people make.

Archival and piracy are different. For you to pirate, there was already an archival copy. Mission accomplished. You downloading a copy without paying for it is not you helping preservation.

You didn’t answer the question. Where did the money come from that paid for their time?

That literally doesn’t make sense here.