whining about only apply to them, not small startups
No, to the point blue sky, not exactly big tech, is struggling to comply, after being called out.
They said they will, it's not even bad faith.
Contrary to common beliefs, regulations strongly favour big companies, because they have the resources to keep up with burocracy, while gatekeeping smaller companies
The problem isn't VC money either, because American and global funds invest in European companies too, there aren't just as many eligible ones.
Most successful start up in Europe still decide to get listen on american exchanges (see the recent klarna case)
This is purely because of favorable environment lol
Fuck them, if they have to stay, follow our laws
I mean, I really don't care, but that's exactly how european economy remained, keep doing the same thing expecting a different outcome doesn't seem smart
And no, Volkswagen is the 10th company in the world by revenues, it's not dumping, European manufacturers simply can't keep the pace. The most sold EV in Europe right now is Tesla lol
The assumption is excessive regulation is one of the reason we don't have a domestic tech industry
While I don't think it's necessary the main factor, for sure it's partially true
If Apple, Google, Microsoft and other big tech are cautious and struggling to bring features in Europe while being compliance, I can't imagine how an european start up could trive as their starting market here
You can't really deregulate domestic companies only
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, to the point blue sky, not exactly big tech, is struggling to comply, after being called out.
They said they will, it's not even bad faith.
Contrary to common beliefs, regulations strongly favour big companies, because they have the resources to keep up with burocracy, while gatekeeping smaller companies
The problem isn't VC money either, because American and global funds invest in European companies too, there aren't just as many eligible ones.
Most successful start up in Europe still decide to get listen on american exchanges (see the recent klarna case) This is purely because of favorable environment lol
I mean, I really don't care, but that's exactly how european economy remained, keep doing the same thing expecting a different outcome doesn't seem smart
And no, Volkswagen is the 10th company in the world by revenues, it's not dumping, European manufacturers simply can't keep the pace. The most sold EV in Europe right now is Tesla lol
The assumption is excessive regulation is one of the reason we don't have a domestic tech industry
While I don't think it's necessary the main factor, for sure it's partially true
If Apple, Google, Microsoft and other big tech are cautious and struggling to bring features in Europe while being compliance, I can't imagine how an european start up could trive as their starting market here
You can't really deregulate domestic companies only
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
What do you mean? He's just a very polite fluffball
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
This opens at some terrible abuse, just open a malevolent instant and start flagging all the content you don't like as illegal
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
I know I'll feel stupid for it but...
Is removed really removed ?
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